Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 66271-66273 [2011-27749]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Notices
11. RUS Form 257, Contract to
Construct Buildings
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
This form is used to construct
headquarter buildings, generating plant
buildings and other structure
construction.
12. RUS Form 307, Bid Bond
This form is used to provide a bid
bond in RUS Forms 200, 257, 786, 790
and 830.
13. RUS Form 786, Electric System
Communications and Control
Equipment Contract
This form is used for delivery and
installation of equipment for system
communications.
14. RUS Form 790, Electric System
Construction Contract Non-Site Specific
Construction (Notice and Instructions
to Bidders)
This form is used for limited
distribution construction accounted for
under work order procedure.
15. RUS Form 792b, Certificate of
Contractor and Indemnity Agreement
(Line Extensions)
This form is used in the closeout of
RUS Form 790.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
16. RUS Form 830, Electric System
Construction Contract (Labor &
Material)
This form is used for distribution and/
or transmission project construction.
Estimate of Burden: Public reporting
burden for this collection of information
is estimated to average 1.5 minutes per
response.
Respondents: Businesses or other for
profits; not-for-profit institutions.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
1,210.
Estimated Number of Responses per
Respondent: 4.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on
Respondents: 104 hours.
Copies of this information collection,
and related form and instructions, can
be obtained from MaryPat Daskal,
Program Development and Regulatory
Analysis, at (202) 720–7853.
All responses to this notice will be
summarized and included in the request
for OMB approval. All comments will
also become a matter of public record.
Dated: October 19, 2011.
Jonathan Adelstein,
Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–27642 Filed 10–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–15–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
International Trade Administration
[A–423–808]
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From
Belgium: Notice of Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from
the interested party, Aperam Stainless
Belgium N.V. (‘‘Aperam’’), the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) initiated a changed
circumstances review (‘‘CCR’’) of the
antidumping duty order of stainless
steel plate in coils (‘‘SSPC’’) from
Belgium.1 We have preliminarily
determined that Aperam is the
successor-in-interest to ArcelorMittal
Stainless Belgium N.V. (‘‘AMSB’’) with
respect to the antidumping duty order
on SSPC from Belgium.2 We invite
interested parties to comment on these
preliminary results. Parties who submit
comments in these reviews are
requested to submit with each argument
(1) A statement of the issue and (2) a
brief summary of the argument.
DATES: Effective Date: October 26, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
George McMahon or Stephanie Moore,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–1167 and (202)
482–3692, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On May 21, 1999, the Department
published in the Federal Register an
antidumping duty order on stainless
steel plate in coils from Belgium. See
1 See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium:
Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review, 76 FR 45511 (July 29, 2011)
(‘‘CCR Initiation Notice’’).
2 See Antidumping Duty Orders; Certain Stainless
Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium, Canada, Italy,
the Republic of Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan,
64 FR 27756 (May 21, 1999); Notice of Amended
Antidumping Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel
Plate in Coils From Belgium, Canada, Italy, the
Republic of Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, 68 FR
11520 (March 11, 2003); Notice of Amended
Antidumping Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel
Plate in Coils From Belgium, Canada, Italy, the
Republic of Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, 68 FR
16117 (April 2, 2003); Notice of Correction to the
Amended Antidumping Duty Orders; Certain
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium,
Canada, Italy, the Republic of Korea, South Africa,
and Taiwan, 68 FR 20114 (April 24, 2003)
(collectively, ‘‘Antidumping Order’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
66271
Antidumping Order. In the
Department’s initial less-than-fair-value
investigation, the respondent company
subject to investigation was ALZ N.V.
On June 1, 2009, the Department
determined that AMSB was the
successor-in-interest to Ugine & ALZ
Belgium (‘‘U&A Belgium’’), which was a
successor-in-interest to ALZ N.V.3 The
Department is currently conducting an
administrative review of Aperam
covering the period of review of May 1,
2010 through April 30, 2011.4
On June 14, 2011, Aperam requested
that the Department initiate and
conduct an expedited changed
circumstances review to determine that
for purposes of the antidumping law,
Aperam is the successor-in-interest to
AMSB.5 In response to Aperam’s
request, the Department initiated a
changed circumstances review of the
antidumping duty order on SSPC from
Belgium. See CCR Initiation Notice. On
August 8, 2011, the Department issued
a questionnaire to Aperam and based on
our analysis of its response, we
preliminarily determine that Aperam is
the successor-in-interest to AMSB,
which was itself a successor-in-interest
to the respondent in the less-than-fairvalue investigation, and that, as such,
Aperam is entitled to receive the same
antidumping duty treatment accorded
AMSB. We have received no comments
from the petitioners 6 regarding
Aperam’s CCR request or questionnaire
response.
Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order
The product covered by this order is
certain stainless steel plate in coils.
Stainless steel is an alloy steel
containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or
less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more
of chromium, with or without other
elements. The subject plate products are
flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in
width and 4.75 mm or more in
thickness, in coils, and annealed or
otherwise heat treated and pickled or
3 See, e.g., ‘‘Successor-in-Interest Analysis’’
Memorandum from G. McMahon to J. Terpstra, at
page 2 (June 1, 2009), Attached as Appendix 4 to
Aperam’s request for a CCR; see also Stainless Steel
Plate in Coils From Belgium: Notice of Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review,
76 FR 45511, 45512 (July 29, 2011).
4 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and
Request for Revocation in Part, 76 FR 37781 (June
28, 2011).
5 See Aperam’s letter to the Secretary of
Commerce, dated, June 14, 2011.
6 Petitioners consist of: Allegheny Ludlum
Corporation, North American Stainless, United
Auto Workers Local 3303, Zanesville Arco
Independent Organization, and the United Steel,
Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial and Service Workers International
Union, AFL–CIO/CLC.
E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM
26OCN1
66272
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Notices
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
otherwise descaled. The subject plate
may also be further processed (e.g.,
cold-rolled, polished, etc.) provided that
it maintains the specified dimensions of
plate following such processing.
Excluded from the scope of this order
are the following: (1) Plate not in coils;
(2) Plate that is not annealed or
otherwise heat treated and pickled or
otherwise descaled; (3) Sheet and strip;
and (4) Flat bars.
The merchandise subject to this order
is currently classifiable in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) at
subheadings: 7219.11.00.30,
7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.06,
7219.12.00.21, 7219.12.00.26,
7219.12.00.51, 7219.12.00.56,
7219.12.00.66, 7219.12.00.71,
7219.12.00.81, 7219.31.00.10,
7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20,
7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60,
7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00,
7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15,
7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80,
7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10,
7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60,
7220.20.60.80, 7220.90.00.10,
7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and
7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise
subject to these orders is dispositive.
Preliminary Results of Changed
Circumstances Review
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., Carbon and
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From
Trinidad and Tobago: Notice of
Initiation and Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review, 73 FR 17952,
17953 (April 2, 2008), unchanged in
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire
Rod From Trinidad and Tobago: Notice
of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Changed Circumstances Review, 73 FR
30052 (May 23, 2008); see also Ball
Bearings and Parts Thereof from Japan:
Initiation and Preliminary Results of
Changed-Circumstances Review, 71 FR
14679, 14680 (March 23, 2006),
unchanged in Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty ChangedCircumstances Review: Ball Bearings
and Parts Thereof from Japan, 71 FR
26452 (May 5, 2006) (collectively, ‘‘CCR
Japan’’). Although no single factor or
combination of factors will necessarily
provide a dispositive indication of a
successor-in-interest relationship, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
Department will generally consider the
new company to be the successor to the
previous company if its resulting
operation is similar to that of its
predecessor. See CCR Japan; see also
Brass Sheet and Strip From Canada;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460
(May 13, 1992), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1. 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 prior company, the Department will
assign the new company the cashdeposit rate of its predecessor. Id.; see
also Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel
Pipe From the Republic of Korea;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Changed Circumstances Review,
63 FR 14679 (March 26, 1998),
unchanged in Circular Welded NonAlloy Steel Pipe From Korea; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review, 63 FR 20572
(April 27, 1998), in which the
Department found that a company
which only changed its name and did
not change its operations is a successorin-interest to the company before it
changed its name.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216,
we preliminarily determine that Aperam
is the successor-in-interest to AMSB. In
its June 14, 2011, CCR request, Aperam
provided evidence supporting its claim
to be the successor-in-interest to AMSB.
Documentation attached to Aperam’s
CCR request shows that the
shareholders of Aperam’s corporate
parent, ArcelorMittal S.A., approved a
spin-off of AMSB’s stainless and
specialty steels business into Aperam,
and the resulting name change to
Aperam Stainless Belgium N.V. resulted
in little or no change in management,
production facility, supplier
relationships, or customer base. This
documentation consists of: (1) Official
minutes of the extraordinary general
meeting of ArcelorMittal shareholders
regarding the shareholders’ approval of
the spin-off of ArcelorMittal’s stainless
and specialty steels business into
Aperam; (2) a letter from Lakshmi N.
Mittal, CEO, dated December 13, 2010,
regarding the announcement of the spinoff of the stainless steel business from
ArcelorMittal to Aperam; (3) name
change registration with the Economics
Ministry, Government of Belgium; (4)
the Department’s ‘‘Successor-in-Interest
Analysis’’ Memorandum, dated June 1,
2009, regarding a prior successor-ininterest determination and the criteria
which served as the basis for this
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
decision; (5) list of the AMSB and
Aperam’s shareholders which indicates
no changes before and after the spin-off;
and (6) organization charts which show
that the management structure prior to
and after the spin-off of the stainless
business to Aperam is almost identical.
In its CCR questionnaire response,
dated September 12, 2011, Aperam
provided further information to support
its claim that it is the successor-ininterest to AMSB. Specifically, Aperam
reported that, pursuant to the corporate
name change from AMSB to Aperam,
there were no changes to the production
facilities, production capacity of SSPC,
channels of distribution, customer
categories, major inputs from affiliated
parties or sales to its affiliates. Aperam
also indicated that there were no
changes in the types of SSPC produced
before and after the corporate name
change from AMSB to Aperam. With
regard to its customers in both the
United States and in its home market,
Aperam’s response shows that there
were no significant changes resulting
from the corporate name change, and
Aperam cited the current market
situation as the basis for the changes
which occurred. Id. at pages 2–6.
Aperam states, ‘‘ {n}o changes have
occurred at Aperam Stainless Belgium
as a result of the spin-off, nor have there
been any changes in the broader
organization in terms of corporate
strategy, organizational structure,
management, ownership, production, or
sales.’’ Id. at page 7.
In summary, Aperam has presented
evidence to support its claim of
successorship. The record indicates that
the corporate name change to Aperam
has not significantly changed the
operations of the company. The
production facilities, supplier
relationships, management, and
customer base of Aperam are
substantially unchanged from their
status prior to the corporate name
change. The record evidence
demonstrates that Aperam operates
essentially in the same manner as the
predecessor company, AMSB.
We find that the evidence provided by
Aperam is sufficient to preliminarily
determine that the change of its
corporate name from AMSB to Aperam
did not affect the company’s operations
in a meaningful way. Therefore, based
on the aforementioned reasons, we
preliminarily determine that Aperam is
the successor-in-interest to AMSB and,
thus, should receive the same
antidumping duty treatment with
respect to stainless steel plate in coils
from Belgium as the former AMSB.
E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM
26OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Notices
Public Comment
Any interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication of
this notice. Any hearing, if requested,
will be held no later than 44 days after
the date of publication of this notice, or
the first workday thereafter. Case briefs
from interested parties may be
submitted not later than 30 days after
the date of publication of this notice.
Rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues
raised in the case briefs, may be filed
not later than 37 days after the date of
publication of this notice. All written
comments shall be submitted in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.303.
Persons interested in attending the
hearing, if one is requested, should
contact the Department for the date and
time of the hearing. The Department
intends to issue the final results within
270 days from the date of initiation of
this changed circumstances review, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e),
including the results of its analysis of
issues raised in any written comments.
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.
We are issuing and publishing these
results and notice in accordance with
sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) and (2)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,
and 19 CFR 351.216.
Dated: October 20, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–27749 Filed 10–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XA643
Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the
Southern Atlantic States and Coral and
Coral Reefs Fishery in the South
Atlantic; Exempted Fishing Permit
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of receipt of an
application for an exempted fishing
permit; request for comments.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
NMFS announces the receipt
of an application for an exempted
fishing permit (EFP) from Keith Farmer,
on behalf of the North Carolina
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources Aquariums Division (North
Carolina Aquariums). If granted, the EFP
would authorize North Carolina
Aquariums to collect, with certain
conditions, various species of reef fish
and live rock in Federal waters off North
Carolina. The specimens would be used
in educational exhibits displaying North
Carolina native species at aquariums
located at Pine Knoll Shores, Roanoke
Island, Fort Fisher, and Jeanette’s Ocean
Pier, NC.
DATES: Comments must be received no
later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time,
on November 25, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on the application by any of the
following methods:
• E-mail: Karla.Gore@noaa.gov.
Include in the subject line of the e-mail
comment the following document
identifier: ‘‘North Carolina Aquariums’’.
• Mail: Karla Gore, Southeast
Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th
Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
The application and related
documents are available for review
upon written request to any of the above
addresses.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karla Gore, 727–824–5305; e-mail:
karla.gore@noaa.gov.
The EFP is
requested under the authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (16
U.S.C 1801 et seq.), and regulations at
50 CFR 600.745(b) concerning exempted
fishing.
The proposed species collection
involves activities covered by
regulations implementing the Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) for the
Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South
Atlantic Region and the FMP for Coral,
Coral Reefs, and Live/Hard Bottom
Habitats of the South Atlantic Region.
The applicant requires authorization to
opportunistically collect 878 live fish in
the South Atlantic snapper-grouper
complex, and a specified quantity of
live rock. The fish, listed by common
name (total number of fish), and amount
of live rock to be harvested over a 2-year
period by North Carolina Aquariums
includes: red hind (16), rock hind (16),
red grouper (16), gag (16), scamp (16),
red porgy (16), yellowfin grouper (9),
yellowmouth grouper (16), snowy
grouper (12), silk snapper (16),
vermilion snapper (78), tomtate (200),
smallmouth grunt (100), cottonwick
(200), yellowedge grouper (9), graysby
(16), coney (16), yellowtail snapper (84),
schoolmaster snapper (26), and 300 lb
(136 kg) of live rock.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
66273
Specimens would be collected in
Federal waters from 3 miles (4.8 km)
offshore out to 100 fathoms (182 m),
from 33°10′ N lat. to 36°30′ N lat. off
North Carolina. The project proposes to
use hook-and-line gear, black sea bass
pots and minnow traps to collect fish,
and SCUBA gear to collect live rock by
hand. This EFP would authorize
sampling operations to be conducted on
three vessels to be named by North
Carolina Aquariums and designated in
the EFP. The specimens would be
opportunistically collected year-round
for a period of up to 2 years,
commencing on the date of issuance of
the EFP. The EFP would not authorize
the collection of species with an annual
catch limit of zero (Red snapper,
Warsaw grouper, and Speckled hind).
The overall intent of the project is to
incorporate North Carolina native
species into the educational exhibits at
the four aquariums located at Pine Knoll
Shores, Roanoke Island, Fort Fisher, and
Jeanette’s Ocean Pier, North Carolina.
The aquariums use these displays of
native North Carolina habitats and
species to teach the public about
conservation of these resources.
NMFS finds this application warrants
further consideration. Based on a
preliminary review, NMFS intends to
issue an EFP. Possible conditions the
agency may impose on this permit, if it
is indeed granted, include but are not
limited to, a prohibition of conducting
research within marine protected areas,
marine sanctuaries, special management
zones, or artificial reefs without
additional authorization. Additionally,
NMFS prohibits the possession of
Nassau grouper, goliath grouper, red
snapper, speckled hind or Warsaw
grouper, and requires any sea turtles
taken incidentally during the course of
fishing or scientific research activities to
be handled with due care to prevent
injury to live specimens, observed for
activity, and returned to the water. The
EFP would specify that any harvest of
live rock would have to be replaced by
an equivalent amount of new rock
substrate, or be obtained from a
commercial (aquaculture) source. A
final decision on the issuance of the EFP
will depend on NMFS’ review of public
comments received on the application,
consultations with the affected state, the
South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council, and the U.S. Coast Guard, and
a determination that it is consistent with
all applicable laws.
Authority: 16 U.S.C 1801 et seq.
E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM
26OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66271-66273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27749]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-423-808]
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Notice of
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from the interested party, Aperam
Stainless Belgium N.V. (``Aperam''), the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a changed circumstances review (``CCR'') of the
antidumping duty order of stainless steel plate in coils (``SSPC'')
from Belgium.\1\ We have preliminarily determined that Aperam is the
successor-in-interest to ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V.
(``AMSB'') with respect to the antidumping duty order on SSPC from
Belgium.\2\ We invite interested parties to comment on these
preliminary results. Parties who submit comments in these reviews are
requested to submit with each argument (1) A statement of the issue and
(2) a brief summary of the argument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Notice of
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 76 FR
45511 (July 29, 2011) (``CCR Initiation Notice'').
\2\ See Antidumping Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel Plate
in Coils From Belgium, Canada, Italy, the Republic of Korea, South
Africa, and Taiwan, 64 FR 27756 (May 21, 1999); Notice of Amended
Antidumping Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From
Belgium, Canada, Italy, the Republic of Korea, South Africa, and
Taiwan, 68 FR 11520 (March 11, 2003); Notice of Amended Antidumping
Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium,
Canada, Italy, the Republic of Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, 68
FR 16117 (April 2, 2003); Notice of Correction to the Amended
Antidumping Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From
Belgium, Canada, Italy, the Republic of Korea, South Africa, and
Taiwan, 68 FR 20114 (April 24, 2003) (collectively, ``Antidumping
Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: October 26, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George McMahon or Stephanie Moore, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1167 and (202)
482-3692, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 21, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register
an antidumping duty order on stainless steel plate in coils from
Belgium. See Antidumping Order. In the Department's initial less-than-
fair-value investigation, the respondent company subject to
investigation was ALZ N.V. On June 1, 2009, the Department determined
that AMSB was the successor-in-interest to Ugine & ALZ Belgium (``U&A
Belgium''), which was a successor-in-interest to ALZ N.V.\3\ The
Department is currently conducting an administrative review of Aperam
covering the period of review of May 1, 2010 through April 30, 2011.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See, e.g., ``Successor-in-Interest Analysis'' Memorandum
from G. McMahon to J. Terpstra, at page 2 (June 1, 2009), Attached
as Appendix 4 to Aperam's request for a CCR; see also Stainless
Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Notice of Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 76 FR 45511, 45512
(July 29, 2011).
\4\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 76 FR
37781 (June 28, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 14, 2011, Aperam requested that the Department initiate and
conduct an expedited changed circumstances review to determine that for
purposes of the antidumping law, Aperam is the successor-in-interest to
AMSB.\5\ In response to Aperam's request, the Department initiated a
changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on SSPC from
Belgium. See CCR Initiation Notice. On August 8, 2011, the Department
issued a questionnaire to Aperam and based on our analysis of its
response, we preliminarily determine that Aperam is the successor-in-
interest to AMSB, which was itself a successor-in-interest to the
respondent in the less-than-fair-value investigation, and that, as
such, Aperam is entitled to receive the same antidumping duty treatment
accorded AMSB. We have received no comments from the petitioners \6\
regarding Aperam's CCR request or questionnaire response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Aperam's letter to the Secretary of Commerce, dated,
June 14, 2011.
\6\ Petitioners consist of: Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, North
American Stainless, United Auto Workers Local 3303, Zanesville Arco
Independent Organization, and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry,
Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order
The product covered by this order is certain stainless steel plate
in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2
percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or
without other elements. The subject plate products are flat-rolled
products, 254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm or more in thickness, in
coils, and annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or
[[Page 66272]]
otherwise descaled. The subject plate may also be further processed
(e.g., cold-rolled, polished, etc.) provided that it maintains the
specified dimensions of plate following such processing. Excluded from
the scope of this order are the following: (1) Plate not in coils; (2)
Plate that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or
otherwise descaled; (3) Sheet and strip; and (4) Flat bars.
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at
subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.06,
7219.12.00.21, 7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.51, 7219.12.00.56,
7219.12.00.66, 7219.12.00.71, 7219.12.00.81, 7219.31.00.10,
7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60,
7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15,
7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10,
7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.90.00.10,
7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise subject to these orders is
dispositive.
Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review
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., Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod
From Trinidad and Tobago: Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 73 FR 17952, 17953
(April 2, 2008), unchanged in Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod
From Trinidad and Tobago: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Changed Circumstances Review, 73 FR 30052 (May 23, 2008); see also Ball
Bearings and Parts Thereof from Japan: Initiation and Preliminary
Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, 71 FR 14679, 14680 (March 23,
2006), unchanged in Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Changed-Circumstances Review: Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from
Japan, 71 FR 26452 (May 5, 2006) (collectively, ``CCR Japan'').
Although no single factor or combination of 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 its resulting operation is
similar to that of its predecessor. See CCR Japan; see also Brass Sheet
and Strip From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 57 FR 20460 (May 13, 1992), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 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 prior company, the Department will assign the new company the cash-
deposit rate of its predecessor. Id.; see also Circular Welded Non-
Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea; Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 63 FR 14679 (March 26,
1998), unchanged in Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Korea;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 63 FR
20572 (April 27, 1998), in which the Department found that a company
which only changed its name and did not change its operations is a
successor-in-interest to the company before it changed its name.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216, we preliminarily determine that
Aperam is the successor-in-interest to AMSB. In its June 14, 2011, CCR
request, Aperam provided evidence supporting its claim to be the
successor-in-interest to AMSB. Documentation attached to Aperam's CCR
request shows that the shareholders of Aperam's corporate parent,
ArcelorMittal S.A., approved a spin-off of AMSB's stainless and
specialty steels business into Aperam, and the resulting name change to
Aperam Stainless Belgium N.V. resulted in little or no change in
management, production facility, supplier relationships, or customer
base. This documentation consists of: (1) Official minutes of the
extraordinary general meeting of ArcelorMittal shareholders regarding
the shareholders' approval of the spin-off of ArcelorMittal's stainless
and specialty steels business into Aperam; (2) a letter from Lakshmi N.
Mittal, CEO, dated December 13, 2010, regarding the announcement of the
spin-off of the stainless steel business from ArcelorMittal to Aperam;
(3) name change registration with the Economics Ministry, Government of
Belgium; (4) the Department's ``Successor-in-Interest Analysis''
Memorandum, dated June 1, 2009, regarding a prior successor-in-interest
determination and the criteria which served as the basis for this
decision; (5) list of the AMSB and Aperam's shareholders which
indicates no changes before and after the spin-off; and (6)
organization charts which show that the management structure prior to
and after the spin-off of the stainless business to Aperam is almost
identical.
In its CCR questionnaire response, dated September 12, 2011, Aperam
provided further information to support its claim that it is the
successor-in-interest to AMSB. Specifically, Aperam reported that,
pursuant to the corporate name change from AMSB to Aperam, there were
no changes to the production facilities, production capacity of SSPC,
channels of distribution, customer categories, major inputs from
affiliated parties or sales to its affiliates. Aperam also indicated
that there were no changes in the types of SSPC produced before and
after the corporate name change from AMSB to Aperam. With regard to its
customers in both the United States and in its home market, Aperam's
response shows that there were no significant changes resulting from
the corporate name change, and Aperam cited the current market
situation as the basis for the changes which occurred. Id. at pages 2-
6. Aperam states, `` {n{time} o changes have occurred at Aperam
Stainless Belgium as a result of the spin-off, nor have there been any
changes in the broader organization in terms of corporate strategy,
organizational structure, management, ownership, production, or
sales.'' Id. at page 7.
In summary, Aperam has presented evidence to support its claim of
successorship. The record indicates that the corporate name change to
Aperam has not significantly changed the operations of the company. The
production facilities, supplier relationships, management, and customer
base of Aperam are substantially unchanged from their status prior to
the corporate name change. The record evidence demonstrates that Aperam
operates essentially in the same manner as the predecessor company,
AMSB.
We find that the evidence provided by Aperam is sufficient to
preliminarily determine that the change of its corporate name from AMSB
to Aperam did not affect the company's operations in a meaningful way.
Therefore, based on the aforementioned reasons, we preliminarily
determine that Aperam is the successor-in-interest to AMSB and, thus,
should receive the same antidumping duty treatment with respect to
stainless steel plate in coils from Belgium as the former AMSB.
[[Page 66273]]
Public Comment
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held no
later than 44 days after the date of publication of this notice, or the
first workday thereafter. Case briefs from interested parties may be
submitted not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this
notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the case
briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of
publication of this notice. All written comments shall be submitted in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. Persons interested in attending the
hearing, if one is requested, should contact the Department for the
date and time of the hearing. The Department intends to issue the final
results within 270 days from the date of initiation of this changed
circumstances review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), including
the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written comments.
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.
We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in
accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) and (2) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.216.
Dated: October 20, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-27749 Filed 10-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
