10722 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 47 / Thursday, March 12, 2009 / Notices 

1ArcelorMittal Point Lisas Limited is the 

successor–in–interest to Mittal Steel Point Lisas 

Limited. See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod from Trinidad and Tobago: Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review, 73 FR 30052 (May 23, 

2008). 

in the Federal Register and in 

newspapers with circulation in the 

proposal area. 

Any final action by Rural 

Development related to the proposal 

will be subject to, and contingent upon, 

compliance with all relevant Federal, 

state and local environmental laws and 

regulations, and completion of the 

environmental review requirements as 

prescribed in Rural Development’s 

Environmental Policies and Procedures 

(7 CFR part 1794). 

Dated: March 6, 2009. 

Mark S. Plank, 

Director, Engineering and Environmental 

Staff, USDA/Rural Development/Utilities 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. E9–5375 Filed 3–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–274–804) 

Carbon and Certain 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 5, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of the fifth administrative review 

for the antidumping duty order on 

carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod 

(wire rod) from Trinidad and Tobago. 

See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod from Trinidad and Tobago: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

65833 (November 5, 2008) (Preliminary 

Results). This review covers imports of 

wire rod from ArcelorMittal Point Lisas 

Limited,1 and its affiliate Mittal Steel 

North America Inc. (MSNA) 

(collectively, AMPL). The period of 

review (POR) is October 1, 2006, 

through September 30, 2007. 

Based on our analysis of comments 

received, 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 12, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Moore or 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) 482–3692 and (202) 

482–8362, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 29, 2002, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on wire rod 

from Trinidad and Tobago. See Notice 

of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon 

and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 

Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, 

Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine, 67 

FR 65945 (Wire Rod Orders). On July 6, 

2005, the Department determined that 

Mittal Steel Point Lisas Limited (MSPL) 

is the successor–in-interest to Carribean 

Ispat Limited (CIL). See Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review: Carbon and 

Certain Alloy Wire Rod from Trinidad 

and Tobago, 70 FR 38871 (July 6, 2005). 

On May 23, 2008, the Department 

determined that AMPL is the successor– 

in-interest to MSPL. See Carbon and 

Certain Alloy Steel wire Rod from 

Trinidad and Tobago: Notice of Final 

results of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review, 73 FR 30052 

(May 23, 2008). On November 5, 2008, 

the Department published in the 

Federal Register its Preliminary Results 

of the administrative review of this 

order for the period October 1, 2006, 

through September 30, 2007. See 

Preliminary Results, 73 FR at 65833. 

This is the fifth administrative review of 

this order. 

Comments From Interested Parties 

We invited interested parties to 

comment on the Preliminary Results. On 

December 5, 2008, AMPL filed a case 

brief, and on December 10, 2008, 

petitioners submitted a rebuttal brief. 

Petitioners are Gerdau Ameristeel US 

Inc. (formerly Co–Steel Raritan, Inc.), 

Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., 

North Star Steel Texas, Inc., Nucor Steel 

Connecticut, Inc., and Rocky Mountain 

Steel Mills. No party requested a 

hearing. 

Scope of the Antidumping Duty 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. 

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) 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 47 / Thursday, March 12, 2009 / Notices 10723 

2Effective July 1, 2008, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) reclassified certain HTSUS 

numbers related to the subject merchandise. See 

http: //hotdocs.usitc.gov/ tariff––chapters––current/ 

toc.html. 

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.2

Analysis of Comments 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

administrative review are addressed in 

the accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Antidumping 

Duty Order on Carbon and Certain Alloy 

Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and 

Tobago (Decision Memorandum), which 

is hereby adopted by this notice. A list 

of the issues which parties have raised, 

and to which we have responded in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum, is 

attached to this notice as an Appendix. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of the issues in this review and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum, which is on file in 

the Department’s Central Records Unit 

(CRU), Room 1117 of the main 

commerce building. In addition, a 

complete version of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the World Wide Web at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy 

and electronic version of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Final Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

determine that the following weighted– 

average margin exists for the period 

October 1, 2006, through September 30, 

2007. 

Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted–Average 

Margin 

AMPL ............................ 1.56 percent 

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. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 

Policy Notice). This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR produced by AMPL for 

which AMPL did not know that the 

merchandise it sold to the intermediary 

(e.g., a reseller, trading company, or 

exporter) 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 intermediary involved in 

the transaction. See Assessment Policy 

Notice for a full discussion of this 

clarification. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following antidumping duty 

deposit rates will be effective upon 

publication of this notice of final results 

of the administrative review for all 

shipments of wire rod from Trinidad 

and Tobago entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the date of the publication of these final 

results, as provided by section 751(a)(1) 

of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for 

AMPL is 1.56 percent; (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 final 

results in which that manufacturer or 

exporter participated; (3) if the exporter 

is not a firm covered in this review, a 

prior review, or the original less–than– 

fair–value (LTFV) investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent final results for the manufacturer 

of the merchandise; and, (4) if neither 

the exporter nor the manufacturer is a 

firm covered in this or any previous 

review conducted by the Department, 

the cash deposit rate will be 11.40 

percent, the all–others rate established 

in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and 

Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 

Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, 

Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine, 67 

FR 65945 (October 29, 2002). These cash 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
10724 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 47 / Thursday, March 12, 2009 / Notices 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers of their responsibility 

under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a 

certificate regarding the reimbursement 

of antidumping duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during this review period. Failure to 

comply with this requirement may 

result in the Secretary’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

and/or countervailing duties occurred 

and the subsequent assessment of 

double antidumping duties. 

Notification Regarding APOs 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(5). 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. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

final results of review in accordance 

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

the Act. 

Dated: March 5, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

APPENDIX I 

List of Comments in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum 

Comment 1 Whether the Department 

Should Exclude the Single Sale of Scrap 

Merchandise 

Comment 2: Whether the Department 

Should Modify its Liquidation 

Instructions to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection 

[FR Doc. E9–5369 Filed 3–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–357–812) 

Honey from Argentina: Extension of 

Time Limit for Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 12, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Deborah Scott or Robert James, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–2657 or (202) 482– 

0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

December 30, 2008, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) published 

the preliminary results of the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on honey from 

Argentina for the period December 1, 

2006 through November 30, 2007. See 

Honey from Argentina: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Intent to 

Revoke Order in Part, 73 FR 79802 

(December 30, 2008). The current 

deadline for the final results of this 

review is April 29, 2009. 

Extension of Time Limits for Final 

Results 

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

of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires 

the Department to issue the final results 

of an administrative review within 120 

days after the date on which the 

preliminary results were published. 

However, if it is not practicable to 

complete the review within this time 

period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act 

allows the Department to extend the 

time limit for the final results up to 180 

days from the date of publication of the 

preliminary results. 

The Department finds that it is not 

practicable to complete this review 

within the original time frame due to 

additional analysis that must be 

performed with respect to respondent 

Patagonik S.A.’s cost of production and 

sales of subject merchandise. 

Consequently, and in accordance with 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.213(h)(2), the Department is 

fully extending the time limit for 

completion of the final results of this 

administrative review by 60 days, to 

June 28, 2009. As this date falls on a 

Sunday, the final results are due June 

29, 2009. See 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). 

This notice is published in 

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

the Act. 

Dated: March 4, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–5236 Filed 3–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XN86 

Notice of Decision to Expand Scope of 

the Environmental Impact Statement 

Analyzing Mitchell Act Funding and 

Operation of Columbia River 

Hatcheries 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces its 

decision to expand the scope of the 

Mitchell Act Hatchery Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) to include 

analysis of the environmental effects of 

hatchery programs in a way that will 

inform future NMFS decisions about 

Endangered Species Act compliance for 

all Columbia River hatchery programs. 

Our previous notice of intent to prepare 

an EIS on the funding and operation of 

Columbia River hatcheries under the 

Mitchell Act was published on 

September 3, 2004. We are opening a 

30–day comment period on our decision 

to expand the scope. 

DATES: Written or electronic comments 

from all interested parties are 

encouraged and must be received no 

later than 5 p.m. Pacific Standard Time 

April 13, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: All comments concerning 

the preparation of the EIS and NEPA 

process should be addressed to: Patty 

Dornbusch, NMFS, 1201 N.E. Lloyd 

Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232. 

Comments may also be submitted via 

fax (503) 872–2737 Attn: Mitchell Act 

Hatchery EIS, or by electronic mail to 

MitchellActEIS.nwr@noaa.gov with a 

subject line containing the document 

identifier: ‘‘Mitchell Act Hatchery EIS.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Contact Patty Dornbusch, NMFS 

Northwest Region, (503) 230–5430. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 3, 2004 (69 FR 53892), 

NMFS announced its intent to prepare 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES