Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77005-77007 [E8-30090]

Download as PDF mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 244 / Thursday, December 18, 2008 / Notices in this administrative review. See the July 29, 2008, Memorandum from The Team to James Maeder, Office Director, titled ‘‘2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic of China: Selection of Respondents for Individual Review.’’ In July and August 2008, several companies, including Longkou Haimeng, timely withdrew their requests for review. We partially rescinded the review with respect to these companies. See Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 53193 (September 15, 2008). Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination in an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order or finding for which a review is requested. If it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend this deadline to a maximum of 365 days. The deadline for the preliminary results of this review is currently December 31, 2008. In this review, the interested parties have not submitted publicly available information (PAI) for consideration in valuing the factors of production in the preliminary results. Moreover, we have requested and received documentation from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for certain entries made by exporter/producer combinations which are also included in this review to determine whether those entries are non–subject merchandise. Therefore, the Department requires additional time to obtain updated PAI and analyze the entry data from CBP. Thus, it is not practicable to complete this review within the original time limit. Therefore, the Department is partially extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results from 245 days to 306 days, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) the Act. The preliminary results are now due no later than March 2, 2009. The final results continue to be due 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:51 Dec 17, 2008 Jkt 217001 77005 Dated: December 11, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. [FR Doc. E8–30111 Filed 12–17–08; 8:45 am] and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Canada: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 63134 (October 23, 2008). BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S Period of Review The period of review is October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A–122–840) Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On July 10, 2008, the Department of Commerce (Department) published the preliminary results of the 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 Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Canada, 73 FR 39646 (July 10, 2008) (Preliminary Results). This review covers the period October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2007, for Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P. (referred to collectively as Ivaco). EFFECTIVE DATE: December 18, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Bezirganian or Robert James, AD/ CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1131 or (202) 482– 0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 10, 2008, the Department published the preliminary results of this administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Canada. See Preliminary Results, 73 FR 39646. Ivaco submitted its case brief on August 11, 2008, and petitioners, ISG Georgetown Inc., Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc., Nucor Steel Connecticut Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and Rocky Mountain Steel Mills, submitted their rebuttal brief on August 18, 2008. No hearing was requested. The Department extended the deadline for completion of the final results by 35 days, to December 12, 2008. See Carbon PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to the 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 E:\FR\FM\18DEN1.SGM 18DEN1 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES 77006 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 244 / Thursday, December 18, 2008 / Notices 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 the grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and the 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. 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:51 Dec 17, 2008 Jkt 217001 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 subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3092, 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0000, 7227.90.6010, 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. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum from Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, dated December 11, 2008 (Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum (and, for the level of trade issue, in a separate proprietary document referenced in the Decision Memorandum), is attached to this notice as an appendix. Parties can find a discussion of all public issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit in room 1117 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly via the Internet at http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have not made any changes to the calculations in our preliminary results. Final Results of Review We determine the following weighted–average percentage margin exists for the period October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2007: Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted Average Margin Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. / Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P. PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 2.33 percent Sfmt 4703 Assessment The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise covered by the review. Upon issuance of the final results of this review, for the importer– specific assessment rate calculated in the final results that is above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent), we will issue assessment instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. Pursuant to 19 CFR 356.8(a), the Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 41 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. The Department clarified its ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by Ivaco for which Ivaco did not know the merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the 8.11 percent all–others rate if there is no company–specific rate for an intermediary involved in the transaction. See id. Cash Deposit Requirements The Department has revoked this order, effective October 29, 2007. See Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order on Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, 73 FR 44223 (July 30, 2008). Therefore, there is no need to issue new cash deposit instructions for this administrative review. Notification to Interested Parties This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department’s presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative E:\FR\FM\18DEN1.SGM 18DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 244 / Thursday, December 18, 2008 / Notices protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the disposition 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 or 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.This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 11, 2008. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Policy and Negotiations. Appendix Issues and Decision Memorandum Comment 1: Level of Trade Comment 2: Offsetting for U.S. Sales that Exceed Normal Value [FR Doc. E8–30090 Filed 12–17–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A–588–046) mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Determination To Revoke Antidumping Duty Finding, in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On September 29, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of initiation and preliminary results of a changed circumstances review with intent to revoke, in part, the antidumping duty (AD) finding on polychloroprene rubber from Japan. See Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Intent to Revoke Antidumping Duty Finding, in Part, 73 FR 56548 (September 29, 2008) (Initiation and Preliminary Results). On October 27, 2008, the Federal Register corrected certain errors it made in publishing the Initiation and Preliminary Results. See Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Intent to Revoke Antidumping Duty VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:51 Dec 17, 2008 Jkt 217001 Finding, in Part, 73 FR 63687 (October 27, 2008) (Initiation Correction). In the Initiation and Preliminary Results and Initiation Correction, the Department invited interested parties to comment on the Initiation and Preliminary Results and no comments were received. Accordingly, we are now revoking this AD finding, in part, with regard to certain polychloroprene rubber products from Japan, as described in the ‘‘Scope of Changed Circumstances Review’’ section of this notice, based on the fact that domestic parties have expressed no further interest in the relief provided by the AD finding with respect to the imports of such products. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 18, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Summer Avery, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4052. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 4, 2008, the Department received a request on behalf of the petitioner, DuPont Performance Elastomers L.L.C. (DPE),1 for revocation, in part, of the AD finding on polychloroprene rubber from Japan pursuant to sections 751(b)(1) and 782(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). DPE requested partial revocation of the AD finding with respect to certain polychloroprene rubber products, listed below in the section entitled ‘‘Scope of Changed Circumstances Review.’’ In its August 4, 2008 submission, DPE stated that it no longer has any interest in antidumping relief from imports of such polychloroprene rubber from Japan. On September 29, 2008, the Department published a notice of initiation and preliminary results of a changed circumstances review with intent to revoke, in part, the AD finding on polychloroprene rubber from Japan. See Initiation and Preliminary Results. In preparing the notice for publication, the Federal Register made a number of substantive errors during its technical preparation of the Initiation and 1 DPE is the sole petitioner in this antidumping proceeding. See Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Finding, 69 FR 64276 (November 4, 2004). DPE has been the sole U.S. producer of polychloroprene rubber since 1998, when Bayer Group closed its polychloroprene rubber plant in Houston, Texas. See Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan, Inv. No. AA1921-129 (Second Review), U.S. ITC Pub. 3786 (June 2005), at 4-5. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 77007 Preliminary Results for publication. On October 27, 2008, the Federal Register published corrections of these errors. See Initiation Correction. The Department provided interested parties with a deadline to submit written comments no later than 30 days after the date of the Initiation Correction. The Department did not receive any comments from interested parties. Scope of Changed Circumstances Review The merchandise subject to DPE’s request and covered by this changed circumstances review is polychloroprene rubber from Japan with aqueous dispersions of 2– chlorobutadiene–1,3 homopolymers, where the polymer content of the dispersion is between 55 weight percent and 61 weight percent and the dispersed homopolymer contains less than 10 weight percent of a tetrahydrofuran– insoluble fraction. This changed circumstances review covers polychloroprene rubber from Japan meeting the specifications as described above. Effective upon publication of these final results of changed circumstances review in the Federal Register, the amended scope of the AD finding will read as identified in the ‘‘Scope of the Finding (As Amended By These Final Results of Changed Circumstances)’’ section below. Scope of the Finding (As Amended By These Final Results of Changed Circumstances) The merchandise covered are shipments of polychloroprene rubber, an oil resistant synthetic rubber also known as polymerized chlorobutadiene or neoprene, currently classifiable under items 4002.41.00, 4002.49.00, and 4003.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purpose, the Department’s written description of the scope remains dispositive. The following types of polychloroprene rubber from Japan are excluded from the scope: (1) aqueous dispersions of polychloroprenes that are dipolymers of chloroprene and methacrylic acid, where the dispersion has a pH of 8 or lower (this category is limited to aqueous dispersions of these polymers and does not include aqueous dispersions of these polychloroprenes that contain comonomers other than methacrylic acid); (2) aqueous dispersions of polychloroprenes that are dipolymers of chloroprene and 2,3– dichlorobutadiene–1,3 modified with xanthogen disulfides, where the E:\FR\FM\18DEN1.SGM 18DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 244 (Thursday, December 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77005-77007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-30090]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-122-840)


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

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On July 10, 2008, the Department of Commerce (Department) 
published the preliminary results of the 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 Alloy Steel Wire Rod From 
Canada, 73 FR 39646 (July 10, 2008) (Preliminary Results). This review 
covers the period October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2007, for 
Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco 
Wire Group 2004 L.P. (referred to collectively as Ivaco).

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 18, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Bezirganian or Robert James, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1131 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 10, 2008, the Department published the preliminary results 
of this administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon 
and certain alloy steel wire rod from Canada. See Preliminary Results, 
73 FR 39646. Ivaco submitted its case brief on August 11, 2008, and 
petitioners, ISG Georgetown Inc., Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc., Nucor 
Steel Connecticut Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and 
Rocky Mountain Steel Mills, submitted their rebuttal brief on August 
18, 2008. No hearing was requested. The Department extended the 
deadline for completion of the final results by 35 days, to December 
12, 2008. See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Canada: 
Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 63134 (October 23, 2008).

Period of Review

    The period of review is October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the 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

[[Page 77006]]

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 the grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and the 
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.
    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 subject to this order are currently classifiable 
under subheadings 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3092, 
7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0000, 
7227.90.6010, 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.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum from Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, dated December 11, 2008 
(Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list 
of the issues parties have raised and to which we have responded, all 
of which are in the Decision Memorandum (and, for the level of trade 
issue, in a separate proprietary document referenced in the Decision 
Memorandum), is attached to this notice as an appendix. Parties can 
find a discussion of all public issues raised in this review and the 
corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on 
file in the Central Records Unit in room 1117 of the main Department 
building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum 
can be accessed directly via the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. 
The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are 
identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have not made 
any changes to the calculations in our preliminary results.

Final Results of Review

    We determine the following weighted-average percentage margin 
exists for the period October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2007:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted Average
                Manufacturer/Exporter                       Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. / Sivaco Ontario, a           2.33 percent
 division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment

    The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries, pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated an 
assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise covered by 
the review. Upon issuance of the final results of this review, for the 
importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results that 
is above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent), we will issue 
assessment instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on 
appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the entered 
value of the merchandise. Pursuant to 19 CFR 356.8(a), the Department 
intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 41 days after the date 
of publication of these final results of review.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the 
period of review produced by Ivaco for which Ivaco did not know the 
merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we 
will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the 8.11 percent 
all-others rate if there is no company-specific rate for an 
intermediary involved in the transaction. See id.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The Department has revoked this order, effective October 29, 2007. 
See Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order on Carbon and Certain Alloy 
Steel Wire Rod from Canada, 73 FR 44223 (July 30, 2008). Therefore, 
there is no need to issue new cash deposit instructions for this 
administrative review.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative

[[Page 77007]]

protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the 
disposition 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 or 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.This notice is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 11, 2008.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Policy and Negotiations.

Appendix Issues and Decision Memorandum

Comment 1: Level of Trade
Comment 2: Offsetting for U.S. Sales that Exceed Normal Value

[FR Doc. E8-30090 Filed 12-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S