Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China, 7504-7506 [2016-02997]

Download as PDF 7504 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 29 / Friday, February 12, 2016 / Notices review, we will calculate importerspecific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for an importer’s examined sales and the total entered value of such sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). If Haddecilik’s weightedaverage dumping margin is zero or de minimis in the final results of review, or an importer-specific rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the respondent for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate un-reviewed entries at the allothers rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company involved in the transaction.9 We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review. asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with NOTICES2 Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Haddecilik will be the weightedaverage dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review except if the rate is de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fairvalue investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of the proceeding for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 27.04 percent ad valorem, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value 9 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Feb 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 investigation.10 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1). Dated: February 5, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum Summary Background Scope of the Order Methodology Fair Value Comparisons Product Comparisons Determination of Comparison Method Date of Sale U.S. Price Duty Drawback Normal Value Currency Conversion Conclusion [FR Doc. 2016–02995 Filed 2–11–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–983] Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People’s Republic of China Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is initiating a changed circumstances review (CCR) of the antidumping duty (AD) order on drawn stainless steel sinks from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) with regard to AGENCY: 10 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: LightWalled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Turkey, 73 FR 31065 (May 30, 2008). PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Ningbo Afa Kitchen and Bath Co., Ltd. (Ningbo). We preliminarily determine that Ningbo is the successor-in-interest to Yuyao Afa Kitchenware Co., Ltd. (Yuyao) for purposes of determining AD liability. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. DATES: Effective Date: February 12, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ross Belliveau or Brian Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4952 or (202) 482–1766. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 11, 2013, the Department published in the Federal Register an AD order on drawn stainless steel sinks from the PRC.1 On November 19, 2015, Ningbo, a producer/exporter of drawn stainless steel sinks covered by this order, changed its name from Yuyao to Ningbo. On December 22, 2015, Ningbo requested that the Department conduct a changed circumstances review under section 19 U.S.C. 1675(b) and 19 CFR 351.216.2 In this request, Ningbo asked the Department to determine that it is the successor-in-interest to Yuyao and, accordingly, to assign it the cash deposit rate of Yuyao.3 Scope of the Order The products covered by the scope of this order are drawn stainless steel sinks with single or multiple drawn bowls, with or without drain boards, whether finished or unfinished, regardless of type of finish, gauge, or grade of stainless steel. Mounting clips, fasteners, seals, and sound-deadening pads are also covered by the scope of this order if they are included within the sales price of the drawn stainless steel sinks. For purposes of this scope definition, the term ‘‘drawn’’ refers to a manufacturing process using metal forming technology to produce a smooth basin with seamless, smooth, and rounded corners. Drawn stainless steel sinks are available in various shapes and configurations and may be 1 See Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People’s Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 78 FR 21592 (April 11, 2013). 2 See Letter from Ningbo, entitled ‘‘Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People’s Republic of China: Request for Changed Circumstances Review by Yuyao Afa Kitchenware Co., Ltd. and Ningbo Afa Kitchen and Bath Co., Ltd.,’’ dated December 22, 2015 (Ningbo CCR Request). 3 Id. E:\FR\FM\12FEN1.SGM 12FEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 29 / Friday, February 12, 2016 / Notices described in a number of ways including flush mount, top mount, or undermount (to include the attachment relative to the countertop). Stainless steel sinks with multiple drawn bowls that are joined through a welding operation to form one unit are covered by the scope of the order. Drawn stainless steel sinks are covered by the scope of the order whether or not they are sold in conjunction with non-subject accessories such as faucets (whether attached or unattached), strainers, strainer sets, rinsing baskets, bottom grids, or other accessories. Excluded from the scope of the order are stainless steel sinks with fabricated bowls. Fabricated bowls do not have seamless corners, but rather are made by notching and bending the stainless steel, and then welding and finishing the vertical corners to form the bowls. Stainless steel sinks with fabricated bowls may sometimes be referred to as ‘‘zero radius’’ or ‘‘near zero radius’’ sinks. The products covered by this order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under statistical reporting number 7324.10.0000 and 7324.10.0010. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive. asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with NOTICES2 Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review Pursuant to section 751(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.216(d), the Department will conduct a CCR upon receipt of a request from an interested party for a review of an AD order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. The information submitted by Ningbo supporting its claim that it is the successor-in-interest to Yuyao demonstrates changed circumstances sufficient to warrant such a review.4 In accordance with the abovereferenced regulation, the Department is initiating a CCR to determine whether Ningbo is the successor-in-interest to Yuyao. When it concludes that expedited action is warranted, the Department may publish the notice of initiation and preliminary results for a CCR concurrently.5 We determined that 4 See 19 CFR 351.216(d). 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii); see also Certain Pasta From Italy: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 80 FR 33480, 33480–41 (June 12, 2015) (Pasta From Italy Preliminary Results) (unchanged in Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of 5 See VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Feb 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 expediting this CCR is warranted because we have the information necessary to make a preliminary finding already on the record, in accordance with our practice.6 In determining whether one company is the successor-in-interest to another, the Department examines a number of factors including, but not limited to, changes in management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customer base.7 While no single factor or combination of these factors will necessarily provide a dispositive indication of a successor-in-interest relationship, the Department will generally consider the new company to be the successor to the previous company if the new company’s resulting operation is not materially dissimilar to that of its predecessor.8 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.9 In its December 22, 2015 submission, Ningbo provided information to demonstrate that it is the successor-ininterest to Yuyao. Ningbo states that the company’s ownership, location/ production facilities, management, and customer base have not changed as a result of the corporate name change. It states further that its suppliers have remained largely the same, with some suppliers added but none eliminated. To support its claims, Ningbo submitted the following documents: (1) A copy of Ningbo’s old and new business licenses, issued on June 2, 2015, and November Changed Circumstances Review, 80 FR 48807 (August 14, 2015) (Pasta From Italy Final Results)). 6 See, e.g., Pasta From Italy Preliminary Results, 80 FR at 33480–41 (unchanged in Pasta From Italy Final Results, 80 FR at 48807). 7 See, e.g., Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand, 75 FR 61702, 61703 (October 6, 2010) (Shrimp From Thailand Preliminary Results) (unchanged in Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand, 75 FR 74684 (December 1, 2010) (Shrimp From Thailand Final Results)); and Industrial Phosphoric Acid From Israel: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944, 6946 (February 14, 1994). 8 See, e.g., Shrimp From Thailand Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 61703 (unchanged in Shrimp From Thailand Final Results, 75 FR at 74684). 9 Id.; see also Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan, 67 FR 58, 59 (January 2, 2002); and Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France: Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, 75 FR 34688, 34689 (June 18, 2010). PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 7505 19, 2015, respectively; 10 (2) a copy of the government certification and approval of the company’s name change from Yuyao to Ningbo; 11 (3) an excerpt from Yuyao’s June 25, 2015, separate rate application documenting the ownership of the company; 12 (4) an excerpt from Yuyao’s June 25, 2015, separate rate application listing the company’s management team; 13 (5) a listing of the company’s suppliers before and after its name change.14 Ningbo also submitted information pertaining to its location/production facilities and U.S. customer base.15 Based on the evidence on the record, we preliminarily find that Ningbo is the successor-in-interest to Yuyao. We find that Ningbo operates as the same business entity as Yuyao and that its ownership, management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customers have not changed as a result of its name change. Thus, we preliminarily find that Ningbo should receive the same antidumping duty cash deposit rate with respect to the subject merchandise as Yuyao, its predecessor company.16 Should our final results remain the same as these preliminary results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend entries of subject merchandise exported by Ningbo at Yuyao’s cash deposit rate, effective on the publication date of our final results. Public Comment Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments not later than 14 days after the publication of this notice.17 Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the deadline for filing case briefs.18 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this changed 10 See Ningbo CCR Request at Exhibit 1. at Exhibit 2. 12 Id. at Exhibit 3. 13 Id. at Exhibit 4. 14 Id. at Exhibit 5. 15 Id. at 3–4. 16 Yuyao received a 4.29 percent dumping margin in the 2012–2014 administrative review of the AD order on drawn stainless steel sinks from the PRC. See Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012– 2014, 80 FR 69644, 69645 (November 10, 2015). We note that Yuyao is also a respondent in the current 2014–2015 administrative review of this antidumping duty order. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 80 FR 30041, 30046 (May 26, 2015). At the conclusion of this CCR, if we determine that Ningbo is the successor-in-interest to Yuyao, we will assign Ningbo an updated cash deposit rate based on the final results of the ongoing review. 17 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). 18 See 19 CFR 351.309(d). 11 Id. E:\FR\FM\12FEN1.SGM 12FEN1 7506 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 29 / Friday, February 12, 2016 / Notices circumstances review are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. Interested parties who wish to comment on the preliminary results must file briefs electronically using Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department’s electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the date the document is due. Interested parties that wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS, within 14 days of publication of this notice.19 Parties will be notified of the time and date of any hearing, if requested.20 Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we intend to issue the final results of this changed circumstance review no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated, or within 45 days of publication of these preliminary results if all parties agree to our preliminary finding. We are issuing and publishing this finding and notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3)(ii). Dated: February 5, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2016–02997 Filed 2–11–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology [Docket Number 151103999–6076–02] Views on the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce. ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period. asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with NOTICES2 AGENCY: The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is extending the period for submitting comments relating to the ‘‘Framework SUMMARY: 17:38 Feb 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on February 23, 2016. Comments received after February 9, 2016 and before publication of this notice are deemed to be timely. DATES: Written comments may be submitted by mail to Diane Honeycutt, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. Online submissions in electronic form may be sent to cyberframework@nist.gov in any of the following formats: HTML; ASCII; Word; RTF; or PDF. Please include your name and your organization’s name (if any), and cite ‘‘Views on the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity’’ in all correspondence. Comments containing references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include copies of the referenced materials. Please do not submit additional materials. All comments received in response to this RFI will be posted at http://www. nist.gov/cyberframework/cybersecurityframework-rfi.cfm without change or redaction, so commenters should not include information they do not wish to be posted (e.g., personal or confidential business information). ADDRESSES: For questions about this RFI contact: Diane Honeycutt, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899 or cyberframework@nist.gov. Please direct media inquiries to NIST’s Office of Public Affairs at (301) 975– 2762. Enhancement Act of 2014 1 to ‘‘facilitate and support the development of a voluntary, consensus-based, industryled set of standards, guidelines, best practices, methodologies, procedures, and processes to cost-effectively reduce cyber risks to critical infrastructure.’’ 2 Executive Order 13636, ‘‘Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity’’ 3 tasked the Secretary of Commerce to direct the Director of NIST to lead the development of a framework to reduce cyber risks to critical infrastructure. A final version of Framework 1.0 was published on February 12, 2014, after a year-long, open process involving private and public sector organizations, including extensive industry input and public comments, and announced in the Federal Register (79 FR 9167) on February 18, 2014. On December 11, 2015 NIST published a RFI in the Federal Register (80 FR 76934) seeking information about the variety of ways in which the Framework is being used to improve cybersecurity risk management, how best practices for using the Framework are being shared, the relative value of different parts of the Framework, the possible need for an update of the Framework, and options for the long-term governance of the Framework. NIST is extending the comment period announced in the December 11, 2015 RFI from February 9, 2016 to February 23, 2016 to allow comments to be submitted during a timeframe in which a variety of cybersecurity events are scheduled to occur. Kevin Kimball, Chief of Staff. [FR Doc. 2016–02860 Filed 2–11–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–13–P FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: NIST is extending the comment period announced in the December 11, 2015 Request for Information (RFI) (80 FR 76934) through February 23, 2016. NIST is authorized by the Cybersecurity SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 19 See 19 CFR 351.310(c); see also 19 CFR 351.303 for general filing requirements. 20 See 19 CFR 351.310. VerDate Sep<11>2014 for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity’’ (the ‘‘Framework’’) through February 23, 2016. In a Request for Information (RFI) that published in the Federal Register on December 11, 2015 (80 FR 76934), NIST requested information about the variety of ways in which the Framework is being used to improve cybersecurity risk management, how best practices for using the Framework are being shared, the relative value of different parts of the Framework, the possible need for an update of the Framework, and options for the long-term governance of the Framework. NIST is extending the comment period announced in the December 11, 2015 RFI from February 9, 2016 to February 23, 2016. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 1 Public Law 113–274 (2014): http://www.gpo. gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-113publ274/pdf/PLAW113publ274.pdf 2 Id., codified in relevant part at 15 U.S.C. 272(c)(15). Congress’s intent was to codify NIST’s role in Executive Order No. 13636: ‘‘Title I would codify certain elements of Executive Order 13636 by directing the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to develop a framework of voluntary standards designed to reduce risks arising from cyberattacks on critical infrastructure that is privately owned and operated.’’ S. Rep. No. 113– 270, at 9 (2014). 3 Exec. Order No. 13636, Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, 78 FR 11739 (Feb. 19, 2013). E:\FR\FM\12FEN1.SGM 12FEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 29 (Friday, February 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7504-7506]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02997]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-983]


Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Changed Circumstances Review: Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the 
People's Republic of China

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is initiating a 
changed circumstances review (CCR) of the antidumping duty (AD) order 
on drawn stainless steel sinks from the People's Republic of China 
(PRC) with regard to Ningbo Afa Kitchen and Bath Co., Ltd. (Ningbo). We 
preliminarily determine that Ningbo is the successor-in-interest to 
Yuyao Afa Kitchenware Co., Ltd. (Yuyao) for purposes of determining AD 
liability. Interested parties are invited to comment on these 
preliminary results.

DATES: Effective Date: February 12, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ross Belliveau or Brian Smith, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4952 or (202) 482-1766.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 11, 2013, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an AD order on drawn stainless steel sinks from the PRC.\1\ On November 
19, 2015, Ningbo, a producer/exporter of drawn stainless steel sinks 
covered by this order, changed its name from Yuyao to Ningbo. On 
December 22, 2015, Ningbo requested that the Department conduct a 
changed circumstances review under section 19 U.S.C. 1675(b) and 19 CFR 
351.216.\2\ In this request, Ningbo asked the Department to determine 
that it is the successor-in-interest to Yuyao and, accordingly, to 
assign it the cash deposit rate of Yuyao.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic 
of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 78 FR 21592 (April 11, 2013).
    \2\ See Letter from Ningbo, entitled ``Drawn Stainless Steel 
Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Request for Changed 
Circumstances Review by Yuyao Afa Kitchenware Co., Ltd. and Ningbo 
Afa Kitchen and Bath Co., Ltd.,'' dated December 22, 2015 (Ningbo 
CCR Request).
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the scope of this order are drawn stainless 
steel sinks with single or multiple drawn bowls, with or without drain 
boards, whether finished or unfinished, regardless of type of finish, 
gauge, or grade of stainless steel. Mounting clips, fasteners, seals, 
and sound-deadening pads are also covered by the scope of this order if 
they are included within the sales price of the drawn stainless steel 
sinks. For purposes of this scope definition, the term ``drawn'' refers 
to a manufacturing process using metal forming technology to produce a 
smooth basin with seamless, smooth, and rounded corners. Drawn 
stainless steel sinks are available in various shapes and 
configurations and may be

[[Page 7505]]

described in a number of ways including flush mount, top mount, or 
undermount (to include the attachment relative to the countertop). 
Stainless steel sinks with multiple drawn bowls that are joined through 
a welding operation to form one unit are covered by the scope of the 
order. Drawn stainless steel sinks are covered by the scope of the 
order whether or not they are sold in conjunction with non-subject 
accessories such as faucets (whether attached or unattached), 
strainers, strainer sets, rinsing baskets, bottom grids, or other 
accessories.
    Excluded from the scope of the order are stainless steel sinks with 
fabricated bowls. Fabricated bowls do not have seamless corners, but 
rather are made by notching and bending the stainless steel, and then 
welding and finishing the vertical corners to form the bowls. Stainless 
steel sinks with fabricated bowls may sometimes be referred to as 
``zero radius'' or ``near zero radius'' sinks.
    The products covered by this order are currently classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under 
statistical reporting number 7324.10.0000 and 7324.10.0010. Although 
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.

Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review

    Pursuant to section 751(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.216(d), the Department will conduct a 
CCR upon receipt of a request from an interested party for a review of 
an AD order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a 
review of the order. The information submitted by Ningbo supporting its 
claim that it is the successor-in-interest to Yuyao demonstrates 
changed circumstances sufficient to warrant such a review.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 19 CFR 351.216(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with the above-referenced regulation, the Department 
is initiating a CCR to determine whether Ningbo is the successor-in-
interest to Yuyao. When it concludes that expedited action is 
warranted, the Department may publish the notice of initiation and 
preliminary results for a CCR concurrently.\5\ We determined that 
expediting this CCR is warranted because we have the information 
necessary to make a preliminary finding already on the record, in 
accordance with our practice.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii); see also Certain Pasta From 
Italy: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Changed Circumstances Review, 80 FR 33480, 33480-41 (June 12, 2015) 
(Pasta From Italy Preliminary Results) (unchanged in Certain Pasta 
From Italy: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 80 FR 
48807 (August 14, 2015) (Pasta From Italy Final Results)).
    \6\ See, e.g., Pasta From Italy Preliminary Results, 80 FR at 
33480-41 (unchanged in Pasta From Italy Final Results, 80 FR at 
48807).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether one company is the successor-in-interest to 
another, the Department examines a number of factors including, but not 
limited to, changes in management, production facilities, supplier 
relationships, and customer base.\7\ While no single factor or 
combination of these factors will necessarily provide a dispositive 
indication of a successor-in-interest relationship, the Department will 
generally consider the new company to be the successor to the previous 
company if the new company's resulting operation is not materially 
dissimilar to that of its predecessor.\8\ 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.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand, 75 FR 61702, 61703 (October 6, 2010) 
(Shrimp From Thailand Preliminary Results) (unchanged in Notice of 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: 
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand, 75 FR 74684 (December 
1, 2010) (Shrimp From Thailand Final Results)); and Industrial 
Phosphoric Acid From Israel: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944, 6946 (February 14, 1994).
    \8\ See, e.g., Shrimp From Thailand Preliminary Results, 75 FR 
at 61703 (unchanged in Shrimp From Thailand Final Results, 75 FR at 
74684).
    \9\ Id.; see also Notice of Final Results of Changed 
Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan, 67 FR 58, 59 (January 2, 2002); 
and Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France: Final Results of 
Changed-Circumstances Review, 75 FR 34688, 34689 (June 18, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its December 22, 2015 submission, Ningbo provided information to 
demonstrate that it is the successor-in-interest to Yuyao. Ningbo 
states that the company's ownership, location/production facilities, 
management, and customer base have not changed as a result of the 
corporate name change. It states further that its suppliers have 
remained largely the same, with some suppliers added but none 
eliminated. To support its claims, Ningbo submitted the following 
documents: (1) A copy of Ningbo's old and new business licenses, issued 
on June 2, 2015, and November 19, 2015, respectively; \10\ (2) a copy 
of the government certification and approval of the company's name 
change from Yuyao to Ningbo; \11\ (3) an excerpt from Yuyao's June 25, 
2015, separate rate application documenting the ownership of the 
company; \12\ (4) an excerpt from Yuyao's June 25, 2015, separate rate 
application listing the company's management team; \13\ (5) a listing 
of the company's suppliers before and after its name change.\14\ Ningbo 
also submitted information pertaining to its location/production 
facilities and U.S. customer base.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Ningbo CCR Request at Exhibit 1.
    \11\ Id. at Exhibit 2.
    \12\ Id. at Exhibit 3.
    \13\ Id. at Exhibit 4.
    \14\ Id. at Exhibit 5.
    \15\ Id. at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the evidence on the record, we preliminarily find that 
Ningbo is the successor-in-interest to Yuyao. We find that Ningbo 
operates as the same business entity as Yuyao and that its ownership, 
management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and 
customers have not changed as a result of its name change. Thus, we 
preliminarily find that Ningbo should receive the same antidumping duty 
cash deposit rate with respect to the subject merchandise as Yuyao, its 
predecessor company.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Yuyao received a 4.29 percent dumping margin in the 2012-
2014 administrative review of the AD order on drawn stainless steel 
sinks from the PRC. See Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; 2012-2014, 80 FR 69644, 69645 (November 10, 
2015). We note that Yuyao is also a respondent in the current 2014-
2015 administrative review of this antidumping duty order. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 80 FR 30041, 30046 (May 26, 2015). At the conclusion of 
this CCR, if we determine that Ningbo is the successor-in-interest 
to Yuyao, we will assign Ningbo an updated cash deposit rate based 
on the final results of the ongoing review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Should our final results remain the same as these preliminary 
results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend 
entries of subject merchandise exported by Ningbo at Yuyao's cash 
deposit rate, effective on the publication date of our final results.
Public Comment
    Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments 
not later than 14 days after the publication of this notice.\17\ 
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in case briefs, 
may be filed not later than five days after the deadline for filing 
case briefs.\18\ Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in 
this changed

[[Page 7506]]

circumstances review are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A 
statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a 
table of authorities. Interested parties who wish to comment on the 
preliminary results must file briefs electronically using Enforcement 
and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized 
Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered 
users at http://access.trade.gov. An electronically-filed document must 
be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic 
records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the date the document 
is due.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii).
    \18\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties that wish to request a hearing must submit a 
written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 
Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS, within 14 days of 
publication of this notice.\19\ Parties will be notified of the time 
and date of any hearing, if requested.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c); see also 19 CFR 351.303 for general 
filing requirements.
    \20\ See 19 CFR 351.310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we intend to issue the final 
results of this changed circumstance review no later than 270 days 
after the date on which this review was initiated, or within 45 days of 
publication of these preliminary results if all parties agree to our 
preliminary finding.
    We are issuing and publishing this finding and notice in accordance 
with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.216 
and 351.221(c)(3)(ii).

    Dated: February 5, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-02997 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P