Notices. Notice of Antidumping Duty Order

11,056 words·~50 min read·/register/2003/12/12/03-30797·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3510-JT-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-881] Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Antidumping Duty Order. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 12, 2003. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anya Naschak, Helen Kramer, or Ann Barnett-Dahl at

(202)482-6375,

(202)482-0405, or

(202)482-3833, respectively; Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Enforcement Group III, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of Order For purposes of this order, the products covered are certain malleable iron pipe fittings, cast, other than grooved fittings, from the People's Republic of China. The merchandise is classified under item numbers 7307.19.90.30, 7307.19.90.60 and 7307.19.90.80 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS). Excluded from the scope of this order are metal compression couplings, which are imported under HTSUS number 7307.19.90.80. A metal compression coupling consists of a coupling body, two gaskets, and two compression nuts. These products range in diameter from 1/2 inch to 2 inches and are carried only in galvanized finish. Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)purposes, the Department's written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Antidumping Duty Order In accordance with section 735(a) of the Act, the Department made its final determination that malleable iron pipe fittings

(MPF)from the People's Republic of China (the PRC) is being sold at less-than-fair-value (LTFV). *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from the PRC* , 68 FR 61395 (October 28, 2003). Subsequently, the Department amended its final determination of the antidumping duty investigation of MPF from the PRC to correct certain ministerial errors in the final margin calculation. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China* , 68 FR 65873 (November 24, 2003). On December 3, 2003, the International Trade Commission

(ITC)notified the Department of Commerce (the Department) of its final determination, pursuant to section 735(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), that the industry in the United States producing MPF is threatened with material injury by reason of import of the subject merchandise from the PRC. In accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct CBP to assess, upon further advice by the administering authority, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the U.S. price of the merchandise for all relevant entries of MPF from the PRC. Section 736(b)(2) of the Act provides that duties shall be assessed on subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination if that determination is based on the threat of material injury and is not accompanied by a finding that injury would have resulted but for the imposition of suspension of liquidation of entries since the Department's preliminary determination. In addition, section 736(b)(2) of the Act requires CBP to refund any cash deposits or bonds of estimated antidumping duties posted since the Department's preliminary antidumping determination if the ITC's final determination is based on a threat of material injury. Because the ITC's final determination in this case is based on the threat of material injury and is not accompanied by a finding that injury would have resulted but for the imposition of suspension of liquidation of entries since the Department's preliminary determination, section 736(b)(2) of the Act is applicable to this order. Therefore, the Department will direct CBP to assess, upon further advice, antidumping duties on all unliquidated entries of MPF from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination of threat of material injury in the **Federal Register** and terminate the suspension of liquidation for entries of MPF from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption prior to that date. The Department will also instruct CBP to refund any cash deposits made, or bonds posted, between the period 90 days prior to the publication date of the Department's preliminary antidumping determination and the publication of the ITC's final determination. On or after the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , CBP must require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average antidumping duty margins noted below: Exporter/Manufacturer Margin (percent) Jinan Meide Casting Co., Ltd. 11.31 Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co. Ltd. 15.92 Langfang Pannext Pipe Fitting Co., Ltd. 7.35 Chengde Malleable Iron General Factory 11.18 SCE Co., Ltd. 11.18 PRC-Wide 111.36 The “PRC-wide” rate applies to all exporters in the PRC of subject merchandise not specifically listed above. This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to MPF from the PRC, pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties may contact the Department's Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Commerce building, for copies of an updated list of the antidumping duty orders currently in effect. This order is published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.211(b). Dated: December 5, 2003. James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E3-00548 Filed 12-11-03; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Interntational Trade Administration [A-570-855] Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision and Suspension of Liquidation AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On November 20, 2003, in *Yantai Oriental Juice Co., et al.* v. United States and Coloma Frozen Foods, Inc., et al., Court No. 00-00309, Slip Op. 03-150, the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) affirmed the Department of Commerce's (“the Department's”) remand determinations and entered a judgment order. This litigation related to the Department's *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate From the People's Republic of China* , 65 FR 19873 (April 13, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (April 6, 2000) (“ *Issues and Decision Memorandum* ”), and *Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the People's Republic of China* , 65 FR 35606 (June 5, 2000) (collectively, “ *Final Determination* ”). In its remand determinations, the Department reviewed the record evidence regarding the selection of a surrogate country; the valuation of juice apples, steam coal, and ocean freight; and the calculation of selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses, overhead, and profit. The Department found that Turkey, rather than India was the appropriate surrogate country. Juice apples, SG&A, overhead and profit were valued using surrogate value information from Turkey. Steam coal was valued using a domestic Indian price and the ocean freight rate was revised to include a rate for Detroit. As the remand determinations resulted in changes to calculated company-specific margins, the Department also recalculated the separate rate margin it applied to producers/exporters that responded to the Department's separate rate (“Section A”) questionnaire but were not selected to respond (“separate-rate companies”). The calculated antidumping rate for Xian Yang Fuan Juice Co., Ltd. (“Fuan”), Xian Asia Qin Fruit Co., Ltd. (“Asia”), Changsha Industrial Products & Minerals Import & Export Corporation (“Changsha Industrial”), and Shandong Foodstuffs Import & Export Corporation (“Shandong Foodstuffs”) (collectively “separate-rate companies”) is 3.83 percent. The remand determinations also resulted in weighted average margins of zero percent for Yantai Oriental Juice Co. (“Oriental”), Qingdao Nannan Foods Co. (“Nannan”), Sanmenxia Lakeside Fruit Juice Co. Ltd. (“Lakeside”), Shaanxi Haisheng Fresh Fruit Juice Co. (“Haisheng”), and SDIC Zhonglu Juice Group Co. (“Zhonglu”). Therefore, these companies will be excluded from the antidumping duty order on certain non-frozen apple juice concentrate (“AJC”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The PRC-wide rate of 51.74 percent is unchanged from our final determination in the investigation. Consistent with the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in *Timken Co. v. United States* , 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“Timken”), the Department will continue to order the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise until there is a “conclusive” decision in this case. If the case is not appealed, or if it is affirmed on appeal, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to terminate the suspension of liquidation for Oriental, Nannan, Lakeside, Haisheng, and Zhonglu and revise the cash deposit rate from the investigation for Fuan, Asia, Changsha Industrial, and Shandong Foodstuffs. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 12, 2003. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Audrey Twyman or John Brinkmann, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3534 or

(202)482-4126, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Following publication of the *Final Determination* , Oriental, Nannan, Lakeside, Haisheng, Zhonglu, Fuan, Asia, Changsha Industrial and Shandong Foodstuffs (collectively the “respondents”), filed lawsuits with the CIT challenging the Department's *Final Determination* . In the underlying investigation, the Department was required to choose a surrogate country based on “significant production” of “comparable merchandise” and “economic comparability” to the PRC. The Department selected India because it is economically comparable to the PRC, and a significant producer of apples and single strength apple juice, products the Department found to be comparable to AJC. The Department then valued the juice apples, SG&A, overhead, profit, steam coal and other factors of production in India. In calculating ocean freight rates, the Department included freight rates to Detroit in its calculation of an East Coast freight rate. The Court remanded five issues to the Department. First, the Court questioned the Department's reliance on a market study included in the petition and an annual report for an Indian company as the basis for determining that India was a significant producer of comparable merchandise. In particular, the Court found the Department had not corroborated the market study, nor had it explained the connection between the market study and the annual report, and the Department's conclusion that India was a significant producer of AJC. The Court similarly rejected the Department's determination that India's status as a significant producer of apples was relevant to the Department's treatment of India as a significant producer of comparable merchandise. The Court directed the Department to develop sufficient evidence from the record of India's suitability as the surrogate market economy country for AJC production, or, if it could not, to select another suitable country. Second, the Court instructed the Department to provide an explanation of why the distortions caused by the Government of India's market intervention scheme did not disturb the fair market value of Indian apples. The Court also directed the Department to explain why it treated government subsidies that enabled producers to lower their prices as market distorting, but did not apply the same treatment to such subsidies that raise prices. Furthermore, the Court requested that the Department explain why the price paid by Himachal Pradesh Horticultural Produce Marketing & Processing Corp., a government-controlled entity, should be considered a market-derived price. Third, for steam coal valuation, the Department used Indian import statistics data because it found that the value was contemporaneous with the period of investigation and because there was no evidence to suggest that the data was aberrational or unreliable. The Court instructed the Department either to recalculate normal value using Indian domestic prices for steam coal, or explain why the use of domestic prices for steam coal was not appropriate during the period of investigation. Fourth, the Court argued that the Department's use of data from the *Reserve Bank of India Bulletin* , rather than data from an Indian producer to value SG&A and overhead was not supported by substantial evidence on the record and instructed the Department to either recalculate these values using the financial statement of an Indian producer, or fully explain why the Department felt that the *Reserve Bank of India Bulletin* gave better financial data. Finally, the Court instructed the Department to explain its reasoning for not calculating a separate Detroit freight rate and to explain why the Department did not weigh its calculation to reflect accurately the volume of merchandise actually shipped to each destination. To assist it in complying with the Court's instructions, the Department opened the record and requested new information concerning possible surrogate countries. The petitioners submitted data supporting the use of Poland, while the respondents pointed to Turkish data that they had placed on the record in the investigation. The “Draft Results Pursuant to Court Remand” (“ *First Draft Results* ”) was released to the parties on November 6, 2002. In its First Draft Results, pursuant to the analysis followed by the Court, the Department concluded that the record did not support its determination in the investigation that India was a significant producer of AJC. Instead, the Department determined that Turkey was a more appropriate surrogate country for the PRC because it was the country most economically comparable to the PRC that was also a significant producer of AJC. Accordingly, the Department amended its calculations using Turkish data to value juice apples, SG&A expenses, overhead, and profit. The Department also changed its valuations of steam coal and East Coast freight. Because the Department's recalculated company-specific margins were all zero percent, the Department also recalculated the margin for the separate-rate companies by weighting the calculated margins of zero with the PRC-wide rate of 51.74%, resulting in a separate rates margin of 28.33%. Comments on the *First Draft Results* were received from all parties on November 12, 2002. On November 15, 2002, the Department responded to the Court's Order by filing its “Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand.” (“ *First Redetermination* ”). The Department's *First Redetermination* was similar to the *First Draft Results* except for the inclusion of the Department's response to comments submitted by the petitioners and respondents. The final margins in the *First Redetermination* were identical to the *First Draft Results* . The CIT affirmed, in part, the Department's *First Redetermination* on March 21, 2003. *See Yantai Oriental Juice Co., et al. v. United States and Coloma Frozen Foods, Inc., et al.* Court No. 00-00309, Slip Op. 03-33 (March 21, 2003). The Court affirmed the Department's calculation of company-specific margins but remanded the calculation of the antidumping margin for the separate-rate companies because the Court found that the Department's methodology, weight-averaging the PRC-wide rate and the zero margins, was not supported by substantial evidence on the record. Accordingly, the “Draft Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand” (“ *Second Draft Results* ”) was released to the parties on April 18, 2003. In its *Second Draft Results* , the Department reviewed the record evidence and, based on information on the record, calculated a normal value and export price for the separate rate companies. Using this information, the Department calculated estimated margins for the separate rate companies and weight-averaged these margins with the zero margins for the fully-investigated companies and derived a separate rate of 4.91 percent. Comments on the *Second Draft Results* were received on April 23, 2003. On May 5, 2003, the Department responded to the Court's Order of Remand by filing its “Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand.” (“ *Second Redetermination* ”). The Department's *Second Redetermination* differed from the *Second Draft Results* in that in calculating export price, we removed the fully-investigated companies' constructed export price sales, and adjusted our calculations to reflect the different terms of sale. These changes resulted in a weighted-average separate-rate margin of 3.83%. The CIT affirmed the Department's *Second Redetermination* on November 20, 2003. *See Yantai Oriental Juice Co., et al. v. United States and Coloma Frozen Foods, Inc., et al.* Court No. 00-00309, Slip Op. 03-150 (November 20, 2003). Suspension of Liquidation The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in *Timken* , held that the Department must publish notice of a decision of the CIT or the Federal Circuit which is not “in harmony” with the Department's *Final Determination* . Publication of this notice fulfills that obligation. The Federal Circuit also held that the Department must suspend liquidation of the subject merchandise until there is a “conclusive” decision in the case. Therefore, pursuant to *Timken* , the Department must continue to suspend liquidation pending the expiration of the period to appeal the CIT's November 20, 2003, decision or, if that decision is appealed, pending a final decision by the Federal Circuit. In the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or if appealed and upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to revise cash deposit rates and liquidate relevant entries covering the subject merchandise effective the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Dated: December 5, 2003. James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E3-00550 Filed 12-11-03; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-427-814] Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From France AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France. SUMMARY: On August 7, 2003, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from France. The merchandise covered by the order is stainless steel sheet and strip in coils (“SSSS”) as described in the “Scope of the Review” section of the Federal Register notice. This review covers imports of subject merchandise from Ugine, S.A (“Ugine”). The period of review (“POR”) is July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculation. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results of review. The final weighted-average dumping margin for Ugine is listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of the Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: December 12, 2003. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl Werner, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-2667. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 7, 2003, the Department published the *Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France* , 68 FR 47049 (August 7, 2003) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), we invited parties to comment on our *Preliminary Results* . On September 8, 2003, Ugine and the Petitioners filed comments. On September 15, 2003, Ugine and the Petitioners 1 filed rebuttal comments. We have now completed the administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act. 1 The Petitioners in this case are Allegheny Ludlum, AK Steel Corporation, North American Stainless, Butler-Armco Independent Union, Zanesville Armco Independent Organization Inc., and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC. Scope of the Review For purposes of this administrative review, the products covered are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed ( *e.g.* , cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, *etc* .) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTS”) at subheadings: 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, 7219.1300.81 2 , 7219.14.0030, 7219.14.0065, 7219.14.0090, 7219.32.0005, 7219.32.0020, 7219.32.0025, 7219.32.0035, 7219.32.0036, 7219.32.0038, 7219.32.0042, 7219.32.0044, 7219.33.0005, 7219.33.0020, 7219.33.0025, 7219.33.0035, 7219.33.0036, 7219.33.0038, 7219.33.0042, 7219.33.0044, 7219.34.0005, 7219.34.0020, 7219.34.0025, 7219.34.0030, 7219.34.0035, 7219.35.0005, 7219.35.0015, 7219.35.0030, 7219.35.0035, 7219.90.0010, 7219.90.0020, 7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.12.1000, 7220.12.5000, 7220.20.1010, 7220.20.1015, 7220.20.1060, 7220.20.1080, 7220.20.6005, 7220.20.6010, 7220.20.6015, 7220.20.6060, 7220.20.6080, 7220.20.7005, 7220.20.7010, 7220.20.7015, 7220.20.7060, 7220.20.7080, 7220.20.8000, 7220.20.9030, 7220.20.9060, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7220.90.0060, and 7220.90.0080. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive. 2 Due to changes to the HTS numbers in 2001, 7219.13.0030, 7219.13.0050, 7219.13.0070, and 7219.13.0080 are now 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, and 7219.13.0081, respectively. Excluded from the review of this order are the following:

(1)sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled,

(2)sheet and strip that is cut to length,

(3)plate ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more),

(4)flat wire ( *i.e.* , cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm), and

(5)razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. *See* chapter 72 of the HTS, “Additional U.S. Note” 1(d). Flapper valve steel is also excluded from the scope of the order. This product is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness

(ASTM)specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Gilphy 36.” 4 4 “Gilphy 36” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System

(UNS)as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Durphynox 17.” 5 5 “Durphynox 17” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of this order. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools ( *e.g.* , carpet knives). 6 This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as “GIN4 Mo.” The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is “GIN5” steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, “GIN6”. 7 6 This list of uses is illustrative and provided for descriptive purposes only. 7 “GIN4 Mo,” “GIN5” and “GIN6” are the proprietary grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“ *Decision Memorandum* ”) from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Group III, to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated December 5, 2003, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties raised, and to which we have responded, all of which are in the *Decision Memorandum* , is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the *Decision Memorandum* can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/* . The paper copy and electronic version of the *Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculation. The changes to the margin calculations include the following:

(1)we corrected the double-counting of warranty expenses in the total cost of production calculation;

(2)we removed imputed interest expenses from the total cost of production calculation;

(3)we deducted commission expenses from the net price used in the arm's-length test;

(4)we revised the offset for sales where the commission amount on the matched U.S. sale was zero. Successorship We determine Ugine & ALZ France to be the successor to Ugine for purposes of determining antidumping duty liability. For a complete discussion of the basis for this decision see the *Preliminary Results* (68 FR 47051, 47052). No parties have commented on our finding in the *Preliminary Results* . Therefore, Ugine & ALZ France shall be assigned the antidumping duty deposit rate in these *Final Results* . Final Results of Review We determine that the following percentage margin exists for the period July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France Manufacturer/exporter/reseller Weighted-Average Margin (percent) Ugine & ALZ France 2.93 The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. For duty-assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates by dividing the dumping margins calculated for each importer by the total entered value of sales for each importer during the period of review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from France entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)The cash deposit rate for Ugine & ALZ France will be the rate shown above;

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original 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 these or any previous reviews conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be the “all others” rate, which is 9.38 percent. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Reimbursement of Duties This notice also 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 or countervailing 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 the antidumping duties or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties or countervailing duties. Notification of Interested Parties This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 5, 2003. James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. APPENDIX 1—ISSUES IN THE DECISION MEMORANDUM 1. Date of Sale 2. U.S. Sales Database 3. Affiliated Freight-Forwarder Expenses 4. U.S. Inventory Carrying Costs 5. Home Market Credit Expenses 6. Home Market Inland Freight Expenses 7. Home Market Rebate 8. Affiliated Inland Freight Carrier Expenses 9. Ugine France Service Commissions 10. Indirect Selling Expenses 11. Gross-to-Net Adjustment 12. Constructed Export Price Offset 13. Negative Dumping Margins 14. Home Market Warranty Expenses 15. Interest Expenses 16. Commission Expenses in Arm's-Length Test 17. Home Market Commissions [FR Doc. E3-00547 Filed 12-11-03; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-475-824] Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Final Results in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy. SUMMARY: On August 7, 2003, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Department”) published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Italy. *See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy* , 68 FR 47032 (August 7, 2003) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). This review covers imports of subject merchandise from ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A (“TKAST”) and ThyssenKrupp AST USA, Inc.(“TKAST USA”). The period of review (“POR”) is July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to our analysis from the preliminary results of review. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margin for the reviewed firm is listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of the Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: December 12, 2003. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Bertrand or Robert Bolling, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-3207 or 202-482-3434, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 7, 2003, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Italy. See Preliminary Results . We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. We received written comments on September 29, 2003, from petitioners 1 and respondents. On October 6, 2003, we received rebuttal comments from respondents and on October 7, 2003, we received rebuttal comments from petitioners. 1 Petitioners in this case are Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, AK Steel Corporation, J&L Specialty Steel, Inc., North American Stainless, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, Butler Armco Independent Union and Zanesville Armco Independent Organization, Inc. Scope of Review For purposes of this administrative review, the products covered are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed ( *e.g.* , cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, *etc* .) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing. The merchandise subject to this review is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ("HTUS”) at subheadings: 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, 7219.1300.81, 2 7219.14.0030, 7219.14.0065, 7219.14.0090, 7219.32.0005, 7219.32.0020, 7219.32.0025, 7219.32.0035, 7219.32.0036, 7219.32.0038, 7219.32.0042, 7219.32.0044, 7219.33.0005, 7219.33.0020, 7219.33.0025, 7219.33.0035, 7219.33.0036, 7219.33.0038, 7219.33.0042, 7219.33.0044, 7219.34.0005, 7219.34.0020, 7219.34.0025, 7219.34.0030, 7219.34.0035, 7219.35.0005, 7219.35.0015, 7219.35.0030, 7219.35.0035, 7219.90.0010, 7219.90.0020, 7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.12.1000, 7220.12.5000, 7220.20.1010, 7220.20.1015, 7220.20.1060, 7220.20.1080, 7220.20.6005, 7220.20.6010, 7220.20.6015, 7220.20.6060, 7220.20.6080, 7220.20.7005, 7220.20.7010, 7220.20.7015, 7220.20.7060, 7220.20.7080, 7220.20.8000, 7220.20.9030, 7220.20.9060, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7220.90.0060, and 7220.90.0080. Although the HTUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive. 2 Due to changes to the HTUS numbers in 2001, 7219.13.0030, 7219.13.0050, 7219.13.0070, and 7219.13.0080 are now 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, and 7219.13.0081, respectively. Excluded from the scope of this review are the following:

(1)sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled,

(2)sheet and strip that is cut to length,

(3)plate ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more),

(4)flat wire ( *i.e.* , cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm), and

(5)razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. *See* chapter 72 of the HTUS, “Additional U.S. Note” 1(d). Flapper valve steel is also excluded from the scope of this review. This product is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness

(Hv)of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors. Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length. Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of this review. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron. Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Arnokrome III.” 3 3 “Arnokrome III” is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering Company. Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of this review. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Gilphy 36.” 4 4 “Gilphy 36” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System (“UNS”) as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Durphynox 17.” 5 5 “Durphynox 17” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Also excluded are three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools ( *e.g.* , carpet knives). 6 This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as “GIN4 Mo.” 7 The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is “GIN5” 8 steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, “GIN6.” 9 6 This list of uses is illustrative and provided for descriptive purposes only. 7 “GIN4 Mo” is the proprietary grade of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd. 8 “GIN5” is the proprietary grade of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd. 9 “GIN6” is the proprietary grade of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“ *Decision Memorandum* ”) from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated December 5, 2003, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded are attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in the *Decision Memorandum* which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the *Decision Memorandum* can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/* . The paper copy and electronic version of the *Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Sales Below Cost We disregarded sales below cost for TKAST during the course of this review. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculations for TKAST. *See Analysis for the Final Results of Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy* , (“ *Final Analysis Memorandum* ”), dated December 5, 2003. The changes to the margin calculation include the following:

(1)we recalculated inventory carrying costs for the U.S. market, *see* Comment 3 of the *Decision Memorandum* ;

(2)we removed bad debt from indirect U.S. selling expenses and reallocated it to direct U.S. selling expenses, see Comment 4 of the *Decision Memorandum* . Final Results of Review We determine that the following percentage margin exists for the period July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002: Producer/Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-average margin (percent) ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A. 1.62 Assessment Rates The Department will determine, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer-specific assessment rate for merchandise subject to this review. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to the CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. We will direct the CBP to assess the resulting assessment rates against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each of the importer's entries during the review period. For duty assessment purposes, we will calculate importer-specific assessment rates by dividing the dumping margins calculated for each importer by the total entered value of sales for each importer during the POR. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Italy entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)The cash deposit rate for TKAST will be the rate shown above;

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original 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

(1)of the Act. Dated: December 5, 2003. James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. APPENDIX—ISSUES IN THE DECISION MEMORANDUM 1. Whether the Department should Allow TKAST's Constructed Export Price Offset Adjustment 2. Whether the Department Properly Calculated Home Market Credit Expenses 3. Whether the Department should Correct TKAST's Understatement of the Inventory Holding Period for U.S. Sales 4. Whether the Department should Account for TKAST's Loss on its Unpaid U.S. Sales 5. Whether the Department should Set Negative Margins to Zero in Calculating the Aggregate Margin [FR Doc. E3-00549 Filed 12-11-03; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration C-122-841 Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances Review and Intent to Revoke Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review of the Countervailing Duty Order and Intent To Revoke Order, in Whole. SUMMARY: On November 3, 2003, in response to a request by domestic producers of the subject merchandise, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of initiation of a changed circumstances review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod, as described below. *See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances Review* , 68 FR 62282 (November 3, 2003) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”). In the *Initiation Notice* , we invited interested parties to comment on the Department's initiation and the proposed revocation of the countervailing duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Canada. We did not receive any comments. Absent any comments, we preliminarily conclude that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product to which this order pertains lack interest in the relief provided by the order. Unless the Department receives opposition from domestic producers whose production totals more than 15 percent of the domestic like product, the Department will revoke the order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod in the final results of this review. Therefore, we preliminarily revoke this order, in whole, with respect to products entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 8, 2002, *i.e.* , the publication date of the Department's preliminary determination ( *see Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada* , 67 FR 5984), because domestic parties have expressed no interest in the continuation of the order. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 12, 2003. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: S. Anthony Grasso, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-3853. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department published the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on steel wire rod from Canada on October 22, 2002. *See Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil and Canada* , 67 FR 64871 (October 22, 2002). On October 1, 2003, the Department received a request from Georgetown Steel Company (formerly GS Industries), Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc. (formerly Co-Steel Raritan), Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North Star Steel Texeas, Inc., the petitioners in the original investigation, that the Department initiate a changed circumstances review for purposes of revoking the CVD order. The basis for the petitioners' request is that they are no longer interested in maintaining the countervailing duty order or in the imposition of CVD duties on the subject merchandise. On November 3, 2003, the Department published a notice of initiation of a changed circumstances review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod products from Canada. *See Initiation Notice* , 68 FR 62282. In the *Initiation Notice* , we indicated interested parties could submit comments for consideration in the Department's preliminary results not later than 14 days after publication of the initiation of the review, and submit responses to those comments not later than 5 days following the submission of comments. No comments were received. On November 18, 2003, a respondent to the original proceeding, Ispat Sidbec, Inc. (“Ispat”), submitted a letter to the Department stating that “all three parties wish to advise the Department that they agree to the outcome of the review and, further, request that, pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.216(e), the Department render its final results of review within 45 days of initiation of the review or sooner.” Ispat claimed its letter represented the position of the only parties to the proceeding, namely, Ispat, the Government of Quebec, and the U.S. producers that filed the original petition. Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by 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. 1 1 On November 12, 2003, the Department published the final results of a changed circumstances review modifying the scope to exclude certain grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod. This modification is for all entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 24, 2003. We note that for the purposes of this changed circumstances review, the revocation of the order would be based on the original scope. *See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review* , 68 FR 64079 (November 12, 2003). 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 inclusions greater than 20 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 inclusions greater than 20 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). 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 investigation 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. Preliminary Results of Review and Intent to Revoke in Whole the Countervailing Duty Order Pursuant to section 751(d)(1) of the 1930 Tariff Act, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR § 351.222(g), the Department may revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order, in whole or in part, based on a review under section 751(b) of the Act ( *i.e.* , a changed circumstances review). Section 751(b)(1) of the Act requires a changed circumstances review to be conducted upon receipt of a request which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review. Section 782(h)(1) of the Act gives the Department the authority to revoke an order if producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product have expressed a lack of interest in the continuation of the order. Section 351.222(g) of the Department's regulations provides that the Department will conduct a changed circumstances administrative review under 19 CFR § 351.216, and may revoke an order (in whole or in part), if it concludes that

(i)producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product to which the order pertains have expressed a lack of interest in the relief provided by the order, in whole or in part, or

(ii)if other changed circumstances sufficient to warrant revocation exist. The Department has interpreted “substantially all” production normally to mean at least 85 percent of domestic production of the like product. *See Certain Tin Mill Products From Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review* , 66 FR 52109 (October 12, 2001); see also, 19 CFR § 351.208(c). As noted above and in the *Initiation Notice* , the petitioners requested this changed circumstances review on the basis that they are no longer interested in maintaining the countervailing duty order or in the imposition of CVD duties on the subject merchandise. Because the Department did not receive any comments during the comment period opposing initiation of this changed circumstances review, we preliminarily conclude that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product to which this order pertains lack interest in the relief provided by the order. In accordance with 19 CFR § 351.222(g), the Department preliminarily determines that there is a reasonable basis to believe that changed circumstances exist sufficient to warrant revocation of the order. Therefore, the Department is preliminarily revoking the order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Canada, in whole. Unless the Department receives opposition within the time limit set forth below from domestic producers whose production totals more than 15 percent of the domestic like product, the Department will revoke the order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod in its final results of review. If, as a result of this review, we revoke the order, we intend to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to liquidate without regard to applicable countervailing duties, and refund any estimated countervailing duties collected on, all unliquidated entries of the merchandise subject to the order, as described above under the “Scope of the Order” section, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 8, 2002, *i.e.* , the publication date of the Department's preliminary determination ( *see Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada* , 67 FR 5984). We will also instruct CBP to pay interest on such refunds with respect to the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 22, 2002, in accordance with section 778 of the Act. The current requirement for a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties on the subject merchandise will continue unless, and until, we publish a final determination to revoke in whole. Public Comment Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 14 days after the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR § 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in such case briefs, may be filed not later than 19 days after the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR § 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument

(1)a statement of the issue,

(2)a brief summary of the argument, and

(3)a table of authorities. Any interested party may request a hearing within 14 days of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR § 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, may be held 22 days after the date of publication of this notice, or the first working day thereafter, as practicable. Consistent with section 351.216(e) of the Department's regulations, we will issue the final results of this changed circumstances review not later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated. This notice is published in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act and sections 351.216 and 351.222 of the Department's regulations. Dated: December 5, 2003. James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E3-00546 Filed 12-11-03; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 112003C] Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Issuance of three scientific research permit modifications (1140, 1335, 1369). SUMMARY: Between June 30, 2003 and September 24, 2003, NMFS' Northwest Region issued three permit modifications allowing endangered and threatened species of Pacific salmon and steelhead to be taken for scientific research purposes under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The research actions and the species they affect are listed in the “Supplementary Information” section below. ADDRESSES: The permits, permit applications, and related documents are available for review during business hours by appointment at NMFS' Protected Resources Division, 525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737 (phone: 503-230-5400, fascimile: 503-230-5435). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin, Portland, OR (phone: 503-231-2005, fascimile: 503-230-5435, e-mail: *Garth.Griffin@noaa.gov* ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority The ESA requires that permit modifications be issued based on findings that such actions:

(1)Are applied for in good faith;

(2)would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species that are the subject of the actions; and

(3)are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Permits, modifications, and amendments are issued in accordance with, and are subject to, the ESA and NMFS' regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-226). Species Covered in this Notice The listed species/evolutionarily significant units

(ESUs)covered by this notice are threatened Puget Sound

(PS)chinook salmon ( *Oncorhynchus tshawytscha* ), threatened Snake River

(SnR)chinook salmon, threatened Upper Willamette River

(UWR)chinook salmon, threatened Lower Columbia River

(LCR)chinook salmon, and threatened Oregon Coast

(OC)Coho ( *O. kisutch* ). Dated: December 8, 2003. Phil Williams, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 03-30797 Filed 12-11-03; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 9

Traces to 9 documents

CFR