Initiation of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Canada, 11612-11614 [E5-996]
Download as PDF
11612
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 9, 2005 / Notices
acres)—adjacent to Parcel A North,
York; Parcel C (10 acres)—14 Barnhart
Drive, York; Parcel D (2 acres)—16
Barnhart Drive, York; Parcel E (23
acres)—26 Barnhart Drive (15 acres) &
29 Barnhart Drive (8 acres), Hanover;
Parcel F (9 acres)—PTIP Lots #32, 34, 37
and 38, adjoins Parcel E, York; Site 6 (27
acres)—Hanover Terminal, Center Street
at CSXT Railroad, Hanover.
The applicant is requesting authority
to reorganize the general-purpose zone
by formally deleting the existing Parcel
F (2 acres) of Site 4 and removing 500
acres of Site 4, Parcel A. The applicant
is also requesting to add a 228-acre
industrial park, 260 Hidden Lane, York
County, to be designated as the new
Parcel F of Site 4. The applicant is
further requesting to delete Parcel B of
Site 5 (Lot #11, 3 acres) and to replace
it with a 24-acre site, located at 401
Moulstown Road in Penn Township,
York County, PA.
The applicant also is requesting
authority to expand the general-purpose
zone to include 9 additional industrial
sites in south central Pennsylvania,
adjacent to the Harrisburg Customs port
of entry: Proposed Site 7 (155 acres)—
Greenspring Industrial Park, 305 Green
Springs Road, York County; Site 8 (152
acres)—Fairview Business Park,
McCarthy Drive and Industrial Drive,
York County; Site 9 (182 acres, 3
parcels)—Parcel A (34 acres)—900
Kriner Road, Chambersburg; Parcel B
(121 acres)—WCN Drive and Guilford
Springs Road, Guilford Township,
Franklin County; Parcel C (30 acres)—
Guilford Springs Road, Guilford
Township; Site 10 (1214 acres)—
Cumberland Valley Business Park
(formerly known as Letterkenny Army
Depot), 5121A Coffey Avenue, Franklin
County; Site 11 (310 acres)—Prologis
Park 81, I–81 and Walnut Bottom Road,
Cumberland County; Site 12 (242
acres)—LogistiCenter, Allen Road
Extension and Distribution Drive,
Carlisle; Site 13 (100 acres)—Capital
Business Center, Dauphin County;
Parcel A (11 acres)—400 First Street,
Middletown; Parcel B (33 acres)—401
First Street, Middletown; Parcel C (16
acres)—400 First Street Expressway,
Middletown; Parcel D (8 acres)—500
Industrial Lane, Middletown; Parcel E
(15 acres)—600 Hunter Lane,
Middletown; Parcel F (17 acres)—300
Hunter Lane, Middletown; Site 14 (164
acres)—Conewago Industrial Park, 1100
Zeager Road, Elizabethtown; and, Site
15 (70 acres)—LogistiCenter, 4950
Hanoverville Road, Bethlehem. No
specific manufacturing requests are
being made at this time. Such requests
would be made to the Board on a caseby-case basis.
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:21 Mar 08, 2005
Jkt 205001
In accordance with the Board’s
regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff
has been designated examiner to
investigate the application and report to
the Board.
Public comment on the application is
invited from interested parties.
Submissions (original and 3 copies)
shall be addressed to the Board’s
Executive Secretary at one of the
following addresses below:
1. Submissions via Express/Package
Delivery Services: Foreign-Trade Zones
Board, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Franklin Court Building—Suite 4100W,
1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20005; or
2. Submissions via U.S. Postal
Service: Foreign-Trade Zones Board,
U.S. Department of Commerce, FCB–
4100W, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.
The closing period for their receipt is
May 9, 2005. Rebuttal comments in
response to material submitted during
the foregoing period may be submitted
during the subsequent 15-day period (to
May 23, 2005).
A copy of the application will be
available for public inspection at the
Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones
Board’s Executive Secretary at address
No. 1 listed above and Foreign-Trade
Zone Corporation of Southeastern
Pennsylvania, 601 Penn Street, Suite
101, Reading, Pennsylvania 19601.
(Mittal), a Canadian exporter of steel
wire rod from Canada to the United
States. Mittal has requested that the
Department conduct a changed
circumstances review to determine that
it is the successor-in-interest to Ispat
Sidbec Inc. (Ispat), and as a result to
find that steel wire rod manufactured
and exported by Mittal should be
accorded the same treatment previously
accorded to Ispat in regards to the
antidumping order on steel wire rod
from Canada.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel O’Brien or David Neubacher, at
(202) 482–1376 or (202) 482–5823,
respectively; AD/CVD Operations,
Office 1, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street & Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
On October 29, 2002, the Department
published in the Federal Register an
antidumping duty order on steel wire
rod from Canada. See Antidumping
Order. One of the companies subject to
the investigation was Ispat. On January
14, 2005, Mittal requested that the
Department determine that it had
become the successor-in-interest of
Ispat. See Letter from Ispat to Assistant
Secretary for Import administration, Re:
Expedited Changed Circumstances
Review to Determine that Mittal Canada
Inc is the successor-in-interest to Ispat
Sidbec Inc./Administrative Review of
Antidumping Duty Order Regarding
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire
Rod from Canada (January 14, 2005).
International Trade Administration
Scope of the Order
[A–122–840]
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
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).
Dated: March 1, 2005.
Dennis Puccinelli,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05–4617 Filed 3–8–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
Initiation of Changed Circumstances
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy
Steel Wire Rod From Canada
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) is initiating a changed
circumstances administrative review of
the antidumping duty order of carbon
and certain alloy steel wire rod (steel
wire rod) from Canada 1 in response to
a request from Mittal Canada Inc.
AGENCY:
1 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)
(Antidumping Order).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 9, 2005 / Notices
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
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:06 Mar 08, 2005
Jkt 205001
(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, enduse 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.
Initiation of Changed Circumstances
Review
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),
the Department will conduct a changed
circumstances review upon request from
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11613
an interested party or receipt of
information concerning an antidumping
duty order, when either of these shows
changed circumstances sufficient to
warrant a review of the order. In this
case, the Department finds that the
information submitted by Mittal
provides sufficient evidence of changed
circumstances to warrant a review to
determine whether Mittal is the
successor-in-interest to Ispat. Thus, in
accordance with section 751(b) of the
Act, the Department is initiating a
changed circumstances review to
determine whether Mittal is the
successor-in-interest to Ispat for
purposes of determining antidumping
duty liability with respect to imports of
steel wire rod from Canada produced
and exported by Ispat and whether the
order as applied to Ispat should apply
to subject merchandise manufactured
and exported by Mittal.
In making a successor-in-interest
determination, the Department
examines several factors including, but
not limited to, changes in: (1)
Management; (2) production facilities;
(3) supplier relationships; and (4)
customer base. See, e.g., Notice of Final
Results of Changed Circumstances
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Polychloroprene Rubber From
Japan, 67 FR 58 (Jan. 2, 2002); Brass
Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460,
20462 (May 13, 1992). While no single
factor or combination of these factors
will necessarily provide a dispositive
indication of a successor-in-interest
relationship, the Department will
generally consider the new company to
be the successor to the previous
company if the new company’s resulting
operation is not materially dissimilar to
that of its predecessor. See, e.g., Fresh
and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from
Norway; Final Results of Changed
Circumstances Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 64 FR 9979
(March 1, 1999); Industrial Phosphoric
Acid from Israel; Final Results of
Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR
6944 (February 14, 1994). Thus, if the
evidence demonstrates that, with
respect to the production and sale of the
subject merchandise, the new company
operates as the same business entity as
the former company, the Department
will accord the new company the same
antidumping treatment as its
predecessor.
With regard to Ispat, Mittal claims
that the production facilities and
contractual relationships with suppliers
and customers remained unchanged
after Mittal assumed control of the
company. According to Mittal, its assets
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
11614
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 9, 2005 / Notices
have remained essentially the same as
those of Ispat.
Mittal has requested that the
Department initiate an expedited review
pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(iii). However,
because it is the Department’s practice
to examine changes in management and
customer base as part of its analysis in
such a determination, and Mittal has not
addressed these factors, we are denying
its request to conduct the changed
circumstances review on an expedited
basis.
The Department will publish in the
Federal Register a notice of preliminary
results of changed circumstances
review, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.221(c)(3)(i) (2004), which will set
forth the factual and legal conclusions
upon which our preliminary results are
based, and a description of any action
proposed based on those results.
Interested parties may submit comments
for consideration in the Department’s
preliminary results not later than 60
days after publication of this notice.
Responses to those comments may be
submitted not later than 10 days
following submission of the comments.
All written comments must be
submitted in accordance with 19 CFR
351.303 (2004), and must be served on
all interested parties on the
Department’s service list in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.303(f) (2004). The
Department will issue its final results of
review within 270 days after the date on
which the changed circumstances
review is initiated, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.216(e) (2004), and will
publish these results in the Federal
Register.
The current requirement for a cash
deposit of estimated antidumping duties
on all subject merchandise will
continue unless and until it is modified
pursuant to the final results of this
changed circumstances review.
This notice is in accordance with
sections 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.216 and 351.222 of the
Department’s regulations.
Dated: March 3, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–996 Filed 3–8–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:06 Mar 08, 2005
Jkt 205001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–822]
Helical Spring Lock Washers from the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
AGENCY:
Notice of Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review.
ACTION:
March 9, 2005.
On November 19, 2004, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published in the Federal
Register (69 FR 67701) a notice
announcing the initiation of an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on helical
spring lock washers from the People’s
Republic of China (PRC), covering the
period October 1, 2003, through
September 30, 2004, and one
manufacturer/exporter of the subject
merchandise, Hangzhou Spring Washer
Co., Ltd. (also known as Zhejiang
Wanxin Group, Ltd.) (collectively,
Hangzhou). We are now rescinding this
review as a result of Shakeproof
Assembly Components Division of
Illinois Tool Works, Inc. (Shakeproof)’s
withdrawal of its request for an
administrative review. No other parties
requested a review.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles Riggle at (202) 482–0650 or
Marin Weaver at (202) 482–2336, Import
Administration, Room 1870,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.
Rescission of Review
The Department’s regulations at 19
CFR 351.213(d)(1) provide that the
Department will rescind an
administrative review if the party that
requested the review withdraws its
request for review within 90 days of the
date of publication of the notice of
initiation of the requested review, or
withdraws its request at a later date if
the Department determines that it is
reasonable to extend the time limit for
withdrawing the request. Shakeproof
was the only party to request this review
and it withdrew its request within the
90–day period. Accordingly, this review
is rescinded. The Department will issue
appropriate assessment instructions
directly to U.S. Customs and Border
Protection within 15 days of publication
of these final results of review.
Notification Regarding APOs
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective orders (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary
information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written notification
of the return/destruction of APO
materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and terms of an APO is a violation
which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19
CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Dated: March 2, 2005.
Barbara E. Tillman,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–995 Filed 3–8–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
On October 18, 2004, Shakeproof, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b),
requested an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on helical
spring lock washers from the PRC. On
November 19, 2004, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an
administrative review of this order for
the period October 1, 2003, through
September 30, 2004. See Notice of
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 69 FR 67701. On January 31,
2005, Shakeproof withdrew its request
for this review.
International Trade Administration
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
[A–583–831]
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils
from Taiwan: Extension of Time Limit
for Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karine Gziryan or Melissa Blackledge,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11612-11614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-996]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-122-840]
Initiation of Changed Circumstances 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 initiating a
changed circumstances administrative review of the antidumping duty
order of carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod (steel wire rod) from
Canada \1\ in response to a request from Mittal Canada Inc. (Mittal), a
Canadian exporter of steel wire rod from Canada to the United States.
Mittal has requested that the Department conduct a changed
circumstances review to determine that it is the successor-in-interest
to Ispat Sidbec Inc. (Ispat), and as a result to find that steel wire
rod manufactured and exported by Mittal should be accorded the same
treatment previously accorded to Ispat in regards to the antidumping
order on steel wire rod from Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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)
(Antidumping Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel O'Brien or David Neubacher, at
(202) 482-1376 or (202) 482-5823, respectively; AD/CVD Operations,
Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 29, 2002, the Department published in the Federal
Register an antidumping duty order on steel wire rod from Canada. See
Antidumping Order. One of the companies subject to the investigation
was Ispat. On January 14, 2005, Mittal requested that the Department
determine that it had become the successor-in-interest of Ispat. See
Letter from Ispat to Assistant Secretary for Import administration, Re:
Expedited Changed Circumstances Review to Determine that Mittal Canada
Inc is the successor-in-interest to Ispat Sidbec Inc./Administrative
Review of Antidumping Duty Order Regarding Carbon and Certain Alloy
Steel Wire Rod from Canada (January 14, 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 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).
[[Page 11613]]
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 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.
Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review
upon request from an interested party or receipt of information
concerning an antidumping duty order, when either of these shows
changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. In
this case, the Department finds that the information submitted by
Mittal provides sufficient evidence of changed circumstances to warrant
a review to determine whether Mittal is the successor-in-interest to
Ispat. Thus, in accordance with section 751(b) of the Act, the
Department is initiating a changed circumstances review to determine
whether Mittal is the successor-in-interest to Ispat for purposes of
determining antidumping duty liability with respect to imports of steel
wire rod from Canada produced and exported by Ispat and whether the
order as applied to Ispat should apply to subject merchandise
manufactured and exported by Mittal.
In making a successor-in-interest determination, the Department
examines several factors including, but not limited to, changes in: (1)
Management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and
(4) customer base. See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Changed
Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polychloroprene
Rubber From Japan, 67 FR 58 (Jan. 2, 2002); Brass Sheet and Strip from
Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR
20460, 20462 (May 13, 1992). While no single factor or combination of
these factors will necessarily provide a dispositive indication of a
successor-in-interest relationship, the Department will generally
consider the new company to be the successor to the previous company if
the new company's resulting operation is not materially dissimilar to
that of its predecessor. See, e.g., Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon
from Norway; Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 64 FR 9979 (March 1, 1999); Industrial
Phosphoric Acid from Israel; Final Results of Changed Circumstances
Review, 59 FR 6944 (February 14, 1994). Thus, if the evidence
demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the
subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same business
entity as the former company, the Department will accord the new
company the same antidumping treatment as its predecessor.
With regard to Ispat, Mittal claims that the production facilities
and contractual relationships with suppliers and customers remained
unchanged after Mittal assumed control of the company. According to
Mittal, its assets
[[Page 11614]]
have remained essentially the same as those of Ispat.
Mittal has requested that the Department initiate an expedited
review pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.221(c)(3)(iii). However, because it is the Department's practice to
examine changes in management and customer base as part of its analysis
in such a determination, and Mittal has not addressed these factors, we
are denying its request to conduct the changed circumstances review on
an expedited basis.
The Department will publish in the Federal Register a notice of
preliminary results of changed circumstances review, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i) (2004), which will set forth the factual and
legal conclusions upon which our preliminary results are based, and a
description of any action proposed based on those results. Interested
parties may submit comments for consideration in the Department's
preliminary results not later than 60 days after publication of this
notice. Responses to those comments may be submitted not later than 10
days following submission of the comments. All written comments must be
submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303 (2004), and must be served
on all interested parties on the Department's service list in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f) (2004). The Department will issue its
final results of review within 270 days after the date on which the
changed circumstances review is initiated, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.216(e) (2004), and will publish these results in the Federal
Register.
The current requirement for a cash deposit of estimated antidumping
duties on all subject merchandise will continue unless and until it is
modified pursuant to the final results of this changed circumstances
review.
This notice is in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) of the Act and
19 CFR 351.216 and 351.222 of the Department's regulations.
Dated: March 3, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-996 Filed 3-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P