Notices. Notice of dates of submission of State revenue and expenditure reports for fiscal year (FY) 2007 and of revisions to those reports

39,403 words·~179 min read·/register/2007/11/07/07-5527

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

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-867] Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from The People's Republic of China: Notice of Decision of the Court of International Trade Not in Harmony AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 3, 2007, the United States Court of International Trade (“Court”) entered a final judgment sustaining the fourth remand results made by the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) pursuant to the Court's remand of the antidumping duty order on Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) in *Changchun Pilkington Safety Glass Co., Ltd., et al. v.

United States* , consol. Ct. No. 02-00312, Slip Op 07-118 (August 3, 2007) (“ *Pilkington* ”). This case arises out of the Department's * Antidumping Duty Order: Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China * , 67 FR 16087 (April 4, 2002) (“Order”). The final judgment in this case was not in harmony with the Department's *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of China* , 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002) (“ *Final Determination* ”), and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum (“Decision Memo”), as amended at 67 FR 11670 (March 15, 2002), covering the period of investigation (“POI”), July 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-4474. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In separate actions, plaintiffs, Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd. (“Fuyao”), Xinyi Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. (“Xinyi”), Changchun Pilkington Safety Glass, Co., Ltd, Guilin Pilkington Safety Glass Co., Ltd., and Wuhan Yaohua Pilkington Safety Glass Co., Ltd. (collectively “Pilkington”), and Benxun Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. (“Benxun”) 1 contested several aspects of the *Final Determination* , including the Department's decision to disregard certain market economy inputs. 2 On February 15, 2006, while the cases were consolidated, the Court remanded the Department's decision regarding certain market economy inputs to the Department. *See Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd. v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 02-00282, 2006 Ct. Int'l Trade Lexis 21, Slip Op. 2006-21 (CIT February 15, 2006) (“ *Fuyao Glass III* ”). In its remand to the Department, the Court concluded with respect to the standard applied in the Department's analysis that the Department must conduct its analysis “in accordance with the court's finding with respect to the use of the word `are' rather than `may be' when applying its subsidized price methodology.” *Fuyao Glass III* , Slip Op. P. 9. The Court further directed the Department to either

(1)“concur with the court's conclusions with respect to substantial evidence, or

(2)re-open the record . . .” *Fuyao Glass III* , Slip Op. P. 7. The Court concluded that it does not find the Department's determination, *i.e.* , that prices from South Korea and Indonesia are subsidized, is supported by substantial record evidence. *See Fuyao Glass III* , Slip Op. p. 16. Pursuant to the Court's ruling, and under respectful protest, the Department concurred that the record evidence does not contain substantial evidence to support a conclusion that prices from South Korea and Indonesia are subsidized. *See Viraj Group v. United States* , 343 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Because the Court found that the evidence on the record does not support the Department's determination to disregard prices from South Korea and Indonesia, in the remand results, the Department determined to calculate the dumping margin for Fuyao and Xinyi, mandatory respondents, based upon prices the plaintiffs actually paid to suppliers located in South Korea and Indonesia. As a result of its remand determination, the Department calculated zero margins for both Fuyao and Xinyi. 1 On July 20, 2004, the Department determined that Shenzhen CSG Autoglass Co., Ltd. (``CSG'') is the successor-in-interest to Benxun. The amended final results of this segment of the proceeding will apply to entries made by CSG on or subsequent to July 20, 2004. 2 Court Nos. 02-00282, 02-00312, 02-00320 and 02-00321. On August 2, 2002, the Court consolidated these actions into Court No. 02-00282. In *Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co. v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 02-00282, (Orders of November 2, 2006 and December 19, 2006) (“ *Fuyao Glass IV* ”), the Court then granted the Department's request for a voluntary remand and instructed the Department to devise a reasonable methodology to calculate an antidumping margin for Pilkington and Benxun, taking into consideration the zero margins assigned to Fuyao and Xinyi. On January 8, 2007, the Court severed Fuyao's and Xinyi's actions, Court Nos. 02-00282 and 02-00321, from the consolidated action, and designated Pilkington's action, Court No. 02-00312, as the lead case, under which Court Nos. 02-00319 and 02-00320 were consolidated. On May 10, 2007, and June 28, 2007, respectively, the Court issued final judgments in Court Nos. 02-00282 and 02-00321, wherein it affirmed the Department's third remand results with respect to Fuyao's and Xinyi's actions. The Department then completed its voluntary remand in which it devised a reasonable methodology to calculate an antidumping margin for Pilkington and Benxun, taking into consideration the zero margins assigned to Fuyao and Xinyi. Specifically, on remand, the Department identified the control numbers (“CONNUMS”) shared by the Pilkington Plaintiffs, Benxun, Fuyao and Xinyi, as reported in their questionnaire responses, and “impute{d} Fuyao's and Xinyi's CONNUM-specific margins to the matching CONNUMs of the {the Pilkington Plaintiffs} and Benxun.” Commerce then weight-averaged those CONNUM-specific margins, which resulted in the *de minimis* antidumping margin of 1.47 percent for the Pilkington Plaintiffs and Benxun. On August 3, 2007, the Court issued a final judgement, wherein it affirmed the Department's fourth remand results with respect to Pilkington and Benxun. Timken Notice In its decision in *Timken Co., v. United States* , 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“ *Timken* ”), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Department determination. The Court's decision in *Pilkington* on August 3, 2007, constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Department's *Final Determination* . This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of *Timken* . Accordingly, the Department will issue an amended final determination and revised instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection if the Court's decision is not appealed or if it is affirmed on appeal. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of the Act. Dated: October 31, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-21875 Filed 11-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-867] Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order Pursuant to Court Decision: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2007. SUMMARY: On June 28, 2007, the United States Court of International Trade (“Court”) entered a final judgement in * Xinyi Automotive Glass v. United States * , Ct. No. 02-00321, Judgment (CIT, June 28, 2007) (“ *Xinyi v. United States* ”) sustaining the third remand results made by the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) pursuant to the Court's remand of the final determination with respect to *Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People' Republic of China* (“PRC”) in Slip Op. 06-21 (CIT, February 15, 2006). This case arises out of the Department's *Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China* , 67 FR 16087 (April 4, 2002) (“AD Order”). As there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this case, the Department is amending the final determination and antidumping duty order of this investigation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz or Robert Bolling, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-4474 and

(202)482-3434, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This case arises out of the Department's AD Order and *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of China* , 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002) (“ *Final Determination* ”), and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum (“Decision Memo”), as amended at 67 FR 11670 (March 15, 2002), covering the period of investigation (“POI”), July 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000. Following publication of the *Final Determination* , Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd. et al. (“Fuyao”), Xinyi Automotove Glass (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (“Xinyi”), 1 Shenzhen Benxun Automotove Glass Co., Ltd. (Benxun), 2 and Changchun Pilkington Safety Glass, Co., Ltd., Guilin Pilkington Safety Glass Co., Ltd., and Wuhan Yao hua Pilkington Safety Glass Co., Ltd. (collectively “Pilkington”) filed lawsuits with the Court challenging the Department's *Final Determination* . 3 Plaintiffs, Fuyao, Xinyi, Benxun, and Pilkington, initially in separate lawsuits, contested several aspects of the *Final Determination* , including the Department's decision to disregard certain market economy inputs. On August 2, 2002, all law suits challenging the *Final Determination* , including Xinyi's lawsuit, were consolidated into *Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd. v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 02-00282. On February 15, 2006, while the cases were still consolidated, the Court issued its third remand concerning the Department's decision concerning certain market economy inputs. *See Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co. v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 02-00282, Slip Op. 2006-21, (CIT, February 15, 2006). In its remand to the Department, the Court concluded with respect to the standard applied in the Department's analysis, that the Department must conduct its analysis “in accordance with the Court's finding with respect to the use of the word 'are' rather than 'may be' when applying its subsidized price methodology.” *Id* . at 9. The Court further directed the Department to either

(1)“concur with the court's conclusions with respect to substantial evidence, or

(2)re-open the record . . .” *Id* . at 7. The Court concluded that it does not find the Department's determination, that prices from South Korea and Indonesia are subsidized, is supported by substantial record evidence. *Id* . at 16. Pursuant to the Court's ruling, and under respectful protest, the Department concurred that the record evidence does not contain substantial evidence to support a conclusion that prices from South Korea and Indonesia are subsidized. *See Viraj Group v. United States* , 343 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Because the Court found that the evidence on the record does not support the Department's determination to disregard prices from South Korea and Indonesia, in the remand results, the Department determined to calculate the dumping margin for Fuyao and Xinyi based upon prices the plaintiffs actually paid to suppliers located in South Korea and Indonesia. 1 Fuyao and Xinyi were mandatory respondents during the POI. 2 The Department determined that Shenzhen CSG Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. is a successor-in-interest to Benxun. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 43388 (July 20, 2004). 3 Court Nos. 02-00282, 02-00312, 02-00320, and 02-00321. On January 8, 2007, Xinyi's action was severed from the consolidated action. *See* Court Order of January 8, 2007, in Ct. No. 02-00282. On June 28, 2007, the Court issued a final judgment, wherein it affirmed the Department's third remand results with respect to Xinyi's action, *Xinyi v. United States* . On September 13, 2007, consistent with the decision in *Timken Co. v. United States* , 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the Department notified the public that the Court's decision was not in harmony with the Department's final determination. *See Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from The People's Republic of China: Notice of Decision of the Court of International Trade Not in Harmony* , 72 FR 52344 (September 13, 2007). No party appealed the Court's decision. As there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this case, we are amending our *Final Determination.* Amended Final Determination As the litigation in this case has concluded, the Department is amending the *Final Determination* to reflect the results of our third remand determination. The revised dumping margin in the amended final determination is as follows: Exporter Margin (percent) Xinyi Automotive Glass (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. 0.00 The PRC-wide rate continues to be 124.5 percent as determined in the Department's *Final Determination* . The Department intends to issue instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) fifteen days after publication of this notice, to revise the cash deposit rates for the company listed above, effective as of the publication date of this notice. Because Xinyi obtained a preliminary injunction, we will also instruct CBP to liquidate all entries, without regard to antidumping duties. This notice is published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: October 31, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-21876 Filed 11-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-867] Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order Pursuant to Court Decision: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: *Effective Date:* November 7, 2007. SUMMARY: On May 10, 2007, the United States Court of International Trade (“Court”) sustained the *Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd. et al.* , v. *United States* (February 15, 2006) (“ *Third Remand Redetermination* ”) made by the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) pursuant to the Court's third remand of the final determination of the less-than-fair-value investigation of Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). *See Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co.* v. *United States* , Consol. Court No. 02-00282, Slip Op. 06-21 (CIT February 15, 2006) (“ *Fuyao Glass III* ”). As there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this case, the Department is amending the final determination and antidumping duty order of this investigation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz or Robert Bolling, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-4474 and

(202)482-3434, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This case arose out of the Department's *Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the PRC* , 67 FR 16087 (April 4, 2002) and the Department's *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of China* , 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002) (“ *Final Determination* ”), and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum (“Decision Memo”), as amended at 67 FR 11670 (March 15, 2002), covering the period of investigation (“POI”), July 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000. Following publication of the *Final Determination* , in separate actions, Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd. *et al.* (“Fuyao”), Xinyi Automotive Glass (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (“Xinyi”), 1 Shenzhen Benxun Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. (Benxun), 2 and Changchun Pilkington Safety Glass, Co., Ltd., Guilin Pilkington Safety Glass Co., Ltd., and Wuhan Yao hua Pilkington Safety Glass Co., Ltd. (collectively “Pilkington”) filed lawsuits with the Court challenging the Department's *Final Determination* . 3 Collectively, the plaintiffs contested several aspects of the *Final Determination* , including the Department's decision to disregard certain market economy inputs. On August 2, 2002, all lawsuits challenging the *Final Determination* , including Xinyi's lawsuit, were consolidated into *Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd.* v. *United States* , Consol. Court No. 02-00282. On February 15, 2006, while the cases were still consolidated, the Court issued a third remand order to the Department concerning its decision regarding certain market economy inputs. *See Fuyao Glass III.* The Court concluded with respect to the standard applied in the Department's analysis, that the Department must conduct its analysis “in accordance with the court's finding with respect to the use of the word ‘are’ rather than ‘may be’ when applying its subsidized price methodology.” *Id.* at 9. The Court further directed the Department to either

(1)“concur with the court's conclusions with respect to substantial evidence, or

(2)re-open the record * * *.” *Id.* at 7. The Court concluded that it does not find the Department's determination, that prices from South Korea and Indonesia are subsidized, is supported by substantial record evidence. *See id.* at 16. Pursuant to the Court's ruling, and under respectful protest, the Department concurred that the record evidence does not contain substantial evidence to support a conclusion that prices from South Korea and Indonesia are subsidized. *See Viraj Group* v. *United States* , 343 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Because the Court found that the evidence on the record does not support the Department's determination to disregard prices from South Korea and Indonesia, in the remand results, the Department determined to calculate the dumping margin for Fuyao and Xinyi based upon prices the plaintiffs actually paid to suppliers located in South Korea and Indonesia. 1 Fuyao and Xinyi were mandatory respondents during the POI. 2 The Department determined that Shenzhen CSG Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. is a successor-in-interest to Benxun. *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 43388 (July 20, 2004). 3 Court Nos. 02-00282, 02-00312, 02-00320, and 02-00321. On January 8, 2007, Fuyao's action was severed from the consolidated action. *See* Court Order of January 8, 2007, in Ct. No. 02-00282. On May 10, 2007, the Court issued a final judgment wherein it affirmed the Department's third remand results with respect to Fuyao's action. On May 30, 2007, consistent with the decision in *Timken Co.* v. *United States* , 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the Department notified the public that the Court's decision was not in harmony with the Department's final determination. *See Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Decision of the Court of International Trade Not in Harmony* , 72 FR 29969 (May 30, 2007). No party appealed the Court's decision. As there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this case, we are amending our *Final Determination* . Amended Final Determination As the litigation in this case has concluded, the Department is amending the *Final Determination* to reflect the results of our third remand determination. The revised dumping margin in the amended final determination is as follows: Exporter Margin (percent) Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd 0.00 The PRC-wide rate continues to be 124.5 percent as determined in the Department's *Final Determination* . The Department intends to issue instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) fifteen days after publication of this notice, to revise the cash deposit rates for the company listed above, effective as of the publication date of this notice. Because Fuyao obtained a preliminary injunction, we will also instruct CBP to liquidate all entries without regard to antidumping duties. This notice is published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: October 31, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-21877 Filed 11-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-122-840] Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Canada AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Canada for the period October 1, 2005, to September 30, 2006 (the POR). We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise by Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and Sivaco Ontario (a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.) (collectively referred to as “Ivaco”) have been made below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from the publication of this notice. The Department recently concluded a changed circumstance review in which it determined that, as of the publication of that final changed circumstance review, “(1) Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. is the successor-in-interest to Ivaco Rolling Mills L.P.; and

(2)Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P., is the successor-in-interest to Ivaco Inc. for antidumping duty cash deposit purposes.” *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada* , 72 FR 15102 (March 30, 2007) (Ivaco Changed Circumstances Review). Sivaco Ontario (a Division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.) was also identified as the successor-in-interest to Sivaco Ontario. *See* CBP Message Number 7116210, April 26, 2007. The results of this administrative review, for cash deposit purposes, will apply to Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and to Sivaco Ontario (a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P). Assessment instructions issued subsequent to the final results would apply to unliquidated entries of not only Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and Sivaco Ontario (a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.), but also those of Ivaco Rolling Mills L.P., Ivaco Inc., and Sivaco Ontario. Note that Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. is referred to below as IRM, and Sivaco Ontario (a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.) is referred to below as Sivaco Ontario (even though “Sivaco Ontario” was the name of the predecessor company to Sivaco Ontario (a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.)). DATES: *Effective Dates:* November 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Bezirganian or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1131 or

(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 29, 2002, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod (steel wire rod) from Canada. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada* , 67 FR 65944 (October 29, 2002) (Order). On October 2, 2006, the Department issued a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order for the October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006 POR. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 57920 (October 2, 2006). On October 31, 2006, Mittal Canada Inc. (formerly Ispat Sidbec Inc.) (Mittal Canada) requested an administrative review of its entries that were subject to the antidumping duty order for this period. On that same date, the Department received a request from petitioners (Mittal Steel USA Inc.—Georgetown, Gerdau USA Inc., Nucor Steel Connecticut Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and Rocky Mountain Steel Mills) for a review of Ivaco, Inc. and Ivaco Rolling Mills L.P. (which petitioners referred to collectively as “Ivaco”). Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P., also requested a review of their entries. On November 27, 2006, the Department published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 68535 (November 27, 2006). 1 Mittal Canada subsequently withdrew its request for review, and the Department rescinded the administrative review with respect to Mittal Canada. *See Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada* , 72 FR 51408 (September 7, 2007). 1 The Department's initiation notice referenced the following companies: Mittal Canada Inc. (formerly Ispat Sidbec Inc.); Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P.; and Sivaco Ontario Processing (a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.). The Department, for these preliminary results, is considering that a combined entity referenced as ``Ivaco'' encompasses the following: Ivaco Rolling Mills L.P.; Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P.; Ivaco, Inc.; Sivaco Ontario; and Sivaco Ontario (a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.). Ivaco submitted a response to section A of the Department's questionnaire on January 16, 2007, and a response to sections B, C, and D of the Department's questionnaire on February 21, 2007. In response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire dated June 8, 2007, Ivaco submitted a supplemental response for sections A, B, and C on July 13, 2007. In response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire dated September 12, 2007, Ivaco submitted a supplemental response, for sections A, B, C, and D on October 3, 2007. In response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire dated October 10, 2007, Ivaco submitted a supplemental response, for section C on October 17, 2007. On October 11, 2007, petitioners submitted comments regarding Ivaco's claims with respect to levels of trade and certain Ivaco costs, and, on October 19, 2007, Ivaco submitted a response to petitioners' comments on those issues. The Department is considering IRM and Sivaco Ontario as part of the same entity (referred to collectively in this notice as “Ivaco”), consistent with the Department's treatment of these companies in previous proceedings. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada* , 72 FR 26591 (May 10, 2007) and *Ivaco Changed Circumstance Review* , 72 FR 15102. Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) definitions for

(a)stainless steel;

(b)tool steel;

(c)high nickel steel;

(d)ball bearing steel; and

(e)concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are

(f)free machining steel products ( *i.e.* , products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. Grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is defined as:

(i)Grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter;

(ii)with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns);

(iii)having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns;

(iv)having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114;

(v)having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.15 mm;

(vi)capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and

(vii)containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown:

(1)0.78 percent or more of carbon,

(2)less than 0.01 percent of aluminum,

(3)0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur,

(4)0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and

(5)not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium. Grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as:

(i)Grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter;

(ii)with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns);

(iii)having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns;

(iv)having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114;

(v)having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm;

(vi)capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and

(vii)containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown:

(1)0.78 percent or more of carbon,

(2)less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum,

(3)0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur,

(4)0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and

(EP)or constructed export price (CEP), as defined in sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), respectively. Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold before the date of importation by the producer or exporter outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under section 772(c) of the Act. Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and

(d)of the Act. Ivaco made both EP and CEP transactions. We calculated an EP for sales where the merchandise was sold directly by Ivaco to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We calculated a CEP for sales made by Ivaco after importation to the United States (where the merchandise was located at an unaffiliated processor facility or unaffiliated distributor warehouse at the time of sale). For EP sales, we made additions to the starting price (gross unit price), where appropriate, for freight revenue received by Ivaco (reimbursement by customers for freight charges paid by Ivaco) and for billing errors (debit-note price adjustments made by Ivaco), and deductions, where appropriate, for billing adjustments (including credit-note price adjustments made by Ivaco), early payment discounts and rebates, and movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Movement expenses included inland freight, warehousing expenses, and brokerage fees. For CEP sales, we made adjustments to the starting price as for the EP transactions described above. However, consistent with our treatment of these expenses in recent administrative reviews, we re-categorized freight from one unaffiliated processor in the United States to another unaffiliated processor in the United States as further manufacturing costs. *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada* , 71 FR 3822 (January 24, 2006) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; and *Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada* , 71 FR 64921, 64923 (November 6, 2006) (unchanged in final results, 72 FR 26591 (May 10, 2007)). In addition, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) and

(2)of the Act, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, including direct selling expenses (imputed credit expenses and warranty expenses), imputed inventory carrying costs, and further manufacturing. Finally, in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we deducted an amount of profit allocated to the expenses deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and

(2)of the Act. *See* the October 31, 2007, Memorandum from Steve Bezirganian, Analyst, through Robert James, Program Manager, entitled “Analysis Memorandum for Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada (A-122-840)” (Ivaco Analysis Memorandum). Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Markets Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if quantity is inappropriate) and that there is not a particular market situation that prevents a proper comparison with sales to the United States. The statute contemplates that quantities (or value) will normally be considered insufficient if they are less than five percent of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to the United States. *See* section 773(a)(1) of the Act. We found that Ivaco had a viable home market for steel wire rod. *See* Ivaco Analysis Memorandum. Ivaco submitted home market sales data for purposes of the calculation of NV. In deriving NV, we made adjustments as detailed in the “Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices” section below. B. Cost of Production Analysis Because we disregarded below-cost sales in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding, we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that home market sales of the foreign like product by the respondent were made at prices below the cost of production

(COP)during the POR. *See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada* , 70 FR 41681, 41684 (July 20, 2005) (unchanged in final results, 71 FR 3822 (January 24, 2006)); and section 773(b) of the Act. Therefore, we required Ivaco to file a response to Section D of the Department's Questionnaire. 1. Calculation of Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the weighted-average COP, by model, based on the sum of materials, fabrication, and general and administrative (G&A) expenses. 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices We compared the weighted-average COPs for the respondent to its home market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time ( *i.e.* , normally a period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a model-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates, and direct and indirect selling expenses. 3. Results of the COP Test We disregard below-cost sales where

(1)20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were made at prices below the COP in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and

(C)of the Act, and

(2)based on comparisons of price to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we determine that the below-cost sales of the product were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable time period, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We found that Ivaco made sales below cost and we disregarded such sales where appropriate. C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices We determined NV for Ivaco as follows. We made adjustments to the gross price to account for billing adjustments, and deducted discounts and rebates. We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and

(B)of the Act. We also deducted home market movement expenses pursuant to sections 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale

(COS)pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. Specifically, we made adjustments for Ivaco's EP transactions by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales ( *i.e.* , credit expenses and warranty expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses ( *i.e.* , credit expenses and warranty expenses). *See* section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.410(c). Where we compared Ivaco's U.S. sales to home market sales of merchandise, we made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. D. Arm's-Length Sales The respondent reported sales of the foreign like product to affiliated customers. To test whether these sales to affiliated customers were made at arm's length, where possible, we compared the prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Where the price to that affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise sold to the unaffiliated parties at the same level of trade, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. *See Modification Concerning Affiliated Party Sales in the Comparison Market* , 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). Ivaco's sales to affiliated parties that were determined not to be at arm's length were disregarded in our comparison to U.S. sales. E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that, where NV cannot be based on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on constructed value (CV). Accordingly, for those models of steel wire rod for which we could not determine the NV based on comparison-market sales, either because there were no sales of a comparable product or all sales of the comparison products failed the COP test, we based NV on CV. Section 773(e)(1) of the Act provides that CV shall be based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the imported merchandise plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), profit, and U.S. packing expenses. We calculated the cost of materials and fabrication based on the methodology described in the COP section of this notice. We based SG&A and profit on the actual amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the comparison market, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. We made adjustments to CV for differences in COS in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For CEP and EP comparisons, we deducted direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales ( *i.e.* , credit expenses and warranty expenses). *See* Section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act; and 19 CFR 351.410(c). For EP sales, we added U.S. direct selling expenses ( *i.e.* , credit expenses and warranty expenses) to the NV. F. Level of Trade/Constructed Export Price Offset In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade

(LOT)as the EP and CEP sales, to the extent practicable. When there are no sales at the same LOT, we compare 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(c)(2), to determine whether comparison market sales were at a different LOT, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm's-length) customers. The Department identifies the LOT based on: the starting price or constructed value (for normal value); the starting price (for EP sales); and the starting price, as adjusted under section 772(d) of the Act (for CEP sales). 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. Finally, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the differences in LOT between NV and CEP affected price comparability, we will grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. *See, e.g. Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa,* , 62 FR 61731, 61732-33 (November 19, 1997). Ivaco reported home market sales in two channels of distribution:

(1)Direct sales by IRM and

(2)direct sales by Sivaco Ontario. Ivaco reported U.S. EP sales in two channels of distribution:

(1)Direct sales by IRM to U.S. customers and

(2)direct sales by Sivaco Ontario to U.S. customers. Finally, Ivaco reported U.S. CEP sales in one channel of distribution:

(1)Direct sales by IRM to U.S. customers made from the facilities of unaffiliated U.S. processors or unaffiliated U.S. warehouses. Ivaco claims that all of IRM's home market and U.S. sales are at one LOT, and that all of Sivaco's home market and U.S. sales are at another, more advanced, LOT. Ivaco states that the Department should calculate a LOT adjustment when sales by IRM are matched to sales by Sivaco. Ivaco also states that, if the Department determines that IRM's U.S. CEP sales are at a different LOT from all Ivaco's home market sales, the Department should grant a CEP offset. To determine whether there were multiple LOTs, we examined the selling functions performed by Ivaco for its customers. We found few differences in selling functions across the various channels of distribution and, based on this examination, we preliminarily determine that Ivaco sold merchandise at one LOT in both markets. *See* the October 31, 2007 memorandum from Steve Bezirganian, through Robert James, to Richard Weible, “Level of Trade Analysis for Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada (A-122-840).” Consequently, there is no basis for calculating a level-of-trade adjustment or a CEP offset. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A of the Act, based on exchange rates in effect on the date of the U.S. sale, as provided by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average margin exists for the period October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006: Producer/exporter Weighted-average margin (percentage) Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. 4.44 Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P. 4.44 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of publication of this notice. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than five days after submission of case briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument

(1)a statement of the issues,

(2)a brief summary of the arguments, and

(3)a table of authorities. Further, parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. 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 two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs, or the first working day thereafter. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3) of the Act. Assessment Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will calculate an assessment rate on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue assessment instructions directly to CBP on or after 41 days following the publication of the final results of review, pursuant to 19 CFR 356.8(a). We will calculate importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. 2 The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by companies included in these final results of reviews for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary ( *e.g.* , a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there was no rate calculated in this review for the intermediary involved in the transaction. *See Assessment Policy Notice* , 68 FR at 23954, for a full discussion of this clarification. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of steel wire rod from Canada entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)The cash deposit rates for Ivaco will be the rates established in the final esults of this review, except if a 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 rate published for the most recent period;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value

(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and

(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 8.11 percent, the ``All Others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect util publication of the final results of the next administrative review. 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 entities 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. These preliminary results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 2 According to Ivaco, IRM served as the importer for almost all of the U.S. sales of IRM, and Sivaco Ontario served as the importer for all of the U.S. sales of Sivaco Ontario. Because IRM and Sivaco Ontario are considered part of the same entity, there is in effect only one importer, so only one importer-specific assessment rate has been calculated for application to entries imported by IRM or Sivaco Ontario. In addition, for several reported U.S. sales of IRM, Ivaco indicates it cannot identify the importer. Ivaco states these sales involved galvanized wire rod that was exported to the United States by the U.S. customer. Separate company-specific assessment rates have been calculated for application to entries associated with such transactions. *See* Ivaco Analysis Memorandum. Dated: October 31, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-21869 Filed 11-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 35-DS-P 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, 2005, through September 30, 2006. We preliminarily determine that during the POR, Hylsa Puebla, S.A. de C.V. (“Hylsa”) made sales 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. DATES: *Effective Dates:* November 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Conniff or Jolanta Lawska, 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; telephone:

(202)482-1009 or

(202)482-8362, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 29, 2002, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order on wire rod from 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 2, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the notice of *Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 57920 (October 2, 2006). On October 31, 2006, we received a request for review from petitioners, 1 with respect to Hylsa and Siderurgica Lazaro Cardenas Las Truchas S.A. de C.V. (“Sicartsa”). This review was requested in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). 1 The petitioners are Mittal Steel USA Inc., Gerdau USA Inc., Nucor Steel Connecticut Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and Rocky Mountain Steel Mills (collectively “the petitioners”). On November 27, 2006, we published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 68535 (November 27, 2006). On December 28, 2006, petitioners withdrew their request for a review of Sicartsa pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). On May 25, 2007, we published in the **Federal Register** the notice of rescission for Sicartsa; *see Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 29300 (May 25, 2007). On February 5, 2007, Hylsa submitted its section A response to the Department's December 8, 2006, initial questionnaire. On February 12, 2007, Hylsa submitted its sections B-C response to the Department's initial questionnaire. On June 11, 2007, Hylsa submitted its supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's May 4, 2007, questionnaire for sections A-C. On September 6, 2007, Hylsa submitted its second supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's August 23, 2007, questionnaire for sections A-C. On September 20, 2007, Hylsa submitted its third supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's September 10, 2007, questionnaire for sections A-C. On February 20, 2007, Hylsa submitted its section D response to the Department's December 7, 2007, questionnaire. On July 16, 2007, Hylsa submitted its supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's June 18, 2007, questionnaire for section D. On September 13, 2007, Hylsa submitted its second questionnaire response to the Department's August 23, 2007, questionnaire for section D. On October 10, 2007, Hylsa submitted its third supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's October 3, 2007, questionnaire for section D. On March 30, 2007, the petitioners submitted comments with respect to Hylsa. On May 17, 2007, the Department published a notice extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of the fourth administrative review from July 3, 2007, to October 31, 2007. *See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 27801 (May 17, 2007). 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

(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 decarborization 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 decarborization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns);

(iii)having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns;

(iv)having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114;

(v)having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm;

(vi)capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and

(vii)containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown:

(1)0.78 percent or more of carbon,

(2)less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum,

(3)0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur,

(4)0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and

(5)either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified). For purposes of the grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and the grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered to be deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis—that is, the direction of rolling—of the rod) over thickness (measured on the same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for purposes of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the measurement of the largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This measurement methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 24, 2003. The designation of the products as “tire cord quality” or “tire bead quality” indicates the acceptability of the product for use in the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement applications, and such merchandise 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. 2 2 Effective January 1, 2004, CBP reclassified certain HTSUS numbers related to the subject merchandise. See *http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/tariff_chapters_current/toc.html* . Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“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. 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. Export Price For the price to the United States, we used EP in accordance with section 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) and insurance. We also adjusted EP for billing adjustments. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(e)(2) and in keeping with our practice, we added interest, freight, and other revenue ( *i.e.* , Mexican and U.S. brokerage and handling) 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 Hylsa'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 Hylsa 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. B. Arm's-Length Test Hylsa 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 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.* Some of Hylsa's sales 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 Hylsa, 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 adjusted Hylsa's reported general and administrative expenses to account for certain costs. The Department normally includes these costs in the calculation of COP. *See* October 31, 2007, memorandum to the file, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results—Hylsa Puebla S.A. de C.V.” from Gina K. Lee, Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting. 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. We also adjusted the gross unit price for billing adjustments and interest revenue. *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 Hylsa, 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 October 31, 2007, memorandum to the file, “Preliminary Calculation Memorandum for Hylsa S.A. de C.V.” (“Calculation Memorandum for Hylsa”) from Jolanta Lawska, Case Analyst, Office of AD/CVD Operations III, available in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”) Import Administration, Washington, DC, HCHB Building, Room B 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 calculated 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 handling, loading, inland freight, and inland insurance. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.402, we added interest 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. In its questionnaire response, Hylsa did not claim a LOT adjustment. *See* Hylsa's Section A questionnaire response dated February 12, 2007, at page 29. 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'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 Hylsa's LOT findings for these preliminary results, *see* page 3 of the October 31, 2007, calculation memorandum for Hylsa. 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, 2005, through September 30, 2006: Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) Hylsa 17.78 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. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(d). 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 Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. After 41 days of publication of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer-specific *ad valorem* 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. The total customs value is based on the entered value reported for each importer for all U.S. entries of subject merchandise purchased during the POR for consumption in the United States. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the companies included in these preliminary results for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the “All Others” rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company or companies involved in the transaction. Cash Deposit Requirements To calculate the cash deposit rate for Hylsa in this administrative review, we divided the total dumping margins by the total net value for this 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 rate published for the most recent final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less than fair value (“LTFV”) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and

(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 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, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-21870 Filed 11-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-274-804] Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On July 6, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the antidumping duty

(AD)administrative review on carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from Trinidad and Tobago. This review covers one producer of subject merchandise. The period of review

(POR)is October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006. *See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 72 FR 36955 (July 6, 2007) ( *Preliminary Results* ). Based on our analysis of comments received, these final results do not differ from the preliminary results. The final results are listed below in the *Final Results of Review* section. DATES: *Effective Dates:* November 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore or Dennis McClure, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3692 or

(202)482-5973, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 6, 2007, the Department published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the AD order on wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago. *See Preliminary Results.* This review covers imports of wire rod from Mittal Steel Point Lisas Limited and its affiliates Mittal Steel North America

(MSNA)and Walker Wire (Ispat) Inc. (collectively Mittal) during the POR, October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006. We invited interested parties to comment on the *Preliminary Results.* On August 6, 2007, we received a case brief from the petitioners: ISG Georgetown Inc., Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North Star Steel Texas, Inc. On August 10, 2007, we extended Mittal's deadline for submitting its rebuttal brief. On August 13, 2007, we received Mittal's rebuttal brief. Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for

(a)stainless steel;

(b)tool steel;

(c)high nickel steel;

(d)ball bearing steel; and

(e)concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are

(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,