67422 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 

1The petitioners are ISG Georgetown (formerly 

Georgetown Steel Company), Gerdau Ameristeel 

U.S., Inc., (formely Co-Steel Raritan), Keystone 

Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North Star Steel 

Texas, Inc. 

ARTIST CANVAS FROM THE PRC - WEIGHTED–AVERAGE DUMPING MARGINS—Continued 

Exporter Producer Weighted–Average Deposit Rate 

Jiangsu By–products ................................................. Jiangsu By–products 70.28 

China–Wide Rate ....................................................... ............................................................................ 264.09 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d) of 

the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to 

suspend liquidation of all entries of 

subject merchandise, entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. We will instruct CBP to 

require a cash deposit or the posting of 

a bond equal to the weighted–average 

amount by which the normal value 

exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above. 

The suspension of liquidation will 

remain in effect until further notice. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

preliminary affirmative determination of 

sales at less than fair value. Because we 

have postponed the deadline for our 

final determination to 135 days from the 

date of publication of this preliminary 

determination, section 735(b)(2) of the 

Act requires the ITC to make its final 

determination as to whether the 

domestic industry in the United States 

is materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports of 

artist canvas, or sales (or the likelihood 

of sales) for importation, of the subject 

merchandise within 45 days of our final 

determination. 

Public Comment 

Case briefs or other written comments 

may be submitted to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration no 

later than seven days after the date of 

the final verification report is issued in 

this proceeding and rebuttal briefs 

limited to issues raised in case briefs no 

later than five days after the deadline 

date for case briefs. A list of authorities 

used and an executive summary of 

issues should accompany any briefs 

submitted to the Department. This 

summary should be limited to five pages 

total, including footnotes. 

In accordance with section 774 of the 

Act, we will hold a public hearing, if 

requested, to afford interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on arguments 

raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a 

request for a hearing is made, we intend 

to hold the hearing three days after the 

deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs 

at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 

14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230, at a time and 

location to be determined. Parties 

should confirm by telephone the date, 

time, and location of the hearing two 

days before the scheduled date. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests 

should contain the party’s name, 

address, and telephone number, the 

number of participants, and a list of the 

issues to be discussed. At the hearing, 

each party may make an affirmative 

presentation only on issues raised in 

that party’s case brief and may make 

rebuttal presentations only on 

arguments included in that party’s 

rebuttal brief. 

We will make our final determination 

no later than 135 days after the date of 

publication of this preliminary 

determination, pursuant to section 

735(a)(2) of the Act. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: October 28, 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–22149 Filed 11–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–201–830 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Carbon 

and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests by 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on carbon 

and alloy steel wire rod (‘‘wire rod’’) 

from Mexico for the period of review 

(‘‘POR’’) October 1, 2003, through 

September 30, 2004. 

We preliminarily determine that 

during the POR, Hylsa Puebla, S.A. de 

C.V. (‘‘Hylsa Puebla’’) and Siderurgica 

Lazaro Cardenas Las Truchas S.A. de 

C.V., and its affiliate, CCC Steel GmbH, 

collectively (‘‘SICARTSA’’) sold subject 

merchandise at less than normal value 

(‘‘NV’’). If these preliminary results are 

adopted in the final results of this 

administrative review, we will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties 

equal to the difference between the 

export price (‘‘EP’’) and NV. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tipten Troidl or Jolanta Lawska at (202) 

482–1767 or (202) 482–8362, 

respectively, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 3, Import Administration, Room 

1870, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 29, 2002, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on wire rod 

from Mexico; 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). On October 

1, 2004, we published in the Federal 

Register the notice of Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation: Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 69 

FR 58889 (October 1, 2004). 

On October 18, 2004, we received a 

request for review from SICARTSA: On 

October 27, 2004, we received a request 

for review from petitioners,1 with 

respect to Hylsa Puebla and Sicartsa: On 

October 29, 2004, Hylsa Puebla and its 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 67423 

2Hylsa Puebla is a wholly-owned subsidiary of 

Hylsa, S.A. de C.V., which in turn is wholly-owned 

by Hylsamex, a Mexican holding company. 

3The most recently completed segment in which 

SICARTSA participated was the first administrative 

review. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain 

Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico, 70 FR 25809 

(May 16, 2005) (‘‘First Review of Wire Rod from 

Mexico’’). 

4Section A: Organization, Accounting Practices, 

Markets and Merchandise 

Section B: Comparison Market Sales 

Section C: Sales to the United States 

Section D: Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value 

parent company Hylsamex, S.A. de C.V. 

(‘‘Hylsamex’’),2 requested a review. 

These reviews were requested in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). 

On November 19, 2004, we published 

the notice of initiation of this 

antidumping duty administrative review 

covering the period October 1, 2003, 

through September 30, 2004. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 69 FR 67701 (November 19, 

2003). 

During the most recently completed 

segment of the proceeding in which 

SICARTSA participated, the Department 

found and disregarded sales that failed 

the cost test.3 Pursuant to section 

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘the Act’’), we had 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that sales by SICARTSA of the foreign 

like product under consideration for the 

determination of NV in this review were 

made at prices below the cost of 

production (‘‘COP’’). Therefore, we 

initiated a cost investigation of 

SICARTSA, and instructed the company 

to fill out sections A–D4 of our initial 

questionnaire which was issued on 

December 9, 2003. SICARTSA 

submitted sections A–C on January 28, 

2005, and its section D on February 11, 

2005. 

On February 24, 2005, petitioners 

submitted a sales–below-cost allegation 

against Hylsa Puebla. We determined 

that petitioners’ cost allegations 

provided a reasonable basis to initiate a 

COP investigation of Hylsa Puebla’s 

sales. See Letter from Petitioners 

alleging below–cost sales by Hylsa 

Puebla, dated February 24, 2005, in the 

case file in the Central Records Unit 

(‘‘CRU’’), main Commerce building, 

room B–099. Also, on July 7, 2005, we 

informed Hylsa Puebla that it was 

required to respond to section D of the 

antidumping questionnaire. See Letter 

from the Department to Hylsa Puebla 

requiring a section D questionnaire 

response, dated July 7, 2005, in the 

CRU. On August 8, 2005, Hylsa Puebla 

submitted its response to the section D 

questionnaire. 

On April 26, 2005, the Department 

published an extension of preliminary 

results for this review, extending the 

preliminary results until October 31, 

2005. See Carbon and Certain Alloy 

Steel Wire Rod: Extension of 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 

321395 (April 26, 2005). 

On June 20, 2005, the Department 

issued a supplemental section A–D 

questionnaire to SICARTSA. We 

received SICARTSA’s response to the 

section A–D supplemental 

questionnaire on July 15, 2005. On 

August 8, 2005, the Department issued 

a supplemental section A–C 

questionnaire to Hylsa Puebla. On 

September 8, 2005, we issued Hylsa 

Puebla a supplemental section D 

questionnaire. We received the response 

to Hylsa Puebla’s section A–C 

supplemental questionnaire on 

September 6, 2005, and a response to 

the section D supplemental 

questionnaire on September 30, 2005. 

On October 17, 2005, we issued an 

additional supplemental questionnaire 

to SICARTSA pertaining to the 

company’s level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) in the 

home and U.S. markets. Because we did 

not receive SICARTSA’s questionnaire 

response until October 25, 2005, we are 

not incorporating the information in its 

response in these preliminary results. 

We invite interested parties to comment 

on how the Department should 

incorporate the information from 

SICARTA’s October 25, 2005, 

questionnaire response into the final 

results. 

Scope of Review 

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 

67424 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 

5Effective January 1, 2004, CBP reclassified 

certain HTSUS numbers related to the subject 

merchandise. See http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/ 

tarifflchapterslcurrent/toc.html. 

(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, 7213.91.3090, 

7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 

7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 

7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 

7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 

7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 

7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051, 

7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 

7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although 

the HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and customs purposes, 

the written description of the scope of 

this proceeding is dispositive.5

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, all products produced by the 

respondents covered by the description 

in the ‘‘Scope of Review’’ section, 

above, and sold in Mexico during the 

POR are considered to be foreign like 

products for purposes of determining 

appropriate product comparisons to 

U.S. sales. We have relied on eight 

criteria to match U.S. sales of subject 

merchandise to comparison–market 

sales of the foreign like product or 

constructed value (‘‘CV’’): grade range, 

carbon content range, surface quality, 

deoxidation, maximum total residual 

content, heat treatment, diameter range, 

and coating. These characteristics have 

been weighted by the Department where 

appropriate. Where there were no sales 

of identical merchandise in the home 

market made in the ordinary course of 

trade to compare to U.S. sales, we 

compared U.S. sales to the next most 

similar foreign like product on the basis 

of the characteristics listed above. 

Where there were no sales of the foreign 

like product in the home market 

suitable for matching to the subject 

merchandise, we used constructed value 

as the basis for normal value. 

Comparisons to Normal Value 

To determine whether sales of wire 

rod from Mexico were made in the 

United States at less than NV, we 

compared the EP to the NV, as described 

in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal 

Value’’ sections of this notice. In 

accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of 

the Act, we calculated monthly 

weighted–average prices for NV and 

compared these to individual U.S. 

transactions. See the company–specific 

calculation memoranda, available in the 

CRU. 

Export Price 

For the price to the United States, we 

used EP in accordance with sections 

772(a) of the Act. We calculated EP 

when the merchandise was sold by the 

producer or exporter outside of the 

United States directly to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States prior to importation and when 

Constructed Export Price was not 

otherwise warranted based on the facts 

on the record. We based EP on the 

packed cost–insurance-freight (‘‘CIF’’), 

ex–factory, free–on-board (‘‘FOB’’), or 

delivered prices to the first unaffiliated 

customer in, or for exportation to, the 

United States. 

In accordance with section 772(c)(2) 

of the Act, we made deductions, where 

appropriate, for movement expenses 

including inland freight from plant or 

warehouse to port of exportation, 

foreign brokerage, handling and loading 

charges, U.S. brokerage, and U.S. inland 

freight expenses (freight from port to the 

customer). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c) 

and in keeping with our practice, we 

added interest, freight, and other 

revenue (i.e., Mexican and U.S. 

brokerage and handling, and duty 

charged to customer) where applicable. 

See, e.g., Light–Walled Rectangular Pipe 

and Tube from Mexico: Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination, 69 FR 19400, 

19406 (April 13, 2004); unchanged in 

Light–Walled Rectangular Pipe and 

Tube From Mexico: Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 69 FR 53677 (September 2, 

2004). 

Normal Value 

A. Selection of Comparison Markets 

To determine whether there was a 

sufficient volume of sales in the home 

market to serve as a viable basis for 

calculating NV, we compared each 

respondent’s volume of home market 

sales of the foreign like product to the 

volume of its U.S. sales of the subject 

merchandise. Pursuant to sections 

773(a)(1)(B) and 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, 

because each respondent had an 

aggregate volume of home market sales 

of the foreign like product that was 

greater than five percent of its aggregate 

volume of U.S. sales of the subject 

merchandise, we determined that the 

home market was viable for all 

producers. 

B. Arm’s–Length Test 

SICARTSA and Hylsa Puebla reported 

sales of the foreign like product to 

affiliated end–users and affiliated 

resellers. The Department calculates the 

NV based on a sale to an affiliated party 

only if it is satisfied that the price to the 

affiliated party is comparable to the 

price at which sales are made to parties 

not affiliated with the producer or 

exporter, i.e., sales at arm’s–length. See 

19 CFR 351.403(c). To test whether 

these sales were made at arm’s–length, 

we compared the starting prices of sales 

to affiliated and unaffiliated customers 

net of all movement charges, direct 

selling expenses, discounts and packing. 

In accordance with the Department’s 

current practice, if the prices charged to 

an affiliated party were, on average, 

between 98 and 102 percent of the 

prices charged to unaffiliated parties for 

merchandise identical or most similar to 

that sold to the affiliated party, we 

consider the sales to be at arm’s–length 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 67425 

prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c); see also, 

Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated 

Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of 

Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187 (November 

15, 2002). Conversely, where sales to the 

affiliated party did not pass the arm’s–

length test, all sales to that affiliated 

party have been excluded from the NV 

calculation. Id. Both Hysla and 

SICARTSA had sales that did not pass 

the arm’s–length test and were excluded 

from the NV calculation. 

C. Cost of Production (‘‘COP’’) Analysis 

1. Calculation of COP 

Before making any comparisons to 

NV, we conducted a COP analysis of 

SICARTSA and Hylsa Puebla, pursuant 

to section 773(b) of the Act, to 

determine whether the respondents’

comparison market sales were made 

below the COP. We calculated the COP 

based on the sum of the cost of materials 

and fabrication for the foreign like 

product, plus amounts for selling, 

general, and administrative expenses 

(‘‘SG&A’’) and packing, in accordance 

with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We 

relied on the respondents’ information 

as submitted. 

In the prior review we found that for 

iron ore and lime, major inputs in wire 

rod production, the affiliates’ average 

COP exceeded the transfer price 

SICARTSA paid to its affiliated 

suppliers. See Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of the Antidumping Duty: 

Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 

Mexico, 69 FR 64722, 64725 (November 

8, 2004); unchanged in Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Carbon and 

Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From 

Mexico, 70 FR 25809 (May 16, 2005). In 

the current review, we preliminarily 

find that with respect to SICARTSA’s 

affiliates, the average COP for iron ore 

exceeded the transfer price SICARTSA 

paid for those inputs. Therefore, 

pursuant to section 773(f)(3) of the Act, 

we applied the major input rule and 

adjusted SICARTSA’s reported cost of 

manufacturing to account for purchases 

of iron ore from affiliated parties at 

non–arm’s–length prices. We were 

unable to compare the transfer price for 

iron ore to a market price as there were 

no unaffiliated purchases or sales. See 

SICARTSA’s February 11 2005 

Questionnaire Response at Exhibit D–5 

and page D–9. We therefore, adjusted 

SICARTSA’s reported cost of 

manufacturing (‘‘COM’’) to reflect the 

higher COP. Regarding SICARTSA’s 

purchases of lime from affiliated parties, 

we preliminarily find that its purchases 

were not large enough to warrant 

examining whether the purchases were 

at arm’s length. See Exhibit D–5 of 

SICARTSA’s February 11, 2005 

response. This approach is consistent 

with the Department’s practice. See, 

e.g., Comment 26 of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum that 

accompanied the Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value; Certain Cold–Rolled Carbon 

Steel Flat Products From France, 67 FR 

62114 (October 3, 2002). Therefore, we 

have accepted SICARTSA’s cost of lime 

inputs from its affiliated parties, as 

reported. 

2. Test of Comparison Market Prices 

As required under section 773(b)(2) of 

the Act, we compared the weighted–

average COP to the per–unit price of the 

comparison market sales of the foreign 

like product, to determine whether 

these sales had been made at prices 

below the COP within an extended 

period of time in substantial quantities, 

and whether such prices were sufficient 

to permit the recovery of all costs within 

a reasonable period of time. In 

accordance with the statute and the 

Department’s practice, we determined 

the net comparison market prices for the 

below–cost test by subtracting from the 

gross unit price any applicable 

movement charges, discounts, rebates, 

direct and indirect selling expenses 

(also subtracted from the COP), and 

packing expenses. See section 773(b) of 

the Act; see also Certain Steel Concrete 

Reinforcing Bars From Turkey: 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Notice of 

Intent Not To Revoke in Part, 69 FR 

25063, 25066 (May 5, 2004); unchanged 

in Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing 

Bars From Turkey: Final Results, 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review in Part, and 

Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 69 

FR 64731 (November 8, 2004). 

3. Results of the COP Test 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of 

the Act, where less than 20 percent of 

sales of a given product were at prices 

less than the COP, we did not disregard 

any below–cost sales of that product 

because we determined that the below–

cost sales were not made in ‘‘substantial 

quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more 

of a respondent’s sales of a given 

product during the POR were at prices 

less than the COP, we determined such 

sales to have been made in ‘‘substantial 

quantities.’’ See section 773(b)(2)(C) of 

the Act. The sales were made within an 

extended period of time in accordance 

with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, 

because they were made over the course 

of the POR. In such cases, because we 

compared prices to POR–average costs, 

we also determined that such sales were 

not made at prices which would permit 

recovery of all costs within a reasonable 

period of time, in accordance with 

section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. 

Therefore, for SICARTSA and Hylsa 

Puebla, for purposes of this 

administrative review, we disregarded 

below–cost sales of a given product and 

used the remaining sales as the basis for 

determining NV, in accordance with 

section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See the 

company–specific calculation 

memoranda on file in the CRU for our 

calculation methodology and results. 

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison Market Prices 

We calculated NV based on ex–works, 

FOB or delivered prices to comparison 

market customers. We recalculated the 

starting price taking into account, where 

necessary, billing adjustments and early 

payment discounts. Pursuant to section 

773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we made 

deductions from the starting price, 

when appropriate, for rebates, handling, 

loading, inland freight, warehousing, 

inland insurance. In accordance with 19 

CFR 351.401(c), we added interest 

revenue and other revenue, where 

applicable. In accordance with sections 

773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, we 

added U.S. packing costs and deducted 

comparison market packing, 

respectively. In addition, we made 

circumstance of sale (‘‘COS’’) 

adjustments for direct expenses, 

including imputed credit expenses, and 

warranty expenses in accordance with 

section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. 

We also made adjustments, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for 

indirect selling expenses incurred on 

comparison market or U.S. sales where 

commissions were granted on sales in 

one market but not in the other, the 

‘‘commission offset.’’ Specifically, 

where commissions are incurred in one 

market, but not in the other, we will 

limit the amount of such allowance to 

the amount of either the selling 

expenses incurred in the one market or 

the commissions allowed in the other 

market, whichever is less. 

When comparing U.S. sales with 

comparison market sales of similar, but 

not identical, merchandise, we also 

made adjustments for physical 

differences in the merchandise in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We 

based this adjustment on the difference 

in the variable cost of manufacturing for 

the foreign like product and subject 

merchandise, using POR–average costs. 

67426 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 

Sales of wire rod purchased by the 

respondents from unaffiliated producers 

and resold in the comparison market 

were treated in the same manner 

described above in the ‘‘Export Price’’

section of this notice. 

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Constructed Value 

When we could not determine the NV 

based on comparison market sales 

because there were no contemporaneous 

sales of a comparable product, we 

compared the EP to CV. In accordance 

with section 773(e) of the Act, we 

calculated CV based on the sum of the 

COM of the product sold in the United 

States, plus amounts for SG&A 

expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. 

For price–to-CV comparisons, we 

made adjustments to CV for COS 

differences, in accordance with section 

773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. 

We made COS adjustments by 

deducting direct selling expenses 

incurred on comparison market sales 

and adding U.S. direct selling expenses. 

F. Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined 

NV based on sales in the comparison 

market at the same level of trade as the 

EP sales, to the extent practicable. When 

there were no sales at the same LOT, we 

compared U.S. sales to comparison 

market sales at a different LOT. When 

NV is based on CV, the NV LOT is that 

of the sales from which we derive SG&A 

expenses and profit. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412, to 

determine whether comparison market 

sales were at a different LOT, we 

examined stages in the marketing 

process and selling functions along the 

chain of distribution between the 

producer and the unaffiliated (or arm’s–

length) customers. If the comparison–

market sales were at a different LOT and 

the differences affect price 

comparability, as manifested in a 

pattern of consistent price differences 

between the sales on which NV is based 

and comparison–market sales at the 

LOT of the export transaction, we will 

make an LOT adjustment under section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 

With respect to Sicartsa, for these 

preliminary results, we did not make a 

LOT adjustment because we did not 

find a LOT in the home market identical 

to the U.S. LOT, and thus we lacked the 

basis for quantifying the adjustment. 

This approach is consistent with the 

method employed in the prior 

administrative review. See page 5 of the 

November 1, 2004 memorandum to the 

file, ‘‘Preliminary Calculation 

Memorandum for Siderurgica Lazaro 

Cardenas Las Truchas (SICARTSA)’’

from Tipten Troidl, Case Analyst, Office 

of AD/CVD Operations III. As discussed 

above, we decided not to incorporate 

the information regarding LOT from 

Sicartsa’s October 25, 2005, submission 

into these preliminary results. However, 

our finding on this issue may change in 

the final results. 

In its questionnaire response, Hylsa 

Puebla did not claim a LOT adjustment. 

See Hylsa Puebla Sections B and C 

questionnaire response dated February 

4, 2005 at page 28. Moreover, based on 

our analysis of the facts of this 

administrative review, we preliminarily 

determine that there is no substantial 

difference in the selling functions 

between the sales on which NV is based 

and the export transactions. All of Hylsa 

Puebla’s U.S. sales are reported as EP 

sales. Thus, we have matched EP sales 

to sales in the home market without 

regard to level of trade and made no 

level of trade adjustment. 

For a detailed description of our LOT 

methodology and a summary of 

company–specific LOT findings for 

these preliminary results, see the 

calculation memoranda, all on file in 

the CRU. 

Currency Conversion 

For purposes of these preliminary 

results, we made currency conversions 

in accordance with section 773A(a) of 

the Act, based on the official exchange 

rates published by the Federal Reserve 

Bank. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

following percentage weighted–average 

margins exist for the period October 1, 

2003, through September 30, 2004: 

Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) 

Hylsa Puebla ................ 4.97 

SICARTSA .................... 4.28 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed within five days 

of the date of publication of this notice 

to the parties of this proceeding in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An 

interested party may request a hearing 

within 30 days of publication of these 

preliminary results. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 

will be held 37 days after the date of 

publication, or the first working day 

thereafter, unless the Department alters 

the date pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). 

Interested parties may submit case briefs 

no later than 30 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results 

of review. Rebuttal briefs limited to 

issues raised in the case briefs, may be 

filed no later than 35 days after the date 

of publication. Parties who submit 

arguments are requested to submit with 

the argument (1) a statement of the 

issue, and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument. Further, parties submitting 

written comments are requested to 

provide the Department with an 

additional copy of the public version of 

any such comments on diskette. 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, or 

at a hearing, within 120 days of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

Assessment Rate 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

Department calculated an assessment 

rate for each importer of the subject 

merchandise. Upon issuance of the final 

results of this administrative review, if 

any importer–specific assessment rates 

calculated in the final results are above 

de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), 

the Department will issue appraisement 

instructions directly to CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on appropriate 

entries by applying the assessment rate 

to the entered value of the merchandise. 

For assessment purposes, we calculated 

importer–specific assessment rates for 

the subject merchandise by aggregating 

the dumping margins for all U.S. sales 

to each importer and dividing the 

amount by the total entered value of the 

sales to that importer. Where 

appropriate, to calculate the entered 

value, we subtracted international 

movement expenses (e.g., international 

freight) from the gross sales value. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

To calculate the cash deposit rate for 

each producer and/or exporter included 

in this administrative review, we 

divided the total dumping margins for 

each company by the total net value for 

that company’s sales during the review 

period. 

The following deposit rates will be 

effective upon publication of the final 

results of this administrative review for 

all shipments of wire rod from Mexico 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date, as provided by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash 

deposit rates for the companies listed 

above will be the rates established in the 

final results of this review, except if the 

rate is less than 0.5 percent and, 

therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit 

will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed 

or investigated companies not listed 

above, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company–specific 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 67427 

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 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 20.11 percent, the 

‘‘All Others’’ rate established in the 

LTFV investigation. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 

Value: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel 

Wire Rod From Mexico, 67 FR 55800 

(August 30, 2002). 

These cash deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until publication of the final results of 

the next administrative review. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice 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 administrative review is issued 

and published 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. 05–22147 Filed 11–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–827 

Certain Cased Pencils from the 

People’s Republic of China; Notice of 

Final Results of Expedited Sunset 

Review of Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maureen Flannery at (202) 482–3020, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

SUMMARY: On July 1, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated a sunset review of 

the antidumping duty order on Certain 

Cased Pencils from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC). On the basis 

of a Notice of Intent to Participate, and 

an adequate substantive response filed 

on behalf of domestic interested parties, 

as well as a lack of response from 

respondent interested parties, the 

Department conducted an expedited 

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

the sunset review, the Department finds 

that revocation of the antidumping duty 

order would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping. 

The dumping margins are identified in 

the Final Results of Review section of 

this notice. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: 

On July 1, 2005, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

sunset review of the antidumping duty 

order on Certain Cased Pencils from the 

PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 

See Initiation of Five-year (Sunset) 

Reviews, 70 FR 38101 (July 1, 2005) 

(Initiation Notice). On July 14, 2005, the 

Department received a Notice of Intent 

to Participate from domestic interested 

parties, Sanford Corp.; General Pencil 

Co., Inc.; Rose Moon Inc.; Tennessee 

Pencil Co.; and Musgrave Pencil Co., 

within the deadline specified in section 

315.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department’s 

regulations. Sanford Corp.; General 

Pencil Co.; Inc.; Rose Moon Inc.; 

Tennessee Pencil Co.; and Musgrave 

Pencil Co. claimed interested party 

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

Act, as manufacturers of cased pencils 

in the United States. On August 1, 2005, 

the Department received a complete 

substantive response from domestic 

interested parties within the deadline 

specified in section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of 

the Department’s regulations. We did 

not receive responses from any 

respondent interested parties to this 

proceeding. As a result, pursuant to 

section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 

section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations, the 

Department determined to conduct an 

expedited review of the order. 

Scope of the Order: 

Imports covered by this order are 

shipments of certain cased pencils of 

any shape or dimension (except as 

described below) which are writing and/ 

or drawing instruments that feature 

cores of graphite or other materials, 

encased in wood and/or man–made 

materials, whether or not decorated and 

whether or not tipped (e.g., with erasers, 

etc.) in any fashion, and either 

sharpened or unsharpened. The pencils 

subject to the order are classified under 

subheading 9609.10.00 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Specifically 

excluded from the scope of the order are 

mechanical pencils, cosmetic pencils, 

pens, non–cased crayons (wax), pastels, 

charcoals, chalks, and pencils produced 

under U.S. patent number 6,217,242 

from paper infused with scents by the 

means covered in the above–referenced 

patent, thereby having odors distinct 

from those that may emanate from 

pencils lacking the scent infusion. Also 

excluded from the scope of the order are 

pencils with all of the following 

physical characteristics: 1) length: 13.5 

or more inches; 2) sheath diameter: not 

less than one–and-one quarter inches at 

any point (before sharpening); and 3) 

core length: not more than 15 percent of 

the length of the pencil. Although the 

HTSUS subheading is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. 

On June 3, 2005, the Department 

determined that certain Fiskars Brands, 

Inc.’s compasses are not included in the 

scope of the order. See Notice of Scope 

Rulings, 70 FR 55110 (September 29, 

2005). The Department determined on 

February 18, 2005, that Rich Frog 

Industries Inc.’s certain decorated 

wooden gift pencils are within the scope 

of the order, and on March 5, 2005, in 

response to Target Corporation, that 

RoseArt Clip ’N Color is excluded from 

the scope of the order. See Notice of 

Scope Rulings, 70 FR 41347 (July 19, 

2005). In response to a request by 

Barthco Trade Consultants, on May 22, 

2003, the Department determined that 

twist crayons were outside the scope of 

the order. On September 29, 2004, in 

response to Target Corporation, the 

Department determined that the ‘‘Hello 

Kitty Fashion Totes’’ were outside the 

scope of the order. On September 29, 

2004, in response to Target Corporation, 

the Department determined that ‘‘Hello 

Kitty Memory Maker’’ was outside the 

scope of the order and that ‘‘Crayola the 

Wave’’ was outside the scope of the 

order. See Notice of Scope Rulings, 70 

FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). On February 

9, 1998, in response to Creative Designs 

International, Ltd., the Department 

determined that ‘‘Naturally Pretty,’’ a 

young girl’s 10 piece dress–up vanity 

set, including two 3–inch pencils, was