[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 93 (Monday, May 15, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27989-27991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-7360]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-201-830)


Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On November 7, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published the preliminary results of its second 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and 
certain alloy steel wire rod from Mexico. The review covers two 
producers of the subject merchandise. The period of review (POR) is 
October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004. Based on our analysis of 
comments received, these final results differ from the preliminary 
results. The final results are listed below in the ``Final Results of 
Review'' section.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 15, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tipten Troidl or Jolanta Lawska, at 
(202) 482-1767 or (202) 482-8362, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14\th\ Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 7, 2005, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the preliminary results of the first administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod 
from Mexico. See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Carbon and Certain Steel Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico, 70 
FR 67422 (November 7, 2005) (Preliminary Results). On December 7, 2005, 
petitioners \1\ requested a hearing, and on December 7, 2005, Hylsa 
Puebla, S.A. de C.V. (Hylsa) also requested a hearing. On January 6, 
2006, both petitioners and Hylsa withdrew their requests for a hearing. 
No other interested parties requested a hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc., ISG Georgetown Inc., Keystone 
Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North Star Steel Texas, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On 
December 14, 2005, we received case briefs from Siderurgica Lazaro 
Cardenas Las Truchas S.A. de C.V. (SICARTSA), Hysla, and petitioners. 
All parties submitted rebuttal briefs on December 19, 2005.

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

[[Page 27990]]

steel products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or more of 
the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or 
more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent 
of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 
percent of tellurium).
    Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire 
rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire 
cord quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 tire cord quality wire 
rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-
sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no 
more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) 
having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no 
deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon 
segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 
04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a 
length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter 
of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing 
by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 
percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 
0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 
0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, 
in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium.
    This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 
tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 
7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial 
decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 
200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 
microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) 
having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using 
European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no 
surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being 
drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per 
ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the 
proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 
0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the 
aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of 
nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, 
of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not 
more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a 
chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified).
    For purposes of the grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and the 
grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered 
to be deformable if its ratio of length (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 the 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 subject to this order are currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3092, 7213.91.4500, 
7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0000, 7227.90.6010, 
and 7227.90.6080 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description 
of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Effective January 1, 2006, U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) reclassified certain HTSUS numbers related to the 
subject merchandise. See http: //hotdocs.usitc.gov/ tariff--
chapters--current/toc.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    The issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this 
administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary 
(Wire Rod Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. 
A list of the issues addressed in the Wire Rod Decision Memorandum is 
appended to this notice. The Wire Rod Decision Memorandum is on file in 
the Central Records Unit in Room B-099 of the main Commerce building, 
and can also be accessed directly on the Web at www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. 
The paper copy and electronic version of the Wire Rod Decision 
Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of comments received for Hylsa, we have: (1) 
Included our weighting of characteristic methodology used in prior 
segments which was omitted for the preliminary results; (2) made 
adjustments to the reported costs of direct materials (iron ore and 
steel scrap) from affiliated suppliers; (3) recalculated Hylsa's 
warranty expense ratio using a three-year history of U.S. warranty 
claims; (4) revised Hylsa's parent company's calculation of G&A 
expenses to include ``corporate charges from affiliated parties;'' (5) 
adjusted Hylsa's General & Administrative (G&A) expense ratio to 
account for ``parent company profit sharing expenses;'' (6) corrected a 
ministerial error in the calculation of net price for U.S. sales with 
billing adjustments. See May 8, 2006, Final Calculation Memorandum for 
Hylsa Puebla, S.A. de C.V.
    Based on our analysis of comments received for SICARTSA and our 
finding, we have: (1) Included our weighting of characteristic 
methodology used in prior segments which was omitted for the 
preliminary results; (2) removed an improper adjustment to cost of 
manufacturing; (3) included the variable for debit notes in the 
programs; (4) corrected a syntax error in summing home-market credit 
expenses; (5) corrected an error in which we improperly excluded 
partially unpaid accounts receivables; (6) renamed a file of home-
market selling expenses used

[[Page 27991]]

for constructed value which is imported from the comparison market 
program to the margin program; (7) removed an incorrect adjustment made 
to SICARTSA's general and administrative expense; (8) used the invoice 
date as the date of sale in the comparison market program; and (9) 
applied a per-unit assessment rate. See May 8, 2006, Final Calculation 
Memorandum for Siderurgica Lazaro Cardenas Las Truchas (SICARTSA).
    Both Hylsa's and SICARTSA's adjustments are discussed in detail in 
the accompanying Wire Rod Decision Memorandum.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine that the following 
weighted-average margins exist for the period October 01, 2003, through 
September 30, 2004:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Weighted-
                        Producer                          Average Margin
                                                           (Percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hylsa..................................................           1.81
SICARTSA...............................................           1.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment

    The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b). For 
Hylsa, the Department has calculated 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. For SICARTSA, the Department has 
calculated importer-specific assessment rates on a per-unit basis. 
Specifically, to calculate the assessment rate on a per-unit basis, the 
Department divided the total dumping margin for SICARTSA (calculated as 
the difference between normal value and export price) for each importer 
by the total quantity of subject merchandise sold to that importer 
during the POR. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will 
instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by 
that importer. The Department will issue appropriate assessment 
instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these 
final results of review.

Cash Deposits

    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for 
all shipments of carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Mexico 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a) 
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act): (1) For SICARTSA and 
Hylsa, the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed above; (2) for 
merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this 
review but covered a prior segment, the cash deposit rate will continue 
to be the company-specific rate from the final results; (3) if the 
exporter is not a firm covered in this review or a prior segment, but 
the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the 
producer of the merchandise in these final results of review or in the 
final determination; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the producer 
is a firm covered in this review or the investigation, the cash deposit 
rate will be 20.11 percent, the ``All Others'' rate established in the 
less-than-fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements shall 
remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a final 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 
increase in antidumping duties by the amount of antidumping duties 
reimbursed.
    This notice also is the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 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 the terms of an APO is a sanctionable 
violation.
    We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 8, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix

I. List of Comments:

Hylsa Puebla S.A. (Hysla)

Comment 1: Treatment of Home-Market Sales of Redirected Merchandise
Comment 2: Recalculation of Hylsa's Warranty Expenses
Comment 3: Hylsa's Cost of Materials from Affiliated Suppliers - Major 
Input Rule
Comment 4: Treatment of Sales with Negative Dumping Margins 
(``Zeroing'')
Comment 5: Managerial Labor Costs
Comment 6: Parent Company General and Administrative (``G&A'') Expenses
Comment 7: Parent Company Employee Profit Sharing Expenses
Comment 8: Use of Monthly Costs for Profit Calculations
Comment 9: Hylsa's Home-Market Credit Expenses
Comment 10: Error in the Calculation of Net Price for U.S. Sales with 
Billing Adjustments

Siderurgica Lazaro Cardenas las Truchas, S.A. de C.V. (SICARTSA)

Comment 11. Major Input of Iron Ore and Ferrous Scrap
Comment 12: Credit Expense using U.S. Dollar Interest Rates
Comment 13: Assessment Rate
Comment 14: Adjustment to SICARTSA's G&A Expenses
Comment 15: Home-Market Discounts and Rebates
Comment 16: Home-Market Credit Expense
Comment 17: Treatment of Unpaid Accounts Receivable
Comment 18: Incorrect File Name

[FR Doc. E6-7360 Filed 5-12-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S