Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, 3822-3824 [E6-823]

Download as PDF 3822 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2006 / Notices 3. Regulatory overview. 4. Policy overview. 5. Missile Technology Control Regime. 6. Wassenaar proposal status. 7. Jurisdiction technical working group report. 8. Presentation of papers and comments by the public. 9. Follow-up on open action items. The meeting will be open to the public and a limited number of seats will be available. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials to Yvette Springer at Yspringer@bis.doc.gov. For more information contact Ms. Springer on (202) 482–4814. Dated: January 17, 2006. Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. 06–589 Filed 1–23–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–JT–M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A–122–840) Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On July 20, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of its second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Canada. The review covers two producers of the subject merchandise, Ivaco Inc. and Ivaco Rolling Mills (IRM) (collectively, ‘‘Ivaco’’) and Ispat Sidbec, Inc. (Ispat) (now known as Mittal Canada Inc. (Mittal)1). The period of review (POR) is October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004. Based on our analysis of comments received, these final results differ from the rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES1 AGENCY: 1 On June 24, 2005, we determined that Mittal was the successor-in-interest to Ispat Sidbec, Inc. See Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Steel Alloy Wire Rod from Canada, 70 FR 39484 (July 8, 2005). VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:44 Jan 23, 2006 Jkt 208001 preliminary results. The final results are listed below in the Final Results of Review section. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 24, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Salim Bhabhrawala or David Neubacher, at (202) 482–1784 or (202) 482–5823, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 20, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Canada. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Steel Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, 70 FR 41681 (July 20, 2005) (Preliminary Results). We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On August 29, 2005, we received case briefs from the respondents, Ivaco and Ispat, and the petitioners, Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc., ISG Georgetown Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North Star Steel Texas, Inc. All parties submitted rebuttal briefs on September 9, 2005. No public hearing was requested. Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot–rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above–noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are (f) free machining steel products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. Grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no non–deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04– 114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium. Grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no non–deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04– 114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified). For purposes of grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered to be deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis – that is, the direction of rolling – of the rod) over thickness (measured on the same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is E:\FR\FM\24JAN1.SGM 24JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2006 / Notices rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES1 equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for purposes of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the measurement of the largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This measurement methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 24, 2003. The designation of the products as ‘‘tire cord quality’’ or ‘‘tire bead quality’’ indicates the acceptability of the product for use in the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than those applications, end– use certification for the importation of such products may be required. Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise. All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope. The products under review are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.3092, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, 7227.90.6059, and 7227.90.6080 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received The issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Decision VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:44 Jan 23, 2006 Jkt 208001 Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the Decision Memorandum is appended to this notice. The Decision Memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit in Room B–099 of the main Commerce building, and can also be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/ index.html. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made adjustments to the preliminary results calculation methodologies in calculating the final dumping margins. Brief descriptions of the company–specific changes are provided below and the changes are discussed in detail in the Decision Memorandum. 3823 Assessment The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated importer–specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. In accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a), the Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP on or after 41 days following the date of publication of these final results of review. Cash Deposits Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this We have corrected ministerial errors administrative review for all shipments identified by parties in Ivaco’s of carbon and certain alloy steel wire preliminary margin calculations as rod from Canada entered, or withdrawn follows: (1) we included indirect selling from warehouse, for consumption on or expenses in the calculation of CEP after the publication date of these final profit; (2) we used Ivaco’s reported results, as provided by section 751(a) of credit expenses for its U.S. currency the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the denominated sales in the home market Act): (1) for companies covered by this and assigned it correctly throughout the review, the cash deposit rate will be the calculation program; (3) we readjusted rate listed above; (2) for previously Ivaco’s date of sale on certain U.S. sales; reviewed or investigated companies not and (4) we ensured that the freight listed above, the cash deposit rate will expenses from the border to the further continue to be the company–specific rate published for the most recent processors were counted as a further period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm manufacturing expense for only those covered in this review, a prior review, sales which underwent further or the investigation, but the producer is, manufacturing in the United States. the cash deposit rate will be that Ispat established for the producer of the merchandise in these final results of We have corrected ministerial errors review, a prior review, or in the final identified by parties in Ispat’s determination; and (4) if neither the preliminary margin calculations as exporter nor the producer is a firm follows: (1) we included the correct database and allowed for an offset in the covered in this review, a prior review, or the investigation, the cash deposit calculation of CEP profit within the rate will be 8.11 percent, the ‘‘All margin program; and (2) we have Others’’ rate established in the less– corrected the calculation of the CEP than-fair–value investigation. These offset in the margin program. deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final Final Results of Review results of the next administrative As a result of our review, we review. determine that the following weighted– This notice also serves as a final average margins exist for the period of reminder to importers of their October 1, 2003, through September 30, responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402 (f) 2004: to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties Weighted–Average prior to liquidation of the relevant Producer Margin (Percentage) entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement Ivaco ........................... 3.08 could result in the Secretary’s Ispat/Mittal .................. 6.13 presumption that reimbursement of Ivaco PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24JAN1.SGM 24JAN1 3824 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2006 / Notices antidumping duties occurred, and in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also is 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 written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: January 17, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration. APPENDIX I. General Issues Comment 1: Freight to Unaffiliated Processors as Further Manufacturing II. Company Specific Issues Issues Specific to Ivaco Comment 2: Use of Level of Trade Adjustment for IRM’s and Sivaco’s U.S. Sales Comment 3: Level of Trade Methodology Used for IRM’s and Sivaco’s U.S. Sales Comment 4: Ministerial Error Allegations Specific to Ivaco Issues Specific to Ispat Comment 5: Cost Averaging Periods Comment 6: CEP Profit Comment 7: Negative Net–Prices for U.S. Sales Comment 8: Treatment of Certain Sales as CEP Sales Comment 9: Offsetting for Export Sales that Exceed Normal Value Comment 10: Ministerial Error Allegations Specific to Ispat [FR Doc. E6–823 Filed 1–23–06; 8:45 am] rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES1 BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:44 Jan 23, 2006 Jkt 208001 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A–821–802) Extension of Time Limit for Sunset Review of the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 24, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally C. Gannon or Aishe Allen, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; (202) 482–0162 or (202) 482–0172, respectively. AGENCY: Extension of Time Limit for Sunset Review: On November 10, 2005, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) extended the time limit for the sunset review of the agreement suspending the antidumping investigation on uranium from the Russian Federation in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Extension of Time Limit for Sunset Review of the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation, 70 FR 68397 (November 10, 2005) (‘‘Notice of Extension’’). The Department has now determined to conduct a full sunset review of this suspended investigation. See Memorandum from Sally C. Gannon to Ronald K. Lorentzen; ‘‘Sunset Review of Uranium from the Russian Federation: Adequacy of Domestic and Respondent Interested Party Responses to the Notice of Initiation and Decision to Conduct Full Sunset Review,’’ dated January 17, 2006. Pursuant to section 351.218(f) of the Department’s regulations, the Department normally will issue its preliminary results in a full sunset review not later that 110 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of initiation. However, as determined in Notice of Extension, the sunset review of the agreement suspending the antidumping investigation on uranium from the Russian Federation is extraordinarily complicated and requires additional time for the Department to complete its analysis. Therefore, the Department is extending the deadline for the preliminary results in this proceeding PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 by additional 30 days and, as a result, intends to issue the preliminary results of the full sunset review no later than February 17, 2006. The Department will issue its final results of the full sunset review on May 30, 2006, as specified in the Notice of Extension. This notice is issued in accordance with sections 751(c)(5)(B) and (C)(v) of the Act. Dated: January 17, 2006. Ronald K. Lorentzen, DirectorOffice of Policy. [FR Doc. E6–825 Filed 1–23–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–489–501] Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On December 5, 2005, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) issued the final results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube (‘‘welded pipe and tube’’) from Turkey.1 The period of review is May 1, 2003, through April 30, 2004. Based on the correction of certain ministerial errors, we have changed the margins for the Borusan Group (‘‘Borusan’’) and for the Yucel Group, which includes Cayirova Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. and its affiliate, Yucel Boru Ithalat–Ihracat ve Pazarlama A.S. (collectively referred to as ‘‘Cayirova’’). EFFECTIVE DATE: January 24, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Hargett, George McMahon, or Jim Terpstra, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4161, (202) 482–1167 or (202) 482– 3965, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On December 12, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register the final results of the 1 See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 70 FR 73447 (December 12, 2005). E:\FR\FM\24JAN1.SGM 24JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3822-3824]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-823]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-122-840)


Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On July 20, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of its second administrative review 
of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire 
rod from Canada. The review covers two producers of the subject 
merchandise, Ivaco Inc. and Ivaco Rolling Mills (IRM) (collectively, 
``Ivaco'') and Ispat Sidbec, Inc. (Ispat) (now known as Mittal Canada 
Inc. (Mittal)\1\). The period of review (POR) is October 1, 2003, 
through September 30, 2004. Based on our analysis of comments received, 
these final results differ from the preliminary results. The final 
results are listed below in the Final Results of Review section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On June 24, 2005, we determined that Mittal was the 
successor-in-interest to Ispat Sidbec, Inc. See Final Results of 
Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon 
and Certain Steel Alloy Wire Rod from Canada, 70 FR 39484 (July 8, 
2005).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 24, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Salim Bhabhrawala or David Neubacher, 
at (202) 482-1784 or (202) 482-5823, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14\th\ Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 20, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the preliminary results of the second administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from 
Canada. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Steel Alloy Steel Wire Rod 
from Canada, 70 FR 41681 (July 20, 2005) (Preliminary Results).
    We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On August 
29, 2005, we received case briefs from the respondents, Ivaco and 
Ispat, and the petitioners, Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc., ISG Georgetown 
Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North Star Steel 
Texas, Inc. All parties submitted rebuttal briefs on September 9, 2005. 
No public hearing was requested.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled 
products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately 
round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid 
cross-sectional diameter.
    Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted 
physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool 
steel; c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e) concrete 
reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are (f) free machining steel 
products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or more of the 
following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more 
of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of 
phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 
percent of tellurium).
    Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire 
rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. Grade 1080 tire cord 
quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod 
measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional 
diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 
70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no 
non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable 
inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation 
per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) 
having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater 
than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or 
less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing by weight the 
following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more 
of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or 
less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 percent or 
less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, 
of copper, nickel and chromium.
    Grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire 
bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm 
in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial 
decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 
200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 
microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) 
having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using 
European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no 
surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being 
drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per 
ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the 
proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 
0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the 
aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of 
nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, 
of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not 
more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a 
chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified).
    For purposes of grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and grade 
1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered to be 
deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis - that is, 
the direction of rolling - of the rod) over thickness (measured on the 
same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is

[[Page 3823]]

equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for purposes 
of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the measurement of the 
largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section measured in a 
direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This measurement 
methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade 1080 tire cord 
quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod that 
are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 
July 24, 2003.
    The designation of the products as ``tire cord quality'' or ``tire 
bead quality'' indicates the acceptability of the product for use in 
the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber 
reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality 
designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being 
used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement 
applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire 
bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the 
scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide 
a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of 
importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use 
certification for the importation of such products may be required. 
Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally 
be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise.
    All products meeting the physical description of subject 
merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this 
scope.
    The products under review are currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.3092, 
7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 
7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 
7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, 
7227.90.6059, and 7227.90.6080 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    The issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this 
administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary 
(Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list 
of the issues addressed in the Decision Memorandum is appended to this 
notice. The Decision Memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit 
in Room B-099 of the main Commerce building, and can also be accessed 
directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper 
copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in 
content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made 
adjustments to the preliminary results calculation methodologies in 
calculating the final dumping margins. Brief descriptions of the 
company-specific changes are provided below and the changes are 
discussed in detail in the Decision Memorandum.
Ivaco
    We have corrected ministerial errors identified by parties in 
Ivaco's preliminary margin calculations as follows: (1) we included 
indirect selling expenses in the calculation of CEP profit; (2) we used 
Ivaco's reported credit expenses for its U.S. currency denominated 
sales in the home market and assigned it correctly throughout the 
calculation program; (3) we readjusted Ivaco's date of sale on certain 
U.S. sales; and (4) we ensured that the freight expenses from the 
border to the further processors were counted as a further 
manufacturing expense for only those sales which underwent further 
manufacturing in the United States.
Ispat
    We have corrected ministerial errors identified by parties in 
Ispat's preliminary margin calculations as follows: (1) we included the 
correct database and allowed for an offset in the calculation of CEP 
profit within the margin program; and (2) we have corrected the 
calculation of the CEP offset in the margin program.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine that the following 
weighted-average margins exist for the period of October 1, 2003, 
through September 30, 2004:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-Average
                      Producer                       Margin (Percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ivaco..............................................                 3.08
Ispat/Mittal.......................................                 6.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment

    The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated 
importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of 
the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined 
sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for that 
importer. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will 
instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by 
that importer. In accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a), the Department will 
issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP on or after 
41 days following the date of publication of these final results of 
review.

Cash Deposits

    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for 
all shipments of carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Canada 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a) 
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act): (1) for companies 
covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed 
above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed 
above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific 
rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a 
firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the investigation, but 
the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the 
producer of the merchandise in these final results of review, a prior 
review, or in the final determination; and (4) if neither the exporter 
nor the producer is a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or 
the investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 8.11 percent, the 
``All Others'' rate established in the less-than-fair-value 
investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402 (f) 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

[[Page 3824]]

antidumping duties occurred, and in the subsequent assessment of double 
antidumping duties.
    This notice also is 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 written 
notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion 
to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply 
with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable 
violation.
    We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 17, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.

APPENDIX

I. General Issues
    Comment 1: Freight to Unaffiliated Processors as Further 
Manufacturing
II. Company Specific Issues

Issues Specific to Ivaco

    Comment 2: Use of Level of Trade Adjustment for IRM's and Sivaco's 
U.S. Sales
    Comment 3: Level of Trade Methodology Used for IRM's and Sivaco's 
U.S. Sales
    Comment 4: Ministerial Error Allegations Specific to Ivaco

Issues Specific to Ispat

    Comment 5: Cost Averaging Periods
    Comment 6: CEP Profit
    Comment 7: Negative Net-Prices for U.S. Sales
    Comment 8: Treatment of Certain Sales as CEP Sales
    Comment 9: Offsetting for Export Sales that Exceed Normal Value
    Comment 10: Ministerial Error Allegations Specific to Ispat
[FR Doc. E6-823 Filed 1-23-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S