Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 13539 

1See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 

30912 (May 27, 2011). 

2See Frontseating Service Valves from the 

People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time for 

the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 76 FR 77479 (December 13, 

2011). 

3See Notice of Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next 

Business Day’’ Rule for Administrative 

Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act 

of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). 

1See Antidumping Duty Order: Folding Metal 

Tables and Chairs From the People’s Republic of 

China, 67 FR 43277 (June 27, 2002). 

2See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 

Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 76 FR 31586 

(June 1, 2011). 

Dated: March 1, 2012. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5582 Filed 3–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–933] 

Frontseating Service Valves From the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Second Extension of Time Limit for the 

Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 7, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurel LaCivita or Brooke Kennedy, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4243 or (202) 482– 

3818, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 27, 2011, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of initiation of an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on frontseating service valves from the 

People’s Republic of China for the 

period April 1, 2010, through March 31, 

2011.1 On December 13, 2011, the 

Department extended the deadline for 

the preliminary results by 90 days, to 

March 30, 2012.2

Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary 

Results 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), the Department shall make a 

preliminary determination in an 

administrative review of an 

antidumping duty order within 245 

days after the last day of the anniversary 

month of the date of publication of the 

order. The Act further provides, 

however, that the Department may 

extend that 245-day period to 365 days 

if it determines it is not practicable to 

complete the review within the 

foregoing time period. 

We determine that completion of the 

preliminary results of this review by 

March 30, 2012, is not practicable 

because the Department requires 

additional time to analyze information 

pertaining to the respondents’ sales 

practices, factors of production, as well 

as issue and review responses to 

supplemental questionnaires. Therefore, 

in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) 

of the Act, we are extending the time 

limit for completion of the preliminary 

results of this administrative review by 

30 additional days, until April 29, 2012. 

However, because April 29, 2012, falls 

on a weekend, the preliminary results 

are now due no later than April 30, 

2012.3

This notice is published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) 

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

Dated: March 1, 2012. 

Gary Taverman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5580 Filed 3–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–868] 

Folding Metal Tables and Chairs From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on folding 

metal tables and chairs from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). 

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is June 1, 

2010, through May 31, 2011. The 2010– 

2011 administrative review covers Feili 

Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd. and Feili 

Furniture Development Limited 

Quanzhou City (collectively, ‘‘Feili’’). 

We have preliminarily determined that 

Feili made sales in the United States at 

prices below normal value (‘‘NV’’) 

during the period of review (‘‘POR’’). If 

these preliminary results are adopted in 

our final results of the review, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR. 

We invite interested parties to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We intend to issue the final results no 

later than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). 

DATES: Effective Date: March 7, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit 

Astvatsatrian or Charles Riggle, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–6412 and (202) 

482–0650, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 27, 2002, the Department 

published the antidumping duty order 

on folding metal tables and chairs from 

the PRC.1 On June 1, 2010, the 

Department published a notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of this order for the period June 

1, 2009, through May 31, 2010.2 In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), 

interested parties made the following 

requests for an administrative review: 

(1) On June 28, 2011, Meco Corporation 

(‘‘Meco’’), a domestic producer of the 

like product, requested that the 

Department conduct an administrative 

review of Feili and of New-Tec 

Integration (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. (NewTec), a producer and exporter of subject 

merchandise to the United States; (2) on 

June 29, 2011, Feili requested that the 

Department conduct an administrative 

review of its sales; (3) on June 30, 2011, 

Cosco Home & Office Products 

(‘‘Cosco’’), a U.S. importer of subject 

merchandise, requested that the 

Department conduct an administrative 

review of Feili and New-Tec; and (4) on 

June 30, 2011, New-Tec requested that 

the Department revoke the antidumping 

duty order with respect to exports of 

subject merchandise manufactured and 

exported by New-Tec and defer the 

initiation of its review for the current 

POR. On July 28, 2011, the Department 

initiated the 2010–2011 review for Feili 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13540 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 

3See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 

Requests for Revocations in Part and Deferral of 

Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 45227 (July 28, 

2010) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

4See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Review, and Revocation of the Order in 

Part, 76 FR 66036 (October 25, 2011) and Folding 

Metal Tables and Chairs From the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Correction to the Final 

Results of the 2009–2010 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 76 FR 72903 (November 28, 

2011). 

5See Memorandum to Carole Showers, Director, 

Office of Policy, entitled, ‘‘2010–2011 

Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the 

People’s Republic of China: Request for Surrogate 

Country Selection,’’ dated September 30, 2011. 

6See Memorandum from Carole Showers, 

Director, Office of Policy, entitled, ‘‘Request for a 

List of Surrogate Countries for an Administrative 

Review of Folding Metal Tables and Chairs 

(‘‘FMTC’’) from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC),’’ dated October 12, 2011 (‘‘Surrogate Country 

Memorandum’’). 

7See, e.g., Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

52645 (September 10, 2008); see also Folding Metal 

Tables and Chairs from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 3560 (January 21, 

2009). 

8See Memorandum to The File entitled, 

‘‘Preliminary Results of the 2010–2011 

and deferred the review of New-Tec.3

On October 25, 2011, the Department 

revoked the order with respect to NewTec and subsequently corrected 

language in the original revocation.4

The Department issued an 

antidumping duty questionnaire to Feili 

on August 26, 2011. On September 16, 

2011, Feili submitted a section A 

questionnaire response (‘‘AQR’’), and on 

October 17, 2011, submitted section C 

and D questionnaire responses (‘‘CQR’’ 

and ‘‘DQR,’’ respectively). On December 

2, 2011, and January 9, 2012, Feili 

submitted supplemental questionnaire 

responses (‘‘SQR’’ and ‘‘SSQR,’’ 

respectively). 

On September 30, 2011, the 

Department requested that Import 

Administration’s Office of Policy to 

provide a list of surrogate countries for 

the administrative review.5 On October 

12, 2011, the Office of Policy issued its 

list of surrogate countries for the 

administrative review.6

On October 25, 2011, the Department 

requested interested parties to submit 

surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) information and 

to provide surrogate country selection 

comments for the administrative review. 

On November 8, 2011, Feili commented 

on surrogate country selection. On 

November 15, 2011, Cosco and Feili 

provided financial statements from 

India and Thailand to be used for the 

calculation of surrogate financial ratios. 

On December 28, 2011, the Department 

provided additional time to submit 

publicly available information to value 

the factors of production (‘‘FOP’’). On 

January 17, 2012, Cosco provided 

additional comments on FOPs. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in 

an antidumping administrative review 

or new shipper review, interested 

parties may submit publicly available 

information to value FOPs within 20 

days after the date of publication of 

these preliminary results of review. 

Period of Review 

The POR is June 1, 2010, through May 

31, 2011. 

Scope of Order 

The products covered by the order 

consist of assembled and unassembled 

folding tables and folding chairs made 

primarily or exclusively from steel or 

other metal, as described below: 

(1) Assembled and unassembled 

folding tables made primarily or 

exclusively from steel or other metal 

(folding metal tables). Folding metal 

tables include square, round, 

rectangular, and any other shapes with 

legs affixed with rivets, welds, or any 

other type of fastener, and which are 

made most commonly, but not 

exclusively, with a hardboard top 

covered with vinyl or fabric. Folding 

metal tables have legs that mechanically 

fold independently of one another, and 

not as a set. The subject merchandise is 

commonly, but not exclusively, packed 

singly, in multiple packs of the same 

item, or in five piece sets consisting of 

four chairs and one table. Specifically 

excluded from the scope of the order 

regarding folding metal tables are the 

following: 

Lawn furniture; Trays commonly 

referred to as ‘‘TV trays;’’ Side tables; 

Child-sized tables; Portable counter sets 

consisting of rectangular tables 36’’ high 

and matching stools; and, Banquet 

tables. A banquet table is a rectangular 

table with a plastic or laminated wood 

table top approximately 28′′ to 36′′ wide 

by 48′′ to 96′′ long and with a set of 

folding legs at each end of the table. One 

set of legs is composed of two 

individual legs that are affixed together 

by one or more cross-braces using welds 

or fastening hardware. In contrast, 

folding metal tables have legs that 

mechanically fold independently of one 

another, and not as a set. 

(2) Assembled and unassembled 

folding chairs made primarily or 

exclusively from steel or other metal 

(folding metal chairs). Folding metal 

chairs include chairs with one or more 

cross-braces, regardless of shape or size, 

affixed to the front and/or rear legs with 

rivets, welds or any other type of 

fastener. Folding metal chairs include: 

those that are made solely of steel or 

other metal; those that have a back pad, 

a seat pad, or both a back pad and a seat 

pad; and those that have seats or backs 

made of plastic or other materials. The 

subject merchandise is commonly, but 

not exclusively, packed singly, in 

multiple packs of the same item, or in 

five piece sets consisting of four chairs 

and one table. Specifically excluded 

from the scope of the order regarding 

folding metal chairs are the following: 

Folding metal chairs with a wooden 

back or seat, or both; Lawn furniture; 

Stools; Chairs with arms; and Childsized chairs. 

The subject merchandise is currently 

classifiable under subheadings 

9401.71.0010, 9401.71.011, 

9401.71.0030, 9401.71.0031, 

9401.79.0045, 9401.79.0046, 

9401.79.0050, 9403.20.0018, 

9403.20.0015, 9403.20.0030, 

9403.60.8040, 9403.70.8015, 

9403.70.8020, and 9403.70.8031 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

Department’s written description of the 

merchandise is dispositive. 

Non-Market Economy Country Status 

No party contested the Department’s 

treatment of the PRC as a non-market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) country, and the 

Department has treated the PRC as an 

NME country in all past antidumping 

duty investigations and administrative 

reviews.7 Designation as an NME 

country remains in effect until it is 

revoked by the Department. See section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act. As such, we 

continue to treat the PRC as a NME in 

this proceeding. 

Surrogate Country 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the 

Department to base NV on the NME 

producer’s FOPs, valued in a surrogate 

market economy country or countries 

considered to be appropriate by the 

Department. In accordance with section 

773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the 

FOPs, the Department shall use, to the 

extent possible, the prices or costs of the 

FOPs in one or more market economy 

countries that are: (1) At a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the NME country; and (2) 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. The sources of the 

surrogate factor values are discussed 

under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section 

below as well as in the Surrogate Value 

Memorandum.8


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 13541 

Administrative Review of Folding Metal Tables and 

Chairs from the People’s Republic of China: 

Surrogate Value Memorandum,’’ dated concurrently 

with this notice (‘‘Prelim SV Memo’’). 

9See Surrogate Country Memorandum. The 

Department notes that these six countries are part 

of a non-exhaustive list of countries that are at a 

level of economic development comparable to the 

PRC. 

10See Prelim SV Memo at Attachment II, and 

Cosco’s January 17, 2012 surrogate value 

submission at 3. 

11See financial statements of Siam Steel 

International PCL (‘‘Siam’’), for the fiscal year 

ending June 30, 2011. 

12See, e.g., Certain Coated Paper Suitable for 

High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed 

Presses From the People’s Republic of China: Notice 

of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 75 FR 24892, 24899 (May 6, 2010). 

13 Id. 

14See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles 

From the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 52355, 

52356 (September 13, 2007). 

15See Memorandum to The File entitled, 

‘‘Analysis for the Preliminary Results of the 2010– 

2011 Administrative Review of Folding Metal 

Tables and Chairs from the People’s Republic of 

China: Feili Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd. and Feili 

Furniture Development Limited Quanzhou City,’’ at 

3–4, dated concurrently with this notice 

(‘‘Preliminary Analysis Memorandum’’). 

The Department determined that the 

Colombia, Indonesia, Philippines, South 

Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine are 

countries comparable to the PRC in 

terms of economic development.9 Once 

we have identified the countries that are 

economically comparable to the PRC, 

we select an appropriate surrogate 

country by determining whether an 

economically comparable country is a 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise and whether the data for 

valuing FOPs are both available and 

reliable. Accordingly, unless we find 

that all of the countries determined to 

be equally economically comparable are 

not significant producers of comparable 

merchandise, do not provide a reliable 

source of publicly available surrogate 

data or are unsuitable for use for other 

reasons, we will rely on data from one 

of these countries. 

The Department has determined that 

Thailand is the appropriate surrogate 

country for use in this review. The 

Department based its decision on the 

following facts: (1) Thailand is at a level 

of economic development comparable to 

that of the PRC; (2) Thailand is a 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise (i.e., steel furniture); and 

(3) Thailand provides the best 

opportunity to use quality, publicly 

available data to value the FOPs.10 Feili 

has argued that the Department should 

continue using India as the surrogate 

country as it has in the previous 

administrative reviews. Cosco stated 

that the Department should use 

Thailand but that it would not object if 

the Department used India as the 

surrogate country. Because Thailand 

satisfies the Department’s criteria for the 

selection of a primary surrogate country, 

resort to an alternative surrogate country 

which is not as economically 

comparable to the PRC as the countries 

on the Surrogate Country List, as 

suggested by Feili, is not necessary. 

Furthermore, it satisfies the best data 

availability criterion as the record 

contains usable financial statements 

from Thailand 11 and sources for 

valuation of all factors of production. As 

we do not have financial statements and 

energy inputs on the record of this 

review from any other country on the 

list of economically comparable 

surrogate countries, we find that 

Thailand is the only country that 

satisfies the best data availability 

criterion for the surrogate country. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department has a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and, thus, 

should be assessed a single antidumping 

duty rate.12 It is the Department’s policy 

to assign all exporters of merchandise 

subject to review in an NME country 

this single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate.13 Exporters can 

demonstrate this independence through 

the absence of both de jure and de facto 

government control over export 

activities. The Department analyzes 

each entity exporting the subject 

merchandise under a test arising from 

the Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588, at Comment 1 (May 6, 1991) 

(‘‘Sparklers’’), as further developed in 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 

From the People’s Republic of China, 59 

FR 22585, 22587 (May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon 

Carbide’’). However, if the Department 

determines that a company is wholly 

foreign-owned or located in a market 

economy, then a separate-rate analysis 

is not necessary to determine whether it 

is independent from government 

control.14

Feili reported that it is a wholly 

owned by a market-economy entity. 

Therefore, consistent with the 

Department’s practice, a separate-rates 

analysis is not necessary to determine 

whether Feili’s export activities are 

independent from government control, 

and we have preliminarily granted a 

separate rate to Feili. 

Date of Sale 

According to 19 CFR 351.401(i), 

In identifying the date of sale of the subject 

merchandise or foreign like product, the 

Secretary normally will use the date of 

invoice, as recorded in the exporter or 

producer’s records kept in the ordinary 

course of business. However, the Secretary 

may use a date other than the date of invoice 

if the Secretary is satisfied that a different 

date better reflects the date on which the 

exporter or producer establishes the material 

terms of sale. 

See also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. 

v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 

1090–1092 (CIT 2001) (upholding the 

Department’s rebuttable presumption 

that invoice date is the appropriate date 

of sale). After examining the 

questionnaire responses and the sales 

documentation placed on the record by 

Feili, we preliminarily determine that 

invoice date is the most appropriate 

date of sale for Feili. Nothing on the 

record of this segment rebuts the 

presumption that invoice date should be 

the date of sale. 

Normal Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of folding 

metal tables and chairs to the United 

States by Feili were made at less than 

NV, we compared export price (‘‘EP’’) to 

NV, as described in the ‘‘Export Price,’’ 

and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this 

notice, pursuant to section 771(35) of 

the Act. 

Export Price 

Because Feili sold subject 

merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers 

in the United States prior to importation 

into the United States or to unaffiliated 

resellers outside the United States with 

knowledge that the merchandise was 

destined for the United States, and use 

of a constructed export price 

methodology is not otherwise indicated, 

we have used EP for Feili in accordance 

with section 772(a) of the Act. 

We calculated EP based on the freeon-board or delivered price to 

unaffiliated purchasers for Feili. From 

this price, we deducted amounts for 

foreign inland freight and brokerage and 

handling, as applicable, pursuant to 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.15

The Department valued brokerage and 

handling using a price list of export 

procedures necessary to export a 

standardized cargo of goods in 

Thailand. The price list is compiled 

based on a survey case study of the 

procedural requirements for trading a 

standard shipment of goods by ocean 

transport in India that is in Doing 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13542 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 

16See Prelim SV Memo at 5 and Preliminary 

Analysis Memorandum at 7–8. 

17See, e.g., Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from 

the People’s Republic of China; Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

2905 (January 18, 2006), and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4; Folding 

Metal Tables and Chairs from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 71509 (December 11, 

2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 4; and Folding Metal 

Tables and Chairs from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 71355 (December 17, 

2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comments 10 and 11. 

18 Id. 

19See NSK Ltd. v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 2d 

1291, 1311–1312 (CIT 2002). 

20See NTN Bearing Corp. of America. v. United 

States, 997 F.2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 

21See Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at 2–3. 

22See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Lasko Metal 

Products v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442, 1445–1446 

(Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming the Department’s use of 

market-based prices to value certain FOPs). 

23See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 

1988, Conf. Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. 

No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988) (‘‘OTCA 

1988’’) at 590. 

24See, e.g., Expedited Sunset Review of the 

Countervailing Duty Order on Carbazole Violet 

Pigment 23 from India, 75 FR 13257 (March 19, 

2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at pages 4–5; Expedited Sunset 

Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain 

Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate from 

Indonesia, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

4; See also Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Results 

of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 

FR 2512 (January 15, 2009) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 17, 19–20; See 

also Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products 

from Thailand: Final Results of Countervailing Duty 

Determination, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

23. 

Business 2011: Thailand, published by 

the World Bank.16

Zero-Priced Transactions 

In the final results of previous 

administrative reviews of folding metal 

tables and chairs, we included Feili’s 

zero-priced transactions in the margin 

calculation because the record 

demonstrated that respondents provided 

the same merchandise in significant 

quantities, indicating that these 

‘‘samples’’ did not primarily serve for 

evaluation or testing of the 

merchandise.17 Additionally, 

respondents provided ‘‘samples’’ to the 

same customers to whom they were 

selling the same products in commercial 

quantities.18 As a result, we concluded 

that these transactions were not what 

we consider to be samples because 

respondents were providing these 

products to strengthen their customer 

relationships and to promote future 

sales. 

With respect to zero-priced 

transactions, the Court of International 

Trade (‘‘CIT’’) in NSK Ltd. v. United 

States stated that it saw ‘‘little reason in 

supplying and re-supplying and yet resupplying the same product to the same 

customer in order to solicit sales if the 

supplies are made in reasonably short 

periods of time,’’ and that ‘‘it would be 

even less logical to supply a sample to 

a client that has made a recent bulk 

purchase of the very item being sampled 

by the client.’’ 19 Moreover, even where 

the Department does not ask a 

respondent for specific information to 

demonstrate that a transaction is a 

sample, the respondent has the burden 

of presenting the information in the first 

place to demonstrate that its 

transactions qualify for exclusion as a 

sample.20

An analysis of Feili’s section C 

computer sales listings reveals that in 

some cases it provided zero-priced 

merchandise to customers to whom it 

was already selling the same products in 

commercial quantities, indicating that 

Feili was not providing this zero-priced 

merchandise for a customer’s evaluation 

and testing, with the hope of future 

sales. Consequently, based on the facts 

cited above, the guidance of past court 

decisions, and our previous decisions, 

we have not excluded these zero-priced 

transactions from the margin 

calculations for Feili for the preliminary 

results of this review. However, we 

found that, in some instances, Feili 

shipped merchandise to customers for 

the first time in non-commercial 

quantities. Therefore, we have treated 

these sales as samples for the 

preliminary results.21

Normal Value 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that, in the case of an NME, the 

Department shall determine NV using 

an FOP methodology if the merchandise 

is exported from an NME and the 

information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home-market 

prices, third-country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. 

The Department bases NV on FOPs 

because the presence of government 

controls on various aspects of NME 

economies renders price comparisons 

and the calculation of production costs 

invalid under our normal 

methodologies. Therefore, in these 

preliminary results, we have calculated 

NV based on FOPs in accordance with 

sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.408(c). The FOPs include: 

(1) Hours of labor required; (2) 

quantities of raw materials employed; 

(3) amounts of energy and other utilities 

consumed; and (4) representative capital 

costs. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1), the Department normally 

uses publicly available information to 

value the FOPs. However, when a 

producer sources a meaningful amount 

of an input from a market-economy 

country and pays for it in marketeconomy currency, the Department may 

value the factor using the actual price 

paid for the input.22

In accordance with the OTCA 1988 

legislative history, the Department 

continues to apply its long-standing 

practice of disregarding SVs if it has a 

reason to believe or suspect the source 

data may be subsidized.23 In this regard, 

the Department has previously found 

that it is appropriate to disregard such 

prices from India, Indonesia, South 

Korea and Thailand because we have 

determined that these countries 

maintain broadly available, nonindustry specific export subsidies.24

Based on the existence of these subsidy 

programs that were generally available 

to all exporters and producers in these 

countries at the time of the POR, the 

Department finds that it is reasonable to 

infer that all exporters from India, 

Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand 

may have benefitted from these 

subsidies. 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on the 

FOPs reported by Feili during the POR. 

To calculate NV, we multiplied the 

reported per-unit factor quantities by 

publicly available Thai surrogate values 

(except as noted below). In selecting the 

SVs, we considered the quality, 

specificity, public availability, and 

contemporaneity of the data. As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to render them 

delivered prices. Specifically, we added 

to Thai import SVs a surrogate freight 

cost using the shorter of the reported 

distance from the domestic supplier to 

the factory or the distance from the 

nearest seaport to the factory where 

appropriate (i.e., where the sales terms 

for the market-economy inputs were not 

delivered to the factory). This 

adjustment is in accordance with the 

decision of the CAFC in Sigma Corp. v. 

United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1408 

(Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed 

description of all SVs used for Feili, see 

the Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

For the preliminary results, except 

where noted below, we used data from 

the Thai Import Statistics in the Global 

Trade Atlas (‘‘GTA’’) and other publicly 

available Thai sources in order to 

calculate SVs for Feili’s FOPs (i.e., 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 13543 

25See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), 

unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). 

26See Prelim SV Memo at 2–3. 

27See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving 

and Racks From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 74 FR 9591, 9600 (March 5, 2009), 

unchanged in Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving 

and Racks From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 

Value, 74 FR 36656 (July 24, 2009). 

28See Antidumping Methodologies: Market 

Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy 

Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments, 

71 FR 61716, 61717–19 (October 19, 2006) 

(‘‘Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy 

Inputs’’). 

29For a detailed description of all actual values 

used for market-economy inputs, see Preliminary 

Analysis Memorandum at 7. 

30See Antidumping Methodologies: Market 

Economy Inputs, 71 FR at 61718. 

31See Antidumping Methodologies in 

Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economies: 

Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR 

36092 (June 21, 2011) (‘‘Labor Methodologies’’). 

32See Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36093. 

33See Prelim SV Memo at 5 and Attachment VI. 

34See Prelim SV Memo at 4 and Attachment VIII. 

35See Prelim SV Memo. 

direct materials, energy, and packing 

materials) and certain movement 

expenses. As Thailand is the primary 

surrogate country, we used Thai data. In 

selecting the best available information 

for valuing FOPs in accordance with 

section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the 

Department’s practice is to select, to the 

extent practicable, SVs which are nonexport average values, most 

contemporaneous with the POR, 

product-specific, and tax-exclusive.25

The record shows that data in the Thai 

Import Statistics are contemporaneous 

with the POR, product-specific, and taxexclusive.26 In those instances where we 

could not obtain publicly available 

information contemporaneous to the 

POR with which to value factors, we 

adjusted the SVs using, where 

appropriate, the Thai Consumer Price 

Index (‘‘CPI’’) as published in the IMF’s 

International Financial Statistics.27

Feili reported purchases of raw 

materials produced in market-economy 

countries, sourced from marketeconomy suppliers and paid for in a 

market-economy currency during the 

POR. In accordance with our practice 

outlined in Antidumping 

Methodologies: Market Economy 

Inputs,28 when at least 33 percent of an 

input is sourced from market-economy 

suppliers and purchased in a marketeconomy currency, the Department will 

use actual market-economy purchase 

prices to value these inputs.29 Where 

the quantity of the reported input 

purchased from ME suppliers is below 

33 percent of the total volume of the 

input purchased from all sources during 

the POI, and were otherwise valid, we 

weight-average the ME input’s purchase 

price with the appropriate SV for the 

input according to their respective 

shares of the reported total volume of 

purchases.30 Therefore, the Department 

has valued certain inputs using the 

market-economy purchase prices 

reported by Feili, where appropriate. 

On June 21, 2011, the Department 

revised its methodology for valuing the 

labor input in NME antidumping 

proceedings.31 In Labor Methodologies, 

the Department determined that the best 

methodology to value the labor input is 

to use industry-specific labor rates from 

the primary surrogate country. 

Additionally, the Department 

determined that the best data source for 

industry-specific labor rates is Chapter 

6A: Labor Cost in Manufacturing, from 

the International Labor Organization 

(ILO) Yearbook of Labor Statistics 

(‘‘Yearbook’’). 

In these preliminary results, the 

Department has calculated the labor 

input using the wage method described 

in Labor Methodologies. To value the 

respondent’s labor input, the 

Department relied on data reported by 

Thailand to the ILO in Chapter 6A of the 

Yearbook. Although the Department 

further finds the two-digit description 

under ISIC—Revision 3 (‘‘Manufacture 

of furniture; manufacture of n.e.c.’’) to 

be the best available information on the 

record because it is specific to the 

industry being examined, and is 

therefore derived from industries that 

produce comparable merchandise, 

Thailand has not reported data specific 

to the two-digit description since 2000. 

However, Thailand did report total 

manufacturing wage data in 2005. 

Accordingly, relying on Chapter 6A of 

the Yearbook, the Department 

calculated the labor input using total 

labor data reported by Thailand to the 

ILO, in accordance with section 

773(c)(4) of the Act. For these 

preliminary results, the calculated 

industry-specific wage rate is 134.92 

Baht/hour. A more detailed description 

of the wage rate calculation 

methodology is provided in the 

Surrogate Value Memorandum at page 

5. 

As stated above, the Department used 

Thailand ILO data reported under 

Chapter 6A of Yearbook, which reflects 

all costs related to labor, including 

wages, benefits, housing, training, etc. 

Additionally, where the financial 

statements used to calculate the 

surrogate financial ratios include 

itemized detail of labor costs, the 

Department made adjustments to certain 

labor costs in the surrogate financial 

ratios.32

We used Thai transport information 

in order to value the freight-in cost of 

the raw materials. To value inland truck 

freight, we obtained (1) August 2005 

price data from the Thailand Board of 

Investment’s 2006 publication, Costs of 

Doing Business in Thailand, and (2) 

distances from Google Maps, at http:// 

maps.google.com. The Department 

calculated the per-kilometer price to 

transport one kg from Bangkok to five 

cities in Thailand. We inflated this 

value to the POR. 

To value diesel, we used a per-liter 

value obtained from Thailand Board of 

Investment’s Web page at http://www.

boi.go.th/index.php?page=

transportation_costs_including_fuel_

and_freight_rates, effective August 30, 

2011. We converted the source value in 

liters into the unit of measure reported 

by Feili and made adjustments to 

account for deflation. 

To value electricity, we used the 

average price of Thai power suppliers, 

as published by Electricity Generating 

Authority of Thailand in ‘‘2010 Annual 

Report: Key Statistical Data.’’ We did 

not inflate this value because utility 

rates represent current rates, as 

indicated by the effective dates listed for 

each of the rates provided.33 We valued 

water using data from Thailand’s Board 

of Investment.34 This source provides 

water rates for industrial users that are 

VAT exclusive. 

For factory overhead, selling, general, 

and administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’), 

and profit values, we used the financial 

statements of Siam. We have not used 

the other two Thai financial statements 

on the record of this review because one 

is not contemporaneous to the POR, and 

the other does not provide sufficient 

detail for calculation of surrogate 

financial ratios. We find that Siam is the 

best available information with which to 

determine factory overhead as a 

percentage of the total raw materials, 

labor and energy (‘‘ML&E’’) costs; SG&A 

as a percentage of ML&E plus overhead 

(i.e., cost of manufacture); and the profit 

rate as a percentage of the cost of 

manufacture plus SG&A. 

For packing materials, we used the 

per-kilogram values obtained from the 

GTA and made adjustments to account 

for freight costs incurred between the 

PRC supplier and Feili’s plants.35


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13544 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 

36See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

37See 19 CFR 351.309(c). 

38See 19 CFR 351.309(d). 

39See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

40See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 

41See, e.g., Glycine from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in 

Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2. 

42See 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3). 

43See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 

44See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 45See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars, where appropriate, in 

accordance with section 773A(a) of the 

Act, based on the exchange rates in 

effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as 

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following weighted-average dumping 

margin exists: 

Exporter Margin 

(percent) 

Feili Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd./ 

Feili Furniture .......................... 36.45 

Development Limited Quanzhou 

City.

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to this 

proceeding within five days of the 

publication date of this notice.36

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results and 

may submit case briefs and/or written 

comments within 30 days of the date of 

publication of this notice.37 Interested 

parties may file rebuttal briefs and 

rebuttals to written comments, limited 

to issues raised in such briefs or 

comments, no later than five days after 

the date on which the case briefs are 

due.38 The Department requests that 

parties submitting written comments 

provide an executive summary and a 

table of authorities as well as an 

additional copy of those comments 

electronically. 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice.39 If a request for a hearing 

is made, parties will be notified of the 

time and date for the hearing to be held 

at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 

14th Street and Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20230.40 The 

Department will issue the final results 

of this administrative review, which 

will include the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any such comments, 

within 120 days of publication of these 

preliminary results, pursuant to section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

Deadline for Submission of Publicly 

Available Surrogate Value Information 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), the deadline for 

submission of publicly available 

information to value FOPs under 19 

CFR 351.408(c) is 20 days after the date 

of publication of the preliminary results. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(1), if an interested party 

submits factual information less than 

ten days before, on, or after (if the 

Department has extended the deadline), 

the applicable deadline for submission 

of such factual information, an 

interested party has ten days to submit 

factual information to rebut, clarify, or 

correct the factual information no later 

than ten days after such factual 

information is served on the interested 

party. However, the Department 

generally will not accept in the rebuttal 

submission additional or alternative SV 

information not previously on the 

record, if the deadline for submission of 

SV information has passed.41

Furthermore, the Department generally 

will not accept business proprietary 

information in either the SV 

submissions or the rebuttals thereto, as 

the regulation regarding the submission 

of SVs allows only for the submission of 

publicly available information.42

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by the 

review. The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the publication date of the final 

results of the review. In accordance with 

19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated 

exporter/importer (or customer)-specific 

assessment rates for the merchandise 

subject to the review. 

Where the respondent reports reliable 

entered values, we calculate importer 

(or customer)-specific ad valorem rates 

by aggregating the dumping margins 

calculated for all U.S. sales to each 

importer (or customer) and dividing this 

amount by the total entered value of the 

sales to each importer (or customer).43

Where an importer (or customer)- 

specific ad valorem rate is greater than 

de minimis, we will apply the 

assessment rate to the entered value of 

the importers’/customers’ entries during 

the POR.44 Where we do not have 

entered values for all U.S. sales, we 

calculate a per-unit assessment rate by 

aggregating the antidumping duties due 

for all U.S. sales to each importer (or 

customer) and dividing this amount by 

the total quantity sold to that importer 

(or customer). 

To determine whether the duty 

assessment rates are de minimis, in 

accordance with the requirement set 

forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we 

calculated importer (or customer)- 

specific ad valorem ratios based on the 

estimated entered value. Where an 

importer (or customer)-specific ad 

valorem rate is zero or de minimis, we 

will instruct CBP to liquidate 

appropriate entries without regard to 

antidumping duties.45

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of the 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Feili, the 

cash deposit rate will be the companyspecific rate established in the final 

results of the review (except, if the rate 

is zero or de minimis, no cash deposit 

will be required); (2) for previously 

investigated or reviewed PRC and nonPRC exporters not listed above that have 

separate rates, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the exporter-specific rate 

published for the most recent period; 

(3) for all PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise that have not been found 

to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash 

deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate 

of 70.71 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise that 

have not received their own rate, the 

cash deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the PRC exporters that 

supplied that non-PRC exporter. These 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary 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 determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 13545 

1See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod 

from Mexico: Notice of Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 76 FR 

67407 (November 1, 2011) (Preliminary Results). 

2We determined that AMLT is the successor-ininterest to Sicartsa in an antidumping changed 

circumstances review. The final Federal Register 

notice was published on July 29, 2011. See Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy 

Steel Wire Rod from Mexico, 76 FR 45509 (July 29, 

2011). 

Dated: March 1, 2012. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5579 Filed 3–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–830] 

Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod From Mexico: Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 1, 2011, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published in the Federal 

Register the preliminary results of the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on carbon and 

certain alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) 

from Mexico.1 This review covers 

imports of wire rod from ArcelorMittal 

Las Truchas, S.A. de C.V. (AMLT) and 

its affiliate, ArcelorMittal International 

America LLC (AMIA).2 The period of 

review (POR) is October 1, 2009, 

through September 30, 2010. 

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. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 7, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jolanta Lawska, 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) 

482–8362. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 1, 2011, the Department 

published the Preliminary Results of the 

fifth administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on wire rod 

from Mexico. See Preliminary Results. 

We invited interested parties to 

comment on the Preliminary Results. On 

December 1, 2011, the Department 

received case briefs from AMLT and 

petitioners, Nucor Corporation (Nucor) 

and Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc. 

(Cascade Mills). On December 6, 2011, 

the Department received rebuttal briefs 

from Nucor and Cascade Mills, and 

ArcelorMittal USA Inc., (ArcelorMittal 

USA), Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc., 

(Gerdau), and Evraz Rocky Mountain 

Steel (Evraz Steel). No party requested 

a hearing. 

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 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES