[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9050-9054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-4652]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-351-837, A-533-828, A-580-852, A-201-831, A-549-820]


Notice of Initiation of antidumping duty investigations: 
Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From Brazil, India, the Republic 
of Korea, Mexico, and Thailand

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

ACTION: Initiation of antidumping duty investigations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 27, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok (Brazil and Republic of 
Korea) at (202) 482-4162, Victoria Schepker (India and Thailand) at 
(202) 482-1756, and David Layton (Mexico) at (202) 482-0371, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230.

Initiation of Investigations

The Petitions

    On January 31, 2003, the Department received petitions filed in 
proper form by American Spring Wire Corp., Insteel Wire Products 
Company, and Sumiden Wire Products Corp. (collectively, the 
petitioners). The Department received supplemental information to the 
petitions from February 4 through February 14, 2003.
    In accordance with section 732(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of prestressed 
concrete steel wire strand (PC strand) from Brazil, India, the Republic 
of Korea (Korea), Mexico, and Thailand are, or are likely to be, sold 
in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of 
section 731 of the Act, and that imports from Brazil, India, Korea, 
Mexico, and Thailand are materially injuring, or are threatening to 
materially injure an industry in the United States.
    The Department finds that the petitioners filed these petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as 
defined in sections 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to each of the antidumping 
investigations that they are requesting the Department to initiate. See 
infra, ``Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions.''

Period of Investigation

    The anticipated period of investigation (POI) for Brazil, India, 
Korea, Mexico, and Thailand is January 1, 2002, through December 31, 
2002.

Scope of Investigations

    For purposes of these investigations, prestressed concrete steel 
wire (PC strand) is steel strand produced from wire of non-stainless, 
non-galvanized steel, which is suitable for use in prestressed concrete 
(both pretensioned and post-tensioned) applications. The product 
definition encompasses covered and uncovered strand and all types, 
grades, and diameters of PC strand.
    The merchandise under these investigations 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.
    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations 
(Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 
27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a period for parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all 
parties to submit such comments within 20 calendar days of publication 
of this notice. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's 
Central Records Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The period 
of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample 
opportunity to consider all comments

[[Page 9051]]

and consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary 
determinations.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that the Department's industry support determination, which is 
to be made before the initiation of the investigation, be based on 
whether a minimum percentage of the relevant industry supports the 
petition. A petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers 
or workers who support the petition account for: (1) At least 25 
percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (2) 
more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product 
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or 
opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act 
provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic 
producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total 
production of the domestic like product, the Department shall either 
poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if 
there is support for the petition.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a 
petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the 
Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic 
like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is 
responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has been 
injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product 
in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC 
must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like 
product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes 
and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the 
Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and 
information. Although this may result in different definitions of the 
like product, such differences do not render the decision of either 
agency contrary to the law.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd, v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 
639, 642-44 (CIT 1988); High Information Content Flat Panel Displays 
and Display Glass from Japan: Final Determination; Rescission of 
Investigation and Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380-
81 (July 16, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation,'' i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition.
    The petitions cover PC strand as defined in the Scope of 
Investigations section, above, a single class or kind of merchandise. 
The Department has no basis on the record to find the petitioners' 
definition of the domestic like product to be inaccurate. The 
Department, therefore, has adopted the domestic like product definition 
set forth in the petitions.
    Finally, the Department has determined that, pursuant to section 
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, the petitions contain adequate evidence of 
industry support and, therefore, polling is unnecessary. See Import 
Administration Antidumping Investigations Initiation Checklist: 
Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Korea, 
Mexico, and Thailand, Industry Support section, February 20, 2003 (the 
Initiation Checklist), on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 
of the main Department of Commerce building.
    For each country, we determined, based on information provided in 
the petition, that the petitioners have demonstrated industry support 
representing over 50 percent of total production of the domestic like 
product. Therefore, the domestic producers or workers who support the 
petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of 
the domestic like product, and the requirements of section 
732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act are met. Furthermore, because the Department 
received no opposition to the petitions, the domestic producers or 
workers who support the petitions account for more than 50 percent of 
the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of 
the industry expressing support for or opposition to the petitions. 
Thus, the requirements of section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) are also met. 
Accordingly, we determine that these petitions are filed on behalf of 
the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the 
Act. See the Injury Allegation section in the Initiation Checklist.

Initiation Standard for Cost Investigations

    Pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, the petitioners provided 
information demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that 
sales in the home markets of India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand were 
made at prices below the cost of production (COP) and, accordingly, 
requested that the Department conduct country-wide sales-below-COP 
investigations in connection with these investigations. The Statement 
of Administrative Action (SAA), submitted to the Congress in connection 
with the interpretation and application of the Uruguay Round Agreements 
Act (URAA), states that an allegation of sales below COP need not be 
specific to individual exporters or producers. The SAA states that 
``Commerce will consider allegations of below-cost sales in the 
aggregate for a foreign country, just as Commerce currently considers 
allegations of sales at less than fair value on a country-wide basis 
for purposes of initiating an antidumping investigation.'' SAA, H.R. 
Doc. No. 103-316 at 833 (1994).
    Further, the SAA provides that section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Act 
retains the requirement that the Department have ``reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect'' that below-cost sales have occurred before 
initiating such an investigation. Reasonable grounds exist when an 
interested party provides specific factual information on costs and 
prices, observed or constructed, indicating that sales in the foreign 
market in question are at below-cost prices. We have analyzed the 
country-specific allegations as described below for India, Korea, 
Mexico, and Thailand. Based on our analysis, we found reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of PC strand in the above-
referenced countries were made at prices below cost. See the Normal 
Value sections below.

Export Price and Normal Value

    The following are descriptions of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate these investigations. The sources of data for the deductions 
and adjustments relating to U.S. and home market prices, and 
constructed value (CV) are discussed in greater detail in the 
Initiation Checklist. Should the need arise to use any of this 
information as facts available under section 776 of the Act in our 
preliminary or final determinations, we may re-examine the information 
and revise the margin calculations, if appropriate.

[[Page 9052]]

Brazil

Constructed Export Price

    The petitioners based constructed export price (CEP) on prices for 
sales of low-relaxation PC strand from a Brazilian producer, through 
its U.S. affiliate, to an unaffiliated U.S. purchaser. The petitioners 
calculated a single average U.S. gross unit price and deducted from it 
estimated costs for international freight and insurance charges, U.S. 
inland freight charges, harbor maintenance and merchandise processing 
fees, and imputed credit expenses to arrive at an average net U.S. 
price. Information regarding U.S. warehousing expenses, indirect 
selling expenses, inventory carrying expenses, and CEP profit was not 
reasonably available to petitioners; therefore, the petitioners did not 
deduct these items from the average gross unit price. Instead, as a 
conservative estimate of these expenses, the petitioners subtracted 
from the U.S. price an amount for the prevailing commission rate for PC 
strand sold in the United States via unaffiliated agents to foreign 
producers' unaffiliated U.S. customers.

Normal Value

    With respect to the normal value (NV), the petitioners provided a 
home market price for low-relaxation PC strand that was obtained from a 
foreign market researcher familiar with Brazilian sales. See Memorandum 
to the File from Magd Zalok, Case Analyst, concerning Telephone 
Conversation with Market Researcher Regarding the Petitions for 
Imposition of Antidumping: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from 
Brazil (February 12, 2003). To calculate the NV, the petitioners 
adjusted the gross unit price for home market credit expenses and 
inland freight.
    The estimated dumping margin for Brazil, based on a comparison of 
CEP and home market price, is 118.75 percent.

India

Constructed Export Price

    The petitioners based CEP on prices for low-relaxation PC strand 
from an Indian producer, through its U.S. affiliate, to unaffiliated 
U.S. purchasers. The petitioners calculated a single average gross unit 
price and deducted estimated costs for international freight and 
insurance charges, U.S. inland freight charges, harbor maintenance and 
merchandise processing fees, and imputed credit expenses to calculate 
an average net U.S. price. Information regarding U.S. warehousing 
expenses, indirect selling expenses, inventory carrying expenses, and 
CEP profit were not reasonably available to the petitioners; therefore, 
the petitioners did not deduct these items from the average gross unit 
price. Instead, as a conservative estimate of these expenses, the 
petitioners subtracted from the U.S. price an amount for the prevailing 
commission rate for PC strand sold in the United States via 
unaffiliated agents to foreign producers' unaffiliated U.S. customers.

Normal Value

    With respect to NV, the petitioners provided home market prices for 
low-relaxation PC strand produced that was obtained from a foreign 
market researcher familiar with Indian sales. See Memorandum to the 
File from Victoria Schepker, Case Analyst, concerning Telephone 
Conversation with Market Researcher Regarding the Petitions for 
Imposition of Antidumping: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from 
India (February 7, 2003). The petitioners calculated an average gross 
unit price and adjusted the average price for home market credit 
expenses and inland freight.
    The petitioners also provided information demonstrating reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of PC strand in the home 
market were made at prices below the fully absorbed COP, within the 
meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department 
conduct a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of cost of 
manufacture (COM); selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses; 
financial expenses; and packing expenses. The petitioners calculated 
COM based on their own production experience, adjusted for known 
differences between costs incurred to produce PC strand in the United 
States and in India using publicly available data. For initiation 
purposes, we have recalculated the labor and electricity costs by first 
indexing the costs in the foreign denominated currency and then 
converting the costs to U.S. Dollars based on the prevailing exchange 
rate for the comparison period. To calculate SG&A, the petitioners 
relied on amounts reported in the financial statements, for the fiscal 
year ending March 31, 2002, of Tata SSL Ltd., an Indian PC strand 
producer. To calculate financial expenses, the petitioners relied on 
amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements, for the 
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002, of Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd., 
an Indian PC strand producer. Based upon a comparison of the price of 
the foreign like product in the home market to the calculated COP of 
the product, we find reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that 
sales of the foreign like product were made below the COP, within the 
meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the 
Department is initiating a country-wide cost investigation.
    Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, the 
petitioners also based NV for sales in India on CV. The petitioners 
calculated CV using the same COM, SG&A, and interest expense figures 
used to compute the Indian home market costs. Consistent with section 
773(e)(2) of the Act, the petitioners included in CV an amount for 
profit based upon amounts reported by an Indian PC strand producer's 
financial statements for the year ended March 31, 2002.
    The estimated dumping margin for India, based on a comparison of 
CEP and home market price, is 65.23 percent. The estimated dumping 
margin based on a comparison between CEP and CV is 102.07 percent.

Korea

Export Price

    The petitioners based export price (EP) on prices within the POI 
for sales of low-relaxation PC strand produced by two Korean companies 
and offered for sale to an unaffiliated U.S. customer. The petitioners 
averaged the gross prices, by company, and deducted from the average 
prices international freight and insurance expenses, U.S. customs 
duties, U.S. harbor maintenance and merchandise processing fees, and 
the U.S. inland freight expenses.

Normal Value

    With respect to NV, the petitioners provided home market prices 
based on prices within the POI for sales of PC strand produced by two 
Korean companies and offered for sale to an unaffiliated customer. The 
price quotes are based on information gathered by a market researcher 
familiar with the Korean sales. See Memorandum to the File from Magd 
Zalok, Case Analyst, concerning Telephone Conversation with Market 
Researcher Regarding the Petitions for Imposition of Antidumping: 
Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Korea (February 11, 2003). 
To calculate the NV, the petitioners deducted inland freight from the 
home market prices, and, consistent with our statutory EP 
circumstances-of-sale calculation methodology, adjusted the home market 
prices for imputed credit and commissions by deducting

[[Page 9053]]

home market credit expenses from the home market prices and adding the 
U.S. imputed credit and U.S. commission expenses to these prices.
    The petitioners also provided information demonstrating reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of PC strand in the home 
market were made at prices below the fully absorbed COP, within the 
meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department 
conduct a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of COM, SG&A 
expenses, financial expenses, and packing expenses. The petitioners 
calculated COM based on their own production experience, adjusted for 
known differences between costs incurred to produce PC strand products 
in the United States and Korea using publicly available data. For 
initiation purposes, we have recalculated the labor and electricity 
costs by first indexing the costs in the foreign denominated currency 
and then converting the costs to U.S. Dollars based on the prevailing 
exchange rate for the comparison period. To calculate SG&A and interest 
expenses, the petitioners relied upon amounts reported in the 2001 
financial statements of Kiswire--Koryo Steel Company (Kiswire) and Dong 
il--Dong-il Steel Manufacturing Co. Inc., two Korean producers of PC 
strand. Based upon a comparison of the price of the foreign like 
product in the home market to the calculated COP of the product, we 
find reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign 
like product were made below the COP, within the meaning of section 
773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating a 
country-wide cost investigation.
    Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, the 
petitioners also based NV for sales in Korea on CV. The petitioners 
calculated CV using the same COM, SG&A and interest expense figures 
used to compute the Korean home market costs. Consistent with 773(e)(2) 
of the Act, the petitioners included in CV an amount for profit. For 
profit, the petitioners relied upon amounts reported in Kiswire's 2001 
financial statements.
    The estimated dumping margin for Korea, based on a comparison of EP 
and home market prices, ranges from 18.67 to 27.06 percent. The 
estimated dumping margin, based on a comparison between EP and CV, 
ranges from 42.62 to 54.19 percent.

Mexico

Export Price

    The petitioners based EP on prices within the POI for sales of low-
relaxation PC strand manufactured by a Mexican producer and offered for 
sale directly to an unaffiliated U.S. customer. The petitioners 
averaged the gross prices for the individual prices and deducted U.S. 
import duties, freight and insurance to the U.S. port of entry, and 
U.S. inland freight from the average price. The petitioners did not 
deduct U.S. harbor maintenance and merchandise processing fees, based 
on the conservative assumption that the Mexican products were shipped 
over land.

Normal Value

    With respect to NV, the petitioners provided a home market price 
that was obtained from an invoice for an actual sale in Mexico to an 
unaffiliated customer. The petitioners state that the invoice price 
reported was a delivered price. To calculate the NV, the petitioners 
deducted inland freight from the home market price, and, consistent 
with our statutory EP circumstances-of-sale calculation methodology, 
adjusted the home market price for imputed credit and commissions by 
deducting home market credit expenses from the home market prices and 
adding the U.S. imputed credit and U.S. commission expenses to this 
price.
    The petitioners have provided information demonstrating reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of PC strand in the home 
market were made at prices below the fully absorbed COP, within the 
meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department 
conduct a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the COM, 
SG&A, financial expenses, and packing expenses. The petitioners 
calculated COM based on their own production experience, adjusted for 
known differences between costs incurred to produce PC Strand in the 
United States and in Mexico using publicly available data. For 
initiation purposes, we have recalculated the labor, electricity and 
natural gas costs by first indexing the costs in the foreign-
denominated currency and then converting the costs to U.S. Dollars 
based on the prevailing exchange rate for the comparison period. To 
calculate SG&A and financial expenses, the petitioners relied upon 
amounts reported in the 2001 financial statements of Aceros Camesa, 
S.A. de C.V. (Camesa), a Mexican producer of PC strand. Based upon a 
comparison of the prices of the foreign like product in the home market 
to the calculated COP of the product, we find reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product were made 
below the COP, within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the 
Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating a country-wide cost 
investigation.
    Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, the 
petitioners also based NV for sales in Mexico on CV. The petitioners 
calculated CV using the same COM, SG&A, and financial expense figures 
used to compute home market costs. Consistent with 773(e)(2) of the 
Act, the petitioners included in CV an amount for profit. For profit, 
the petitioners relied upon amounts reported in Camesa's 2001 financial 
statements.
    The estimated dumping margin in the petition for Mexico based on a 
comparison of EP and home market price is 50.16 percent. The estimated 
dumping margin based on a comparison between EP and CV is 77.20 
percent.

Thailand

Export Price

    The petitioners based EP on a price for sales of low-relaxation PC 
strand produced by a Thai company and offered for sale to an 
unaffiliated U.S. purchaser. The petitioners calculated a net U.S. 
price by deducting estimated costs for international freight, insurance 
charges, and harbor maintenance and merchandise processing fees.

Normal Value

    With respect to NV, the petitioners provided a home market price 
for low-relaxation PC strand produced by a Thai company and offered for 
sale to an unaffiliated Thai purchaser. The price quotes are based on 
information gathered by a market researcher familiar with the Thai 
sales. See Memorandum to the File from Victoria Schepker, Case Analyst, 
concerning Telephone Conversation with Market Researcher Regarding the 
Petitions for Imposition of Antidumping: Prestressed Concrete Steel 
Wire Strand from Thailand (February 10, 2003). To calculate the NV, the 
petitioners deducted inland freight from the home market price, and, 
consistent with our statutory EP circumstances-of-sale calculation 
methodology, added the U.S. imputed credit and U.S. commission expenses 
to this price.
    The petitioners have provided information demonstrating reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of PC strand in the home 
market were

[[Page 9054]]

made at prices below the fully absorbed COP, within the meaning of 
section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department conduct a 
country-wide sales-below-cost investigation.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the COM, 
SG&A, financial expenses, and packing expenses. The petitioners 
calculated COM based on their own production experience, adjusted for 
known differences between costs incurred to produce PC Strand in the 
United States and in Thailand using publicly available data. For 
initiation purposes, we have recalculated the labor and electricity 
costs by first indexing the costs in the foreign-denominated currency 
and then converting the costs to U.S. Dollars based on the prevailing 
exchange rate for the comparison period. To calculate SG&A and 
financial expenses, the petitioners relied upon amounts reported in the 
2001 financial statements of Siam Wire. Based upon a comparison of the 
prices of the foreign like product in the home market to the calculated 
COP of the product, we find reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 
that sales of the foreign like product were made below the COP, within 
the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the 
Department is initiating a country-wide cost investigation.
    Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, the 
petitioners also based NV for sales in Thailand on CV. The petitioners 
calculated CV using the same COM, SG&A, and financial expense figures 
used to compute the Thai home market costs. Consistent with 773(e)(2) 
of the Act, the petitioners included in CV an amount for profit. For 
profit, the petitioners relied upon amounts reported in the Siam Wire's 
2001 financial statements.
    The estimated dumping margin for Thailand, based on a comparison of 
EP and home market price is 13.53 percent. The estimated dumping margin 
based on a comparison between EP and CV is 29.68 percent.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of PC strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, 
and Thailand are being, or are likely to be, sold at less than fair 
value.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the 
domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened 
with material injury, by reason of the cumulated imports from Brazil, 
India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand of the subject merchandise sold at 
less than NV.
    The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is 
evident in the declining trends in net operating profits, net sales 
volumes, domestic prices, revenue, profit-to-sales ratios, production 
employment, capacity utilization, and domestic market share. The 
allegations of injury and causation are supported by relevant evidence 
including U.S. Customs import data, lost sales, and pricing 
information. We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence 
regarding material injury and causation, and we have determined that 
these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet 
the statutory requirements for initiation. See the Initiation 
Checklist.

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

    Based upon our examination of the petitions on PC strand, we have 
found that they meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. See 
the Initiation Checklist. Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty 
investigations to determine whether imports of PC strand from Brazil, 
India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand are being, or are likely to be, sold 
in the United States at less than fair value. Unless this deadline is 
extended, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 
days after the date of this initiation.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the 
public version of each petition has been provided to the 
representatives of the governments of Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and 
Thailand. We will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of 
each petition to each exporter named in the petitions, as provided for 
under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiations as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will determine no later than March 17, 2003, whether there 
is a reasonable indication that imports of PC strand from Brazil, 
India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand are causing material injury, or 
threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S. industry. A negative 
ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation 
being terminated with respect to that country; otherwise, these 
investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time 
limits.
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    Dated: February 20, 2003.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-4652 Filed 2-26-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P