Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico, 67685-67688 [2010-27783]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Notices
Agreements Program announced in the
Federal Register on July 16, 2010 (75 FR
41662). The new deadline for final
applications is February 22, 2011. The
program extends the solicitation period
due to a typo made in the deadline date
published in the original
announcement.
Limitation of Liability
In no event will NOAA or the
Department of Commerce be responsible
for proposal preparation costs if this
program is cancelled because of other
agency priorities. Publication of this
announcement does not oblige NOAA to
award any specific project or to obligate
any available funds. Applicants are
hereby given notice that funding for the
Fiscal Year 2011 program is contingent
upon the availability of Fiscal Year 2011
appropriations.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Universal Identifier
Applicants should be aware they are
required to provide a Dun and
Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering
System (DUNS) number during the
application process. See the October 30,
2002, Federal Register, (67 FR 66177)
for additional information.
Organizations can receive a DUNS
number at no cost by calling the
dedicated toll-free DUNS Number
request line at 1–866–705–5711 or via
the Internet at https://
www.dunandbradstreet.com.
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
NOAA must analyze the potential
environmental impacts, as required by
the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), for applicant projects or
proposals which are seeking NOAA
federal funding opportunities. Detailed
information on NOAA compliance with
NEPA can be found at the following
NOAA NEPA Web site: https://
www.nepa.noaa.gov/, including our
NOAA Administrative Order 216–6 for
NEPA, https://www.nepa.noaa.gov/
NAO216_6_TOC.pdf, and the Council
on Environmental Quality
implementation regulations, https://
ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/
toc_ceq.htm. Consequently, as part of an
applicant’s package, and under their
description of their program activities,
applicants are required to provide
detailed information on the activities to
be conducted, locations, sites, species
and habitat to be affected, possible
construction activities, and any
environmental concerns that may exist
(e.g., the use and disposal of hazardous
or toxic chemicals, introduction of nonindigenous species, impacts to
endangered and threatened species,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:21 Nov 02, 2010
Jkt 223001
aquaculture projects, and impacts to
coral reef systems). In addition to
providing specific information that will
serve as the basis for any required
impact analyses, applicants may also be
requested to assist NOAA in drafting of
an environmental assessment, if NOAA
determines an assessment is required.
Applicants will also be required to
cooperate with NOAA in identifying
feasible measures to reduce or avoid any
identified adverse environmental
impacts of their proposal. The failure to
do so shall be grounds for not selecting
an application. In some cases if
additional information is required after
an application is selected, funds can be
withheld by the Grants Officer under a
special award condition requiring the
recipient to submit additional
environmental compliance information
sufficient to enable NOAA to make an
assessment on any impacts that a project
may have on the environment.
The Department of Commerce Preaward Notification Requirements for
Grants and Cooperative Agreements
contained in the Federal Register notice
of October 1, 2001 (66 FR 49917), as
amended by the Federal Register notice
published on: October 30, 2002 (67 FR
66109); December 30, 2004 (69 FR
78389); and February 11, 2008 (73 FR
7696) are applicable to this solicitation.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This document contains collection-ofinformation requirements subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The
use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B,
SF–LLL, and CD–346 has been approved
by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the respective
control numbers 0348–0043, 0348–0044,
0348–0040, 0348–0046, and 0605–0001.
Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no person is required to respond to,
nor shall any person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with, a
collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA unless that
collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
Executive Order 12866
This notice has been determined to be
not significant for purposes of Executive
Order 12866.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
It has been determined that this notice
does not contain policies with
Federalism implications as that term is
defined in Executive Order 13132.
Administrative Procedure Act/
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Prior notice and an opportunity for
public comment are not required by the
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
67685
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other law for rules concerning public
property, loans, grants, benefits, and
contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because
notice and opportunity for comment are
not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or
any other law, the analytical
requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are
inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory
flexibility analysis has not been
prepared.
Dated: October 27, 2010.
Christopher C. Cartwright,
Associate Assistant Administrator for
Management and CFO/CAO, Ocean Services
and Coastal Zone Management.
[FR Doc. 2010–27702 Filed 11–2–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–08–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–201–830]
Notice of Initiation and Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review: Carbon and
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From
Mexico
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review: Carbon and
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from
Mexico.
AGENCY:
In response to a request from
ArcelorMittal las Truchas, S.A. de C.V.
(AMLT), an exporter of carbon and
certain alloy steel wire rod from Mexico,
and pursuant to section 751(b) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),
and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3),
the Department is initiating a changed
circumstances review of the
antidumping order on carbon and
certain alloy steel wire rod from Mexico.
Based on the information received, we
preliminarily determine that AMLT is
the successor-in-interest to Siderurgica
Lazaro Cardenas las Truchas S.A. de
C.V. (Sicartsa) for purposes of
determining antidumping duty liability.
Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
DATES: Effective Date: November 3,
2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric
B. Greynolds, Program Manager, Office
of AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th and Constitution
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\03NON1.SGM
03NON1
67686
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Notices
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–6071.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Background
Sicartsa, as an exporter of carbon and
certain steel alloy wire rod from Mexico
to the United States, participated in the
Department’s administrative reviews
with respect to wire rod from Mexico for
the periods April 10, 2002, to September
30, 2003, and October 1, 2003, to
September 30, 2004; the Department
issued the final results of the reviews,
giving Sicartsa a 1.06 percent margin,
and a 1.26 percent margin, respectively.
See Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel
Wire Rod From Mexico, 70 FR 25809
(May 16, 2005); see also Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Carbon and
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From
Mexico, 71 FR 27989 (May 15, 2006).
On September 10, 2010, AMLT filed
a request for a changed circumstances
review claiming that Sicartsa changed
its name to AMLT. AMLT requested that
it receive the same antidumping duty
treatment accorded to Sicartsa and
submitted documentation in support of
its claim. AMLT requested that the
Department combine the notice of
initiation of the review and the
preliminary results of review in a single
notice as this review essentially
involves only corporate name changes.
On October 6, 2010, petitioners
submitted comments regarding AMLT’s
September 10, 2010, request for a
changed circumstances review.1 On
October 6, 2010, the Department issued
a questionnaire to AMLT regarding its
September 10, 2010, submission. On
October 18, 2010, AMLT submitted its
questionnaire response.
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
1 Petitioners are Georgetown Steel, Gerdau USA
Inc., Nucor Steel Connecticut Inc., Keystone
Consolidated Industries Inc., Rocky Mountain Steel
Mills, and Mittal Steel USA.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:21 Nov 02, 2010
Jkt 223001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
E:\FR\FM\03NON1.SGM
03NON1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Notices
Initiation and Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review
During 2007, Mittal Steel merged with
Arcelor S.A. to form ArcelorMittal. The
merger was finalized on November 13,
2007. As part of the merger process, but
prior to its formal completion,
ArcelorMittal acquired 100 percent of
Sicartsa. The acquisition was completed
in April 2007. On February 25, 2008,
Sicarsta changed its name to AMLT. On
September 10, 2010, AMLT filed its
changed circumstances review request
in which it claimed that it is the
successor-in-interest to Sicartsa.
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the
Act, the Department will conduct a
changed circumstances review upon
receipt of a request from an interested
party or receipt of information
concerning an antidumping duty order
which shows changed circumstances
sufficient to warrant a review of the
order. On September 10, 2010, AMLT
submitted its request for a changed
circumstances review. With its request,
AMLT submitted certain information
related to its claim that Sicartsa changed
its name to AMLT, and that this name
change has not affected the company’s
management, sales operations, supplier
relationships or customer base in any
meaningful way. In accordance with
section 751(b) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.216, the Department has determined
that there is a sufficient basis to initiate
a changed circumstances review to
determine whether AMLT is the
successor-in-interest to Sicartsa.
In making a successor-in-interest
determination in antidumping
proceedings, the Department typically
examines several factors including, but
not limited to: (1) Management; (2)
production facilities; (3) supplier
relationships, and (4) customer base.
See, e.g., Brass Sheet and Strip from
Canada: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR
20460, 20462 (May 13, 1992) and
Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel
Plate from Romania: Initiation and
Preliminary Results of Changed
Circumstances Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 70 FR 22847
(May 3, 2005) (Plate from Romania),
unchanged in the Notice of Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review: Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate from
Romania, 70 FR 35624 (June 21, 2005).
While no single factor or combination of
factors will necessarily be dispositive,
the Department generally will consider
the new company to be the successor to
the predecessor company if the resulting
operations are essentially the same as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:21 Nov 02, 2010
Jkt 223001
those of the predecessor company. See,
e.g., Industrial Phosphoric Acid from
Israel: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Changed Circumstances Review,
59 FR 6944, 6945 (February 14, 1994),
and Plate from Romania, 70 FR 22847.
Thus, if the record 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 predecessor company, the
Department may assign the new
company the cash deposit rate of its
predecessor. See, e.g., Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review: Fresh and
Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway,
75 FR 32370, 32371 (June 8, 2010), and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.221(c)(3)(i), we preliminarily
determine that AMLT is the successorin-interest to Sicartsa. AMLT claims that
the name change has not affected the
company’s management, sales
operations, supplier relationships, or
customer base in a meaningful way. In
its September 10, 2010, submission
AMLT provided evidence supporting its
claim. This documentation consists of:
(1) An excerpt of the ArcelorMittal 2007
Annual Report indicating that
ArcelorMittal acquired 100 percent
interest of Sicartsa prior to Sicartsa’s
name change; (2) Sicartsa’s Stock
Register indicating the completion of
ArcelorMittal’s acquisition of Sicartsa;
(3) Notary Public Office No.18 Federal
District, Mexico certifying that Sicartsa
changed its name to AMLT; (4) the
articles of amendment that reflect the
name change; and (5) a copy of an
extraordinary shareholders’ meeting
approving the name change. In its
October 18, 2010, submission AMLT
provided additional evidence
supporting its claim that management
structure, sales operations, supplier
relationships, and customer base have
not changed significantly. While there
has been turnover with respect to
several senior management positions
over the course of the period
corresponding to 2007, 2008, and 2010,
the board members remained the same.
See AMLT’s October 18, 2010,
questionnaire response at Exhibit 1. The
production operations also remained the
same during the 2007, 2008, and 2010
time period, which is evident through
business licenses, utility bills and
invoices. See AMLT’s October 18, 2010,
questionnaire response at Exhibits 2, 3,
and 4. Additionally, the suppliers for
Sicartsa and AMLT, while not identical,
overlap during the relevant time period
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
67687
to a degree that provides support for
consistency in supplier base. See
AMLT’s October 18, 2010, questionnaire
response at Exhibits 8, 9, and 10 and the
Memorandum to the File from Eric B.
Greynolds, Program Manager, Office 3,
Operations, ‘‘Analysis of Supplier and
Customer Data’’ (October 25, 2010)
(Supplier and Customer Data
Memorandum), a business proprietary
document of which the public version is
on file in the Central Records Unit
(CRU). The customers for Sicartsa and
AMLT overlap to an even greater degree
than the suppliers, which again
provides consistency in the customer
base. See AMLT’s October 18, 2010,
questionnaire response at Exhibits 5, 6,
and 7 and the Supplier and Customer
Data Memorandum.
The documentation described above
demonstrates that there was little to no
change in management structure, sales
operations, supplier relationships, or
customer base. For these reasons, we
preliminarily find that AMLT is the
successor-in-interest to Sicartsa and,
thus, should receive the same
antidumping duty treatment with
respect to carbon and certain alloy steel
wire rod from Mexico.
When ‘‘expedited action is
warranted,’’ the Department may
publish the notice of initiation and
preliminary determination concurrently.
See 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii); see also
Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin
from Italy: Initiation and Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Changed
Circumstances Review, 68 FR 13672
(March 20, 2003), unchanged in
Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin
from Italy: Final Results of Changed
Circumstances Review, 68 FR 25327
(May 12, 2003). The Department has
determined that such action is
warranted because AMLT has provided
prima facie evidence that AMLT is the
successor-in-interest, and we have the
information necessary to make a
preliminary finding already on the
record.
Based on the record evidence, we find
that AMLT operates as the same
business entity as Sicartsa. Thus, we
preliminarily determine that AMLT is
the successor-in-interest to Sicartsa.
Public Comment
Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
Case briefs from interested parties may
be submitted not later than 14 days after
the date of publication of this notice.
Rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues
raised in those comments, may be filed
not later than 21 days after the date of
publication of this notice. All written
comments shall be submitted in
E:\FR\FM\03NON1.SGM
03NON1
67688
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Notices
accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. Any
interested party may request a hearing
within 14 days of publication of this
notice. Any hearing, if requested, will
be held no later than 30 days after the
date of publication of this notice, or the
first workday thereafter. Persons
interested in attending the hearing, if
one is requested, should contact the
Department for the date and time of the
hearing. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.216(e), the Department will issue
the final results of its antidumping duty
changed circumstances review not later
than 270 days after the date on which
the review is initiated, or within 45 days
if all parties agree to our preliminary
results.
During the course of this antidumping
duty changed circumstances review,
cash deposit requirements for the
subject merchandise exported by AMLT
will continue to be the all others rate
established in the investigation. 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). The cash deposit rate will be
altered, if warranted, pursuant only to
the final results of this review.
We are issuing and publishing these
preliminary results and notice in
accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and
777(i)(1) and (2) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.216.
Dated: October 27, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010–27783 Filed 11–2–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XA014
Pacific Fishery Management Council;
Public Meeting
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of public meetings.
The work session will be held
Monday, December 20, 2010 from 9 a.m.
to 4 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The work session will be
held at the Hyatt Place Hotel Portland
Airport, 9750 NE Cascades Parkway,
Portland, OR 97220, (503) 288–2808.
Council Address: Pacific Fishery
Management Council, 7700 NE
Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland,
OR 97220–1384.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Chuck Tracy, Staff Officer, Pacific
Fishery Management Council;
telephone: (503) 820–2280.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
purpose of the work session is to
develop recommendations for the
process and scope of the groundfish
EFH periodic 5-year review, and for the
role of the EFHRC in that review.
Recommendations are tentatively
scheduled to be presented to the
Council at the April 2011 Council
meeting in San Mateo, CA.
Although non-emergency issues not
contained in the meeting agenda may
come before the EFHRC for discussion,
those issues may not be the subject of
formal EFHRC action during this
meeting. EFHRC action will be
restricted to those issues specifically
listed in this notice and any issues
arising after publication of this notice
that require emergency action under
section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, provided the public has been
notified of the EFHRC’s intent to take
final action to address the emergency.
Special Accommodations
This meeting is physically accessible
to people with disabilities. Requests for
sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms.
Carolyn Porter at (503) 820–2280 at least
5 days prior to the meeting date.
DATES:
Dated: October 29, 2010.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–27744 Filed 11–2–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
AGENCY:
The Pacific Fishery
Management Council’s (Council’s) Ad
Hoc Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat
Review Committee (EFHRC) will hold a
work session, which is open to the
public, to plan the periodic 5-year
review of groundfish Essential Fish
Habitat (EFH).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:21 Nov 02, 2010
Jkt 223001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XA007
New England Fishery Management
Council (NEFMC); Public Meeting;
Correction
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of correction to a public
meeting; addition to agenda.
The New England Fishery
Management Council (Council) will
hold a three-day meeting on Tuesday
through Thursday, November 16–18,
2010 to consider actions affecting New
England fisheries in the exclusive
economic zone (EEZ).
DATES: The meeting will be held on
Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday,
November 16–18, starting at 8:30 a.m.
each day.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Ocean Edge Resort, 2907 Main
Street, Brewster, MA 02631–1946;
telephone (508) 896–9000; fax: (508)
896–9123.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
J. Howard, Executive Director, New
England Fishery Management Council;
telephone: (978) 465–0492.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
original notice published in the Federal
Register on October 28, 2010 at 75 FR
66357.
SUMMARY:
Thursday, November 18, 2010
The New England Fishery
Management Council’s November 16–18
agenda will occur as previously
published in the Federal Register on
October 28, 2010. On Thursday,
November 18, 2010, however, the final
day of the meeting, there will be an
addition to the items the Council will
address. Just prior to adjournment, the
Council will receive a report from the
Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee, during
which the NEFMC is scheduled to
approve management measures for this
fishery for the 2011 fishing year.
The spiny dogfish resource is
managed jointly by the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council, which
recently set the annual quota and trip
limits for the fishery for May 1, 2011–
April 30, 2012. The New England
Council will vote on the same issues
and adjourn following discussion of any
other outstanding Council business.
Although other non-emergency issues
not contained in this agenda may come
before this Council for discussion, those
issues may not be the subjects of formal
action during this meeting. Council
action will be restricted to those issues
specifically listed in this notice and any
issues arising after publication of this
notice that require emergency action
under section 305(c) of the MagnusonStevens Act, provided that the public
has been notified of the Council’s intent
to take final action to address the
emergency.
E:\FR\FM\03NON1.SGM
03NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67685-67688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27783]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-201-830]
Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Changed Circumstances Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod
From Mexico
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances
Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request from ArcelorMittal las Truchas, S.A.
de C.V. (AMLT), an exporter of carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod
from Mexico, and pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3), the
Department is initiating a changed circumstances review of the
antidumping order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from
Mexico. Based on the information received, we preliminarily determine
that AMLT is the successor-in-interest to Siderurgica Lazaro Cardenas
las Truchas S.A. de C.V. (Sicartsa) for purposes of determining
antidumping duty liability. Interested parties are invited to comment
on these preliminary results.
DATES: Effective Date: November 3, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager,
Office of AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
and Constitution
[[Page 67686]]
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6071.
Background
Sicartsa, as an exporter of carbon and certain steel alloy wire rod
from Mexico to the United States, participated in the Department's
administrative reviews with respect to wire rod from Mexico for the
periods April 10, 2002, to September 30, 2003, and October 1, 2003, to
September 30, 2004; the Department issued the final results of the
reviews, giving Sicartsa a 1.06 percent margin, and a 1.26 percent
margin, respectively. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From
Mexico, 70 FR 25809 (May 16, 2005); see also Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel
Wire Rod From Mexico, 71 FR 27989 (May 15, 2006).
On September 10, 2010, AMLT filed a request for a changed
circumstances review claiming that Sicartsa changed its name to AMLT.
AMLT requested that it receive the same antidumping duty treatment
accorded to Sicartsa and submitted documentation in support of its
claim. AMLT requested that the Department combine the notice of
initiation of the review and the preliminary results of review in a
single notice as this review essentially involves only corporate name
changes.
On October 6, 2010, petitioners submitted comments regarding AMLT's
September 10, 2010, request for a changed circumstances review.\1\ On
October 6, 2010, the Department issued a questionnaire to AMLT
regarding its September 10, 2010, submission. On October 18, 2010, AMLT
submitted its questionnaire response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Petitioners are Georgetown Steel, Gerdau USA Inc., Nucor
Steel Connecticut Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries Inc., Rocky
Mountain Steel Mills, and Mittal Steel USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 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.
[[Page 67687]]
Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review
During 2007, Mittal Steel merged with Arcelor S.A. to form
ArcelorMittal. The merger was finalized on November 13, 2007. As part
of the merger process, but prior to its formal completion,
ArcelorMittal acquired 100 percent of Sicartsa. The acquisition was
completed in April 2007. On February 25, 2008, Sicarsta changed its
name to AMLT. On September 10, 2010, AMLT filed its changed
circumstances review request in which it claimed that it is the
successor-in-interest to Sicartsa.
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act, the Department will
conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of a request from
an interested party or receipt of information concerning an antidumping
duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a
review of the order. On September 10, 2010, AMLT submitted its request
for a changed circumstances review. With its request, AMLT submitted
certain information related to its claim that Sicartsa changed its name
to AMLT, and that this name change has not affected the company's
management, sales operations, supplier relationships or customer base
in any meaningful way. In accordance with section 751(b) of the Act and
19 CFR 351.216, the Department has determined that there is a
sufficient basis to initiate a changed circumstances review to
determine whether AMLT is the successor-in-interest to Sicartsa.
In making a successor-in-interest determination in antidumping
proceedings, the Department typically examines several factors
including, but not limited to: (1) Management; (2) production
facilities; (3) supplier relationships, and (4) customer base. See,
e.g., Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460, 20462 (May 13, 1992) and
Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Initiation and
Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 70 FR 22847 (May 3, 2005) (Plate from Romania),
unchanged in the Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from
Romania, 70 FR 35624 (June 21, 2005). While no single factor or
combination of factors will necessarily be dispositive, the Department
generally will consider the new company to be the successor to the
predecessor company if the resulting operations are essentially the
same as those of the predecessor company. See, e.g., Industrial
Phosphoric Acid from Israel: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944, 6945 (February 14, 1994), and Plate
from Romania, 70 FR 22847. Thus, if the record 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 predecessor company, the Department may assign the new company the
cash deposit rate of its predecessor. See, e.g., Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Fresh and Chilled
Atlantic Salmon from Norway, 75 FR 32370, 32371 (June 8, 2010), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i), we preliminarily
determine that AMLT is the successor-in-interest to Sicartsa. AMLT
claims that the name change has not affected the company's management,
sales operations, supplier relationships, or customer base in a
meaningful way. In its September 10, 2010, submission AMLT provided
evidence supporting its claim. This documentation consists of: (1) An
excerpt of the ArcelorMittal 2007 Annual Report indicating that
ArcelorMittal acquired 100 percent interest of Sicartsa prior to
Sicartsa's name change; (2) Sicartsa's Stock Register indicating the
completion of ArcelorMittal's acquisition of Sicartsa; (3) Notary
Public Office No.18 Federal District, Mexico certifying that Sicartsa
changed its name to AMLT; (4) the articles of amendment that reflect
the name change; and (5) a copy of an extraordinary shareholders'
meeting approving the name change. In its October 18, 2010, submission
AMLT provided additional evidence supporting its claim that management
structure, sales operations, supplier relationships, and customer base
have not changed significantly. While there has been turnover with
respect to several senior management positions over the course of the
period corresponding to 2007, 2008, and 2010, the board members
remained the same. See AMLT's October 18, 2010, questionnaire response
at Exhibit 1. The production operations also remained the same during
the 2007, 2008, and 2010 time period, which is evident through business
licenses, utility bills and invoices. See AMLT's October 18, 2010,
questionnaire response at Exhibits 2, 3, and 4. Additionally, the
suppliers for Sicartsa and AMLT, while not identical, overlap during
the relevant time period to a degree that provides support for
consistency in supplier base. See AMLT's October 18, 2010,
questionnaire response at Exhibits 8, 9, and 10 and the Memorandum to
the File from Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, Office 3, Operations,
``Analysis of Supplier and Customer Data'' (October 25, 2010) (Supplier
and Customer Data Memorandum), a business proprietary document of which
the public version is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU). The
customers for Sicartsa and AMLT overlap to an even greater degree than
the suppliers, which again provides consistency in the customer base.
See AMLT's October 18, 2010, questionnaire response at Exhibits 5, 6,
and 7 and the Supplier and Customer Data Memorandum.
The documentation described above demonstrates that there was
little to no change in management structure, sales operations, supplier
relationships, or customer base. For these reasons, we preliminarily
find that AMLT is the successor-in-interest to Sicartsa and, thus,
should receive the same antidumping duty treatment with respect to
carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Mexico.
When ``expedited action is warranted,'' the Department may publish
the notice of initiation and preliminary determination concurrently.
See 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii); see also Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene
Resin from Italy: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Changed Circumstances Review, 68 FR 13672 (March 20, 2003), unchanged
in Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy: Final Results of
Changed Circumstances Review, 68 FR 25327 (May 12, 2003). The
Department has determined that such action is warranted because AMLT
has provided prima facie evidence that AMLT is the successor-in-
interest, and we have the information necessary to make a preliminary
finding already on the record.
Based on the record evidence, we find that AMLT operates as the
same business entity as Sicartsa. Thus, we preliminarily determine that
AMLT is the successor-in-interest to Sicartsa.
Public Comment
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later
than 14 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal
briefs, limited to the issues raised in those comments, may be filed
not later than 21 days after the date of publication of this notice.
All written comments shall be submitted in
[[Page 67688]]
accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. Any interested party may request a
hearing within 14 days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if
requested, will be held no later than 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Persons
interested in attending the hearing, if one is requested, should
contact the Department for the date and time of the hearing. In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), the Department will issue the final
results of its antidumping duty changed circumstances review not later
than 270 days after the date on which the review is initiated, or
within 45 days if all parties agree to our preliminary results.
During the course of this antidumping duty changed circumstances
review, cash deposit requirements for the subject merchandise exported
by AMLT will continue to be the all others rate established in the
investigation. 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). The
cash deposit rate will be altered, if warranted, pursuant only to the
final results of this review.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results and notice
in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) and (2) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.216.
Dated: October 27, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-27783 Filed 11-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
