15102 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Notices 

received did not distort Pidilite’s 

financial ratios; (3) re–examine the 

surrogate values for benzene sulfonyl 

chloride, calcium chloride and steam; 

(4) either include terminal charges and 

brokerage fees in movement costs, or 

precisely and reasonably explain its 

decision not to include such costs; and 

(5) re–open the record and allow parties 

to submit new information as necessary. 

On October 16, 2006, the Department 

issued to the CIT its final results of 

redetermination pursuant to remand. In 

the remand redetermination the 

Department: (1) Applied partial AFA to 

Hanchem; (2) explained how the 

subsidies Pidilite received did not 

distort Pidilite’s financial ratios; (3) re–

calculated the surrogate values for 

benzene sulfonyl chloride, calcium 

chloride and steam; (4) explained why 

it is not appropriate to include terminal 

charges and brokerage fees in movement 

costs; and (5) calculated a surrogate 

value for steam. Thus, the Department 

recalculated the antidumping duty rates 

applicable to Goldlink Industries Co., 

Ltd., Trust Chem Co., Ltd., Hanchem, 

Nantong Haidi Chemicals Co., Ltd., and 

the PRC–wide entity. On December 8, 

2006, the CIT sustained the 

Department’s final redetermination. See 

Goldlink Industries Co., Ltd., Trust 

Chem Co., Ltd., Tianjin Hanchem 

International Trading Co., Ltd. v. United 

States, and Nation Ford Chemical 

Company and Sun Chemical 

Corporation, and Clariant Corporation, 

Ct. No. 05–00060, Slip Op. 06–65 (CIT 

December 8, 2006). 

Consistent with the decision of the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit in Timken Company v. 

United States and China National 

Machinery and Equipment Import and 

Export Corporation, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. 

Cir. 1990), on January 4, 2007, the 

Department published a notice 

announcing that the CIT’s final 

judgement was not in harmony with the 

Department’s Final Determination. No 

party appealed the CIT’s decision. 

Therefore, there is now a final and 

conclusive court decision in this case. 

Amended Final Determination 

As the litigation in this case has 

concluded, the Department is amending 

the Final Determination. The revised 

dumping margins are as follows: 

Exporter/Manufacturer Margin 

(percent) 

Goldlink Industries Co., Ltd. ......... 12.46 

Trust Chem Co., Ltd. .................... 39.29 

Tianjin Hanchem International 

Trading Co., Ltd. ....................... 85.41 

Nantong Haidi Chemicals Co., 

Ltd. ............................................ 57.07 

Exporter/Manufacturer Margin 

(percent) 

PRC–Wide Rate ........................... 241.32 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended. 

Dated: March 22, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–5859 Filed 3–29–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–122–840 

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review: 

Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod from Canada 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the ‘‘Department’’) has determined that 

(1) Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. is the 

successor–in-interest to Ivaco Rolling 

Mills L.P.; and (2) Sivaco Ontario, a 

division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 

L.P., is the successor–in-interest to Ivaco 

Inc. As a result, Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 

L.P., and Sivaco Ontario, a division of 

Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P., 

(collectively ‘‘Ivaco’’) should receive the 

same antidumping duty treatment with 

respect to carbon and certain alloy steel 

wire rod from Canada as Ivaco Rolling 

Mills L.P. and Ivaco Inc. as of the date 

of publication of this notice in the 

Federal Register. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 30, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Damian Felton or Brandon Farlander, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–0133 and (202) 

482–0182, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In its January 12, 2006 response to 

Section A of the Department’s 

questionnaire in the 3rd administrative 

review, Ivaco notified the Department 

that the assets of Ivaco, Inc. and all of 

its divisions (e.g., Sivaco Ontario, and 

Sivaco Quebec) had been purchased on 

December 1, 2004. As a result, the 

Department self–initiated a changed 

circumstances review of the 

antidumping duty order on carbon and 

certain alloy steel wire rod from Canada. 

See 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). On June 1, 2006, 

and October 27, 2006, the Department 

issued Ivaco supplemental 

questionnaires requesting further details 

on Ivaco’s successor–in-interest claims. 

The company’s responses were received 

by the Department on July 6, 2006, and 

November 20, 2006. 

On December 14, 2006, the 

Department published the preliminary 

results of this changed circumstances 

review and preliminarily determined 

that (1) Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. is 

the successor–in-interest to Ivaco 

Rolling Mills L.P.; and (2) Sivaco 

Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire 

Group 2004 L.P., is the successor–ininterest to Ivaco Inc. See Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review: Carbon and 

Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 

Canada, 71 FR 75229 (December 14, 

2006) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). As a 

result, Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P., 

and Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco 

Wire Group 2004 L.P., should receive 

the same antidumping duty treatment 

with respect to carbon and certain alloy 

steel wire rod from Canada as Ivaco 

Rolling Mills L.P. and Ivaco Inc. In the 

Preliminary Results, we stated that 

interested parties could request a 

hearing or submit case briefs and/or 

written comments to the Department no 

later than 30 days after publication of 

the Preliminary Results notice in the 

Federal Register, and submit rebuttal 

briefs, limited to the issues raised in the 

case briefs, five days subsequent to the 

due date of the case briefs. See 

Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 75231. We 

did not receive any hearing requests or 

comments on the Preliminary Results. 

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 

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: 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Notices 15103 

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 

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. 

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 the order 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 

the order is dispositive. 

Final Results of Changed 

Circumstances Review 

Based on the information provided by 

Ivaco, and the fact that the Department 

did not receive any comments during 

the comment period following the 

preliminary results of this review, the 

Department hereby determines that (1) 

Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. is the 

successor–in-interest to Ivaco Rolling 

Mills L.P.; and (2) Sivaco Ontario, a 

division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 

L.P., is the successor–in-interest to Ivaco 

Inc. for antidumping duty cash deposit 

purposes. 

Instructions to U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection 

The Department will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to suspend liquidation of all shipments 

of the subject merchandise produced 

and exported by Ivaco entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption, on or after the publication 

date of this notice and apply a cash 

deposit rate of 3.08 percent (i.e., Ivaco 

Rolling Mills L.P. and Ivaco Inc.’s cash 

deposit rate). This deposit rate shall 

remain in effect until publication of the 

final results of the ongoing 

administrative review, in which Ivaco is 

participating. 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (‘‘APOs’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.306. 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 sanctionable 

violation. 

This notice is in accordance with 

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

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 

section 351.216(e) of the Department’s 

regulations. 

Dated: March 22, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–5866 Filed 3–29–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES