[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67685-67688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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