Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, 26591-26593 [E7-9039]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Notices all non–PRC exporters that do no have their own rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non–PRC exporter. These cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Interested Parties 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 antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. 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 terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing these final results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213. Dated: May 3, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Comment 1: Surrogate Value for Chloranil Comment 2: Surrogate Financial Ratios Comment 3: Surrogate Value for Triethylamine pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES Comment 4: Brokerage Fees and Terminal Charges [FR Doc. E7–9042 Filed 5–9–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 72 FR 327 (January 4, 2007). 17:49 May 09, 2007 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 November 6, 2006, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) published the preliminary results of its third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Canada. The review covers the shipments of subject merchandise to the United States by Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. (‘‘IRM’’), and Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P., (‘‘Sivaco’’) (collectively, both IRM and Sivaco are referred to as ‘‘Ivaco’’).1 The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2005. 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. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Damian Felton or Brandon Farlander, at (202) 482–0133 or (202) 482–0182, 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: AGENCY: Background Appendix I: Issues Addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum VerDate Aug<31>2005 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Jkt 211001 On November 6, 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the third 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 and Notice of Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, 71 FR 64921 (November 6, 2006) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). 1 On March 30, 2007, the Department determined that Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. was the successor-in-interest to Ivaco Rolling Mills L.P.; and Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P., was the successor-in-interest to Ivaco Inc. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, 72 FR 15102 (March 30, 2007). PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 26591 We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On December 11, 2006, we received case briefs from the respondent, Ivaco, and the petitioners, Gerdau Ameristeel US, Inc., ISG Georgetown, Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North Star Steel Texas, Inc. (herein after referred to as ‘‘the petitioners’’). Ivaco submitted its rebuttal brief on December 18, 2006. 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. E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM 10MYN1 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES 26592 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Notices 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 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:04 May 09, 2007 Jkt 211001 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 order is dispositive. Level of Trade As stated in the Preliminary Results, section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act provides that in order to grant a level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) adjustment, we must find that the export price (‘‘EP’’) or constructed export price sale (as appropriate) was made at a different level than that of the normal value sale and that this difference: (1) involved different selling activities, and (2) affected price comparability based on a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at different LOTs in the country in which normal value is determined.2 Ivaco reported two channels of distribution in the home and U.S. markets. The channels of distribution were: (1) direct sales by IRM and (2) direct sales by Sivaco. To determine whether the two channels constitute separate levels of trade, we examined the stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chains of distribution between Ivaco and its customers. Based on this examination, we preliminarily determined that Ivaco sold merchandise at two LOTs during the POR. One LOT is for sales made by the steel wire rod manufacturing facility, IRM; the second LOT is for sales made by Sivaco, the customer service 2 See PO 00000 Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 64924. Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 center, which is a steel wire rod processing and drawing facility. Sales by Sivaco have different, more complex, distribution patterns, involving substantially greater selling activities. These selling activities are explained in greater detail in Comment 1 in the accompanying 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. Based upon our analysis of the marketing process for these sales, we continue to find that sales by Sivaco are at a more advanced stage than sales by IRM. For the Preliminary Results, the Department performed its standard analysis of price differences on Ivaco’s submitted home market sales by comparing, for each identical model sold at both levels, the average net price of sales made in the ordinary course of trade at the two LOTs.3 Our analysis for the Preliminary Results as well as for the final results reveals that for a preponderance of models and quantities sold at different LOTs by Sivaco and IRM, a pattern of consistent price differences existed. Therefore, we continue to grant a LOT adjustment for EP sales for which we were not able to find sales of the foreign–like product in the home market at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales. See Decision Memorandum, at Comments 1–4; see also Memorandum to the File entitled, ‘‘Analysis Memorandum for Ivaco,’’ Re: Final Results for the Third Antidumping Duty Review of Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, at 2 (May 3, 2007). Analysis of Comments Received The issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the accompanying Decision Memorandum. 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 Department of 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. 3 See e.g., Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 2081, 2106 (January 15, 1997). E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM 10MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Notices 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 Final Results of Review requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. As a result of our review, we determine that the following weighted– This notice also serves as a final average margin exists for the period reminder to importers of their October 1, 2004, through September 30, responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 2005: to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties Weighted–Average prior to liquidation of the relevant Producer Margin (Percententries during this review period. age) Failure to comply with this requirement Ivaco ............................. 2.06 could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred, and in the Assessment subsequent assessment of double The Department will determine, and antidumping duties. U.S. Customs and Border Protection This notice also is the only reminder (‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping to parties subject to the administrative duties on all appropriate entries, protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b). The responsibility concerning the return or Department calculated importer– destruction of proprietary information specific duty assessment rates on the disclosed under APO in accordance basis of the ratio of the total amount of with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely antidumping duties calculated for the written notification of the return/ examined sales to the total entered destruction of APO materials or value of the examined sales for that conversion to judicial protective order is importer. Where the assessment rate is hereby requested. Failure to comply above de minimis, we will instruct CBP with the regulations and the terms of an to assess duties on all entries of subject APO is a sanctionable violation. merchandise by that importer. In accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a), the We are issuing and publishing these Department will issue appropriate results in accordance with sections assessment instructions directly to CBP 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. on or after 41 days following the date of Dated: May 3, 2007. publication of these final results of David M. Spooner, review. pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of comments received, we have corrected a programming error identified by Ivaco. Due to an error in the programing language, no level of trade adjustments were applied to any of Ivaco’s sales in our preliminary margin calculation. Consequently, we have corrected the programming language for Ivaco for purposes of the final results. The changes are discussed in detail in the accompanying Decision Memorandum. Cash Deposits Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of 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 date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’): (1) For the company 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:49 May 09, 2007 Jkt 211001 Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. APPENDIX I. Level of Trade Comment 1: Statutory Requirements for a Level of Trade Adjustment Comment 2: Pattern of Price Differences Analysis Comment 3: Pattern of Price Differences Methodology Comment 4: Post–Sale Price Adjustments II. Programing Comment 5: Level of Trade Adjustment in the Programing Language [FR Doc. E7–9039 Filed 5–9–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 26593 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–427–818] Low Enriched Uranium From France: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myrna Lobo or Douglas Kirby, Office 6, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2371, or (202) 482–3782, respectively. SUMMARY: On January 3, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on low enriched uranium (LEU) from France pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 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 from respondent interested party, the Department has conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of this order pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the Department’s regulations. As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the level indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this notice. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On January 3, 2007, the Department published the notice of initiation of the first sunset review of the antidumping duty order on LEU from France pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation of Five-year (Sunset) Reviews, 72 FR 100 (January 3, 2007). The Department received a notice of intent to participate from USEC Inc. and its subsidiary United States Enrichment Corporation (collectively USEC), the domestic party, within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department’s regulations (Sunset Regulations). USEC claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a domestic producer of LEU. The Department also received a timely notice of appearance from respondent E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM 10MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 90 (Thursday, May 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26591-26593]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9039]


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

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 November 6, 2006, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published the preliminary results of its third 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and 
certain alloy steel wire rod from Canada. The review covers the 
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States by Ivaco Rolling 
Mills 2004 L.P. (``IRM''), and Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco 
Wire Group 2004 L.P., (``Sivaco'') (collectively, both IRM and Sivaco 
are referred to as ``Ivaco'').\1\ The period of review (``POR'') is 
October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2005. 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 March 30, 2007, the Department determined that Ivaco 
Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. was the successor-in-interest to Ivaco 
Rolling Mills L.P.; and Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire 
Group 2004 L.P., was the successor-in-interest to Ivaco Inc. See 
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances 
Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, 72 FR 
15102 (March 30, 2007).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Damian Felton or Brandon Farlander, at 
(202) 482-0133 or (202) 482-0182, 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 November 6, 2006, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the preliminary results of the third 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 and Notice of Initiation of Changed Circumstances 
Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, 71 FR 
64921 (November 6, 2006) (``Preliminary Results'').
    We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On 
December 11, 2006, we received case briefs from the respondent, Ivaco, 
and the petitioners, Gerdau Ameristeel US, Inc., ISG Georgetown, Inc., 
Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North Star Steel Texas, 
Inc. (herein after referred to as ``the petitioners''). Ivaco submitted 
its rebuttal brief on December 18, 2006. 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.

[[Page 26592]]

    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 
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 order is dispositive.

Level of Trade

    As stated in the Preliminary Results, section 773(a)(7)(A) of the 
Act provides that in order to grant a level of trade (``LOT'') 
adjustment, we must find that the export price (``EP'') or constructed 
export price sale (as appropriate) was made at a different level than 
that of the normal value sale and that this difference: (1) involved 
different selling activities, and (2) affected price comparability 
based on a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at 
different LOTs in the country in which normal value is determined.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 64924.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ivaco reported two channels of distribution in the home and U.S. 
markets. The channels of distribution were: (1) direct sales by IRM and 
(2) direct sales by Sivaco. To determine whether the two channels 
constitute separate levels of trade, we examined the stages in the 
marketing process and selling functions along the chains of 
distribution between Ivaco and its customers. Based on this 
examination, we preliminarily determined that Ivaco sold merchandise at 
two LOTs during the POR. One LOT is for sales made by the steel wire 
rod manufacturing facility, IRM; the second LOT is for sales made by 
Sivaco, the customer service center, which is a steel wire rod 
processing and drawing facility.
    Sales by Sivaco have different, more complex, distribution 
patterns, involving substantially greater selling activities. These 
selling activities are explained in greater detail in Comment 1 in the 
accompanying 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. Based upon our analysis of the marketing 
process for these sales, we continue to find that sales by Sivaco are 
at a more advanced stage than sales by IRM.
    For the Preliminary Results, the Department performed its standard 
analysis of price differences on Ivaco's submitted home market sales by 
comparing, for each identical model sold at both levels, the average 
net price of sales made in the ordinary course of trade at the two 
LOTs.\3\ Our analysis for the Preliminary Results as well as for the 
final results reveals that for a preponderance of models and quantities 
sold at different LOTs by Sivaco and IRM, a pattern of consistent price 
differences existed. Therefore, we continue to grant a LOT adjustment 
for EP sales for which we were not able to find sales of the foreign-
like product in the home market at the same level of trade as the U.S. 
sales. See Decision Memorandum, at Comments 1-4; see also Memorandum to 
the File entitled, ``Analysis Memorandum for Ivaco,'' Re: Final Results 
for the Third Antidumping Duty Review of Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel 
Wire Rod from Canada, at 2 (May 3, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See e.g., Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
Singapore, and the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 2081, 2106 (January 15, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    The issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this 
administrative review are addressed in the accompanying Decision 
Memorandum. 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 Department of 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.

[[Page 26593]]

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of comments received, we have corrected a 
programming error identified by Ivaco. Due to an error in the 
programing language, no level of trade adjustments were applied to any 
of Ivaco's sales in our preliminary margin calculation. Consequently, 
we have corrected the programming language for Ivaco for purposes of 
the final results. The changes are discussed in detail in the 
accompanying Decision Memorandum.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine that the following 
weighted-average margin exists for the period October 1, 2004, through 
September 30, 2005:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Weighted-Average
                      Producer                              Margin
                                                         (Percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ivaco...............................................                2.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 this notice of final results of 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 date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''): (1) For the company 
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 
further notice.
    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 antidumping duties occurred, and in the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also is the only reminder to parties subject to the 
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(a)(3). 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 in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 3, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

APPENDIX

I. Level of Trade

Comment 1: Statutory Requirements for a Level of Trade Adjustment
Comment 2: Pattern of Price Differences Analysis
Comment 3: Pattern of Price Differences Methodology
Comment 4: Post-Sale Price Adjustments

II. Programing

Comment 5: Level of Trade Adjustment in the Programing Language

[FR Doc. E7-9039 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S