Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Notices 26591 

Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 72 

FR 327 (January 4, 2007). 

1On 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). 

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. 

Appendix I: Issues Addressed in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

Comment 1: Surrogate Value for 

Chloranil 

Comment 2: Surrogate Financial Ratios 

Comment 3: Surrogate Value for 

Triethylamine 

Comment 4: Brokerage Fees and 

Terminal Charges 

[FR Doc. E7–9042 Filed 5–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–122–840] 

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty 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. 

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. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
26592 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Notices 

2See Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 64924. 

3See 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). 

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

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). 

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. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Notices 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: 

Producer 

Weighted–Average 

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 

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 

AGENCY: 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: 

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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES