Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 67447 

1The merchandise subject to the scope of these 

orders was originally classifiable under all of the 

following HTS subheadings: 7221.00.0005, 

7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0020, 7221.00.0030, 

7221.00.0040, 7221.00.0045, 7221.00.0060, 

7221.00.0075, and 7221.00.0080. HTSUS 

subheadings 7221.00.0020, 7221.00.0040, 

7221.00.0060, 7221.00.0080 are no longer contained 

in the HTSUS. 

deposit requirements will be effective 

upon completion of the final results of 

this administrative review for all 

shipments of stainless steel butt–weld 

pipe fittings from Korea entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date of the final results of this 

administrative review, as provided by 

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

1) The cash deposit rate for the 

reviewed company will be the rate 

established in the final results of review 

except if a rate is less than 0.50 percent, 

and therefore de minimis within the 

meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1) in 

which case the cash deposit rate will be 

zero; 

2) For any previously reviewed or 

investigated company not listed above, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the company–specific rate published in 

the most recent period; 

3) If the exporter is not a firm covered 

in this review, a prior review, or the less 

than fair value (LTFV) investigation, but 

the manufacturer is, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate established for the 

most recent period 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 the ‘‘all others’’ rate from the LTFV 

investigation (21.2 percent). See Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value; Certain Welded 

Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe Fittings 

From Korea, 58 FR 11029 (February 23, 

1993). 

Notice 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. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: October 31, 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–22139 Filed 11–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–351–819, A–427–811, A–533–808) 

Stainless Steel Wire Rods from Brazil, 

France, and India; Notice of Final 

Results of Five-year (Sunset) Reviews 

of Antidumping Duty Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On July 1, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated the second sunset 

reviews of the antidumping duty orders 

on stainless steel wire rods from Brazil, 

France and India, pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). On the basis of 

notices of intent to participate and 

adequate substantive responses filed on 

behalf of the domestic interested parties 

and inadequate response from 

respondent interested parties, the 

Department has conducted expedited 

sunset reviews of these antidumping 

duty orders. As a result of these sunset 

reviews, the Department finds that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders would likely lead to continuation 

or recurrence of dumping at the level 

indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of 

Reviews’’ section of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2005. 

FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline 

Arrowsmith or Dana Mermelstein, 

Antidumping/Countervailing Duty 

Operations, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: 

(202) 482–5255 or (202) 482–1391, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 1, 1993, the Department 

published the Antidumping Duty Order: 

Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from 

India, 58 FR 63335 (December 1, 1993). 

On January 28, 1994, the Department 

published the Antidumping Duty Order: 

Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from 

Brazil, 59 FR 4021 and the Amended 

Final Determination and Antidumping 

Duty Order: Certain Stainless Steel Wire 

Rods from France, 59 FR 4022. On 

August 2, 2000, the Department 

published the Continuation of 

Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless 

Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, France, and 

India, 65 FR 47403. 

On July 1, 2005, the Department 

initiated the second sunset reviews of 

the antidumping duty orders on 

stainless steel wire rods from Brazil, 

France and India, pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Act. See Initiation of Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 38101 

(July 1, 2005). The Department received 

a notice of intent to participate from 

Carpenter Technology Corporation, 

Charter Specialty Steel, and Universal & 

Alloy Products, Inc. (collectively, the 

domestic interested parties), within the 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). The domestic 

interested parties claimed interested 

party status under section 771(9)(C) of 

the Act as U.S. producers of the 

domestic like product. 

We received a complete substantive 

response to the notice of initiation from 

the domestic interested parties within 

the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no 

responses from respondent interested 

parties to this proceeding. As a result, 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), 

the Department conducted expedited 

sunset reviews of these orders. 

Scope of the Orders 

Imports covered by these orders are 

certain stainless steel wire rods (SSWR) 

from Brazil, France and India. SSWR are 

products which are hot–rolled or hot–

rolled annealed and/or pickled rounds, 

squares, octagons, hexagons, or other 

shapes, in coils. SSWR are made of alloy 

steels containing, by weight 1.2 percent 

or less of carbon and 10.5 percent of 

chromium, with or without other 

elements. These products are only 

manufactured by hot–rolling and 

normally sold in coiled form, and are 

solid cross-section. The majority of 

SSWR sold in the United States are 

round in cross-section shape, annealed 

and pickled. The most common size is 

5.5 millimeters in diameter. 

The merchandise subject to these 

orders is currently classifiable under 

subheadings 7221.00.0005, 

7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 

7221.00.0045, 7221.00.0075 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS).1 The HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes. The 

written description remains dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in these reviews are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

67448 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 

Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty 

Orders on Stainless Steel Wire Rods 

from Brazil, France, and India; Final 

Results, from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD 

Operations to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated October 31, 2005 

(Decision Memo), which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. The issues 

discussed in the Decision Memo include 

the likelihood of continuation or 

recurrence of dumping and the 

magnitude of the margins likely to 

prevail if the orders were revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in these sunset 

reviews and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public memo, 

which is on file in room B–099 of the 

main Commerce Building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/ 

. The paper copy and electronic version 

of the Decision Memo are identical in 

content. 

Final Results of Reviews 

We determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on stainless 

steel wire rods from Brazil would likely 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

dumping at the following weighted–

average percentage margins. 

Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted–Average 

Margins 

Acos Finos Piratini SA .. 26.50 percent 

Acos Villares SA ........... 26.50 percent 

Electrometal - Metals 

Especiais S.A. ........... 24.63 percent 

All Others ...................... 25.88 percent 

We determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on stainless 

steel wire rods from France would likely 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

dumping at the following weighted–

average percentage margins: 

Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted–Average 

Margins 

Imphy ............................ 24.51 percent 

Ugine–Savoie ............... 24.51 percent 

All Others ...................... 24.51 percent 

We determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on stainless 

steel wire rods from India would likely 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

dumping at the following weighted–

average percentage margins: 

Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted–Average 

Margins 

Mukand Ltd. .................. 48.80 percent 

Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted–Average 

Margins 

Sunstar Metals Ltd. ...... 48.80 percent 

Grand Foundry Ltd. ...... 48.80 percent 

All Others ...................... 48.80 percent 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (APO) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of the return or 

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 the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: October 31, 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–22140 Filed 11–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–588–854) 

Certain Tin Mill Products from Japan; 

Final Results of the Expedited Sunset 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On July 1, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated the sunset review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

certain tin mill products from Japan, 

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 adequate substantive 

responses filed on behalf of domestic 

interested parties and no response from 

respondent interested parties, the 

Department conducted an expedited 

(120–day) sunset review. As a result of 

this sunset review, the Department finds 

that revocation of the antidumping duty 

order would likely lead to the 

continuation or recurrence of dumping. 

The dumping margins are identified in 

the Final Results of Review section of 

this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dana Mermelstein, Office 6, and Dena 

Aliadinov, Office 7, AD/CVD 

Operations, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 

482–1391 and (202) 482–3362, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 1, 2005, the Department 

initiated a sunset review of the 

antidumping duty order on tin mill 

products from Japan pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Act. See Initiation of Five–

year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 38101 

(July 1, 2005). The Department received 

notices of intent to participate from two 

domestic interested parties, United 

States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel) and 

Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. (Mittal Steel) 

(collectively, domestic interested 

parties), within the deadline specified 

in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the 

Department’s regulations. Domestic 

interested parties claimed interested 

party status under section 771(9)(C) of 

the Act as U.S. producers of the 

domestic like product. We received 

complete substantive responses from the 

domestic interested parties within the 

30–day deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(3)(i). However, we did not 

receive any response from any 

respondent interested parties. As a 

result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department 

conducted expedited sunset reviews of 

these orders. 

Scope of the Order 

The scope of this order includes tin 

mill flat–rolled products that are coated 

or plated with tin, chromium or 

chromium oxides. Flat–rolled steel 

products coated with tin are known as 

tin plate. Flat–rolled steel products 

coated with chromium or chromium 

oxides are known as tin–free steel or 

electrolytic chromium–coated steel. The 

scope includes all the noted tin mill 

products regardless of thickness, width, 

form (in coils or cut sheets), coating 

type (electrolytic or otherwise), edge 

(trimmed, untrimmed or further 

processed, such as scroll cut), coating 

thickness, surface finish, temper, 

coating metal (tin, chromium, 

chromium oxide), reduction (single–or 

double–reduced), and whether or not 

coated with a plastic material. All 

products that meet the written physical 

description are within the scope of this 

order unless specifically excluded. The 

following products, by way of example,