9922 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 6, 2007 / Notices 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Final Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, 

we determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on CPF from 

Thailand would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the following weighted–average 

margins: 

Manufacturers/Exporters/ 

Producers 

Weighted 

Average 

Margin 

(percent) 

Siam Agro Industry Pineapple 

and Others Co., Ltd. (SAICO) 51.16 

Malee Sampran Factory Public 

Co., Ltd. (Malee) ..................... 41.74 

The Thai Pineapple Public Co., 

Ltd.(TIPCO) ............................. Revoked 1

Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole 

Packaged Foods Company, 

and Dole Thailand, Ltd. (collectively, Dole) ......................... Revoked 2

Siam Food Products, Ltd. (SFP) Revoked 3

Kuibiri Fruit Canning Company, 

Ltd. (KFC) ............................... Revoked 4

All Others .................................... 24.64 

1 Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination To Revoke Order in Part: Canned 

Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, 69 FR 50164 

(August 13, 2004). 2 Id. 3See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Rescission of Administrative Review in Part, and Final Determination to 

Revoke Order in Part: Canned Pineapple Fruit 

from Thailand, 67 FR 76719 (August 13, 

2004). 4See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination To Revoke Order in Part: Canned 

Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, 69 FR 50164 

(August 13, 2004). 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of 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 violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

final results of this full sunset review in 

accordance with sections 751(c), 752, 

and 777(1)(i) of the Act. 

Dated: February 27, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–3891 Filed 3–5–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–274–804] 

Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 

Trinidad and Tobago: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 7, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of the antidumping (AD) 

administrative review on carbon and 

alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from 

Trinidad and Tobago. The period of 

review (POR) is October 1, 2004, 

through September 30, 2005. See 

Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 

Trinidad and Tobago: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 65077 

(November 7, 2006) (Preliminary 

Results). This review covers Mittal Steel 

Point Lisas Limited (MSPL), 

manufacturer of the subject 

merchandise, and its affiliates Mittal 

Steel North America Inc. (MSNA) and 

Mittal Walker Wire Inc. (collectively, 

Mittal). Neither the petitioners nor the 

respondent commented on the 

preliminary results. 

The Department has made some 

minor corrections to the margin program 

used for the preliminary results. See 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

section below. Although we have made 

certain changes since the preliminary 

results, these final results do not differ 

from the preliminary results. The final 

results are listed below in the Final 

Results of Review section. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 6, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Moore or Dennis McClure, 

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) 482–3692 or (202) 482–

5973, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 7, 2006, the Department 

published the preliminary results of the 

administrative review of the AD order 

on wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago. 

See Preliminary Results, 71 FR 65077. 

This review covers imports of wire rod 

from Mittal during the POR, October 1, 

2004, through September 30, 2005. We 

invited interested parties to comment on 

the Preliminary Results. As noted above, 

the Department did not receive any 

comments. 

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. This 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. 

This 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 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 6, 2007 / Notices 9923 

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. 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. 

See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, 

Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, 

and Ukraine: Final Results of Changed 

Circumstances Review, 68 FR 64079, 

64081 (November 12, 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, 7213.91.3090, 

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, 7227.90.6051, 

7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 

7227.90.6059 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. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Subsequent to the preliminary results, 

we discovered some minor technical 

problems with the computer program 

we used to calculate the margin. We 

found that several incorrect temporary 

data sets were used in the preliminary 

calculations. For the final results, we 

changed the names of the following 

temporary data sets in the margin 

program to correspond to the names in 

the comparison market program. In the 

margin program, we changed the names 

of the weighted–average cost data set, 

the weighted–average comparison 

market data set, and the weighted–

average comparison market profit and 

selling expense data set. Correcting 

these problems does not change the de 

minimis margin from the preliminary 

results. See November 7, 2006, 

Memorandum to the File from Case 

Analysts, ‘‘Telephone Call Regarding a 

Technical Clarification of the 

Preliminary Calculation,’’ a public 

document on file in room B–099 of the 

Central Records Unit (CRU). In addition, 

in our preliminary calculation, when we 

calculated the foreign unit price in 

dollars, we incorrectly converted the 

gross unit price variable, the credit 

expense variable, and the indirect 

selling expense variable, which were 

already reported in U.S. dollars. We 

have made the necessary corrections to 

the margin program as noted in our 

Final Calculation Memorandum, to the 

file, dated March 7, 2007, the public 

version of which is on file in the CRU. 

Final Results of Review 

As noted above, there have been no 

changes from the Preliminary Results, 

except for the minor clarification of 

temporary databases and the correction 

of the currency conversion error. 

Therefore, we are not attaching a 

Decision Memorandum to this Federal 

Register notice. For further details of the 

issues addressed in this proceeding, see 

the Preliminary Results. 

As a result of this review, we find that 

the following weighted–average 

dumping margin exists for the period 

October 1, 2004, through September 30, 

2005: 

Producer/Manufacturer Weighted–Average 

Margin 

Mittal Steel Point Lisas 

Limited ....................... 0.06% (i.e., de 

minimis) 

Assessment Rates 

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)(B) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 

351.212(b). The Department calculated 

importer–specific duty assessment rates 

on the basis of the ratio of the total 

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. The 

Department intends to issue assessment 

instructions to CBP 15 days after the 

date of publication of these final results 

of review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

produced by Mittal where Mittal did not 

know its merchandise was destined for 

the United States. In such instances, we 

will instruct CBP to liquidate 

unreviewed entries at the ‘‘All Others’’

rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediate company(ies) involved in 

the transaction. For a full discussion of 

this clarification, see Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

final results of this administrative 

review for all shipments of wire rod 

from Trinidad and Tobago, entered or 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
9924 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 6, 2007 / Notices 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date of these final results, as provided 

by section 751(a) of the Act: (1) For 

Mittal no cash deposit will be required; 

(2) for merchandise exported by 

producers or exporters not covered in 

this review, but covered in the less–

than-fair–value (LTFV) investigation, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the company–specific rate established 

in the final determination; (3) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review or the LTFV investigation, but 

the producer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the 

producer of the subject merchandise for 

the most recent period; and (4) if neither 

the exporter nor the producer is a firm 

covered in this review or the less–thanfair–value investigation, the cash 

deposit rate will be 11.40 percent, the 

‘‘All Others’’ rate established in the 

investigation. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Carbon and Certain Alloy 

Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and 

Tobago, 67 FR 55788 (August 30, 2002). 

These deposit requirements shall 

remain in effect until publication of the 

final results of the next administrative 

review. 

Reimbursement of Duties 

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 and/or countervailing 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

presumption that reimbursement of 

antidumping and/or countervailing 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

increase in antidumping duties by the 

amount of antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties reimbursed. 

Administrative Protective Orders 

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(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 terms of an 

APO is a violation that is subject to 

sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: February 27, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–3892 Filed 3–5–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–825] 

Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other 

Than Drill Pipe, from Korea: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On August 31, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published the preliminary 

results of the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on oil 

country tubular goods (‘‘OCTG’’), other 

than drill pipe, from Korea for the 

period (‘‘POR’’) August 1, 2004 through 

July 31, 2005. See Oil Country Tubular 

Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, from 

Korea: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 51797 (August 31, 2006) 

(Preliminary Results). This review 

covers the following manufacturers/ 

exporters: Husteel Co., Ltd. (‘‘Husteel’’) 

and SeAH Steel Corporation (‘‘SeAH’’). 

Based on our analysis of the comments 

received, we have made changes to the 

Preliminary Results. For the final 

dumping margins see the ‘‘Final Results 

of Review’’ section below. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 6, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Lindsay, Nicholas Czajkowski, or 

Dara Iserson, 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) 

482–0780, (202) 482–1395, or (202) 482–

4052, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 31, 2006, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

preliminary results of the administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on OCTG from Korea. See Preliminary 

Results. Since the Preliminary Results, 

the following events have occurred. We 

received case briefs on October 2, 2006, 

and rebuttal briefs on October 10, 2006. 

On October 24, 2006, the Department 

sent a letter to the parties informing 

them that Domestic Interested Parties, 

IPSCO Tubulars, Inc., Lone Star Steel 

Company, and Maverick Tube 

Corporations (collectively, IPSCO 

Tubulars) as well as the Petitioner, U.S. 

Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel) were 

being provided an opportunity to 

submit a rebuttal brief solely in 

reference to a new issue raised by 

Respondents in their case brief. The 

Department received these rebuttal 

briefs from IPSCO Tubulars on October 

30, 2006, and U.S. Steel Corporation on 

November 1, 2006. On December 22, 

2006, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), the Department extended the 

final results by 60 days to February 27, 

2006. See Notice of Extension of Time 

Limit for Final Results of Administrative 

Review: Oil Country Tubular Goods, 

Other Than Drill Pipe, from Korea, 71 

FR 76977 (December 22, 2006). 

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order 

The products covered by this order 

are OCTG, hollow steel products of 

circular cross-section, including only oil 

well casing and tubing, of iron (other 

than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and 

alloy), whether seamless or welded, 

whether or not conforming to American 

Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’) or non–API 

specifications, whether finished or 

unfinished (including green tubes and 

limited service OCTG products). This 

scope does not cover casing or tubing 

pipe containing 10.5 percent or more of 

chromium, or drill pipe. The products 

subject to this order are currently 

classified in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) under sub–headings: 

7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 

7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 

7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 

7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 

7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 

7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 

7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 

7304.29.30.10, 7304.29.30.20, 

7304.29.30.30, 7304.29.30.40, 

7304.29.30.50, 7304.29.30.60, 

7304.29.30.80, 7304.29.40.10, 

7304.29.40.20, 7304.29.40.30, 

7304.29.40.40, 7304.29.40.50, 

7304.29.40.60, 7304.29.40.80, 

7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 

7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 

7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.60.15, 

7304.29.60.30, 7304.29.60.45, 

7304.29.60.60, 7304.29.60.75, 

7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 

7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 

7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90, 

7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00, 

7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10, 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES