26844 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 106 / Thursday, June 4, 2009 / Notices 

1The review was originally requested by U&A 

Belgium. The company previously known as U&A 

Belgium stated in questionnaire responses that its 

name changed to ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium 

(‘‘AMS Belgium’’) during the period of review 

(‘‘POR’’) pursuant to the merger of Mittal Steel NV 

with Arcelor S.A. completed on November 11, 

2007. See AMS Belgium Questionnaire Response 

dated October 22, 2008 (‘‘AMS QR’’) at page 1, 

footnote 1, and page 4, footnote 2. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305 and as explained 

in the APO. Timely written notification 

of the return/destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

This notice is in accordance with 

section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended and 19 CFR 

251.213(d)(4). 

Dated: May 29, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–13070 Filed 6–3–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–423–809] 

Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from 

Belgium: Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

is conducting an administrative review 

of the countervailing duty order on 

stainless steel plate in coils from 

Belgium for the period January 1, 2007, 

through December 31, 2007. We 

preliminarily find that ArcelorMittal 

Stainless Belgium N.V. (‘‘AMS 

Belgium’’) did not receive any 

countervailable subsidies in this review 

and its rate is, consequently, zero. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 4, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Layton or Alexander Montoro, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0371 and (202) 

482–0238, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 11, 1999, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) 

published a countervailing duty order 

(‘‘CVD’’) on stainless steel plate in coils 

(‘‘SSPC’’) from Belgium. See Notice of 

Amended Final Determinations: 

Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from 

Belgium and South Africa; and Notice 

of Countervailing Duty Orders: Stainless 

Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium, Italy 

and South Africa, 64 FR 25288 (May 11, 

1999) (‘‘CVD Order’’). On March 11, 

2003, as a result of litigation, the 

Department published an amended CVD 

order on stainless steel plate in coils 

from Belgium. See Notice of Amended 

Countervailing Duty Orders; Certain 

Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From 

Belgium, Italy, and South Africa, 68 FR 

11524 (March 11, 2003). On May 5, 

2008, the Department published a notice 

of ‘‘Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review’’ for this CVD 

order. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 73 

FR 24532 (May 5, 2008). On June 2, 

2008, we received a request for review 

from Ugine & ALZ Belgium (‘‘U&A 

Belgium’’), a Belgian producer of SSPC.1

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(1)(i), we published a notice 

of initiation of the review on July 1, 

2008, covering the period January 1, 

2007 through December 31, 2007. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 73 FR 37409 (July 1, 2008). 

On August 18, 2008, we issued CVD 

questionnaires to the Government of 

Belgium (‘‘GOB’’), the Commission of 

the European Union (‘‘EC’’), and U&A 

Belgium. We received responses to these 

questionnaires on October 15, 2008, 

from the EC and on October 22, 2008, 

from the GOB and AMS Belgium 

(formerly U&A Belgium). On January 28, 

2009, we issued supplemental 

questionnaires to the GOB and AMS 

Belgium. We received responses for the 

supplemental questionnaires from both 

the GOB and AMS Belgium on March 4, 

2009. On April 16, 2009, we issued a 

second supplemental questionnaire to 

AMS Belgium, and we received its 

response on April 22, 2009. On May 4, 

2009, we issued a second supplemental 

questionnaire to the GOB. On May 8, 

2009, the GOB requested an extension to 

file its supplemental response, which 

we granted. See Memorandum from 

Susan Kuhbach to file, entitled ‘‘SSPC 

from Belgium – Meeting with GOB,’’ 

May 20, 2009. 

On January 28, 2009, we extended the 

time limit for the preliminary results in 

this review until June 1, 2009. See 

Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From 

Belgium: Extension of Time Limit for 

Preliminary Results of the 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 4940 (January 28, 2009). 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the order are 

imports of 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 

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 the 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 the order 

is currently classifiable in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) at 

subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 

7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.05, 

7219.12.00.06, 7219.12.00.20, 

7219.12.00.21, 7219.12.00.25, 

7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.50, 

7219.12.00.51, 7219.12.00.55, 

7219.12.00.56, 7219.12.00.65, 

7219.12.00.66, 7219.12.00.70, 

7219.12.00.71, 7219.12.00.80, 

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 

Department’s written description of the 

scope of the order remains dispositive. 

Period of Review 

The period for which we are 

measuring subsidies, i.e., the POR, is 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 106 / Thursday, June 4, 2009 / Notices 26845 

January 1, 2007, through December 31, 

2007. 

Changes in Ownership 

In the CVD investigation that resulted 

in the order, we examined a single 

producer/exporter of the subject 

merchandise, ALZ N.V. ALZ N.V. was 

owned by Sidmar N.V. See Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination; Stainless Steel Plate in 

Coils from Belgium, 64 FR 15567 (March 

31, 1999) (‘‘SSPC from Belgium 

Investigation’’); See also Stainless Steel 

Plate in Coils From Belgium: Final 

Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review, 66 FR 45007 

(August 27, 2001), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

(‘‘SSPC from Belgium First Review’’). 

In the most recent review, we 

recognized that Sidmar N.V. had 

transferred its shares in ALZ N.V. to 

Arcelor S.A., which was formed in the 

2002 merger of Sidmar N.V.’s parent, 

Arbed S.A., with Aceralia and Usinor 

S.A., and the company formerly named 

ALZ N.V. had become U&A Belgium. 

See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From 

Belgium: Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 32303 (June 6, 2008); 

unchanged in Stainless Steel Plate in 

Coils from Belgium: Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 75673 (December 12, 

2008) (‘‘2006 SSPC Final’’). 

In the current POR, U&A Belgium 

changed its name to AMS Belgium. 

AMS Belgium is wholly owned by 

ArcelorMittal S.A. as a result of the 

November 13, 2007, merger of Arcelor 

S.A. and Mittal Steel N.V. 

Effective June 30, 2003, the 

Department adopted a new methodology 

for analyzing privatizations in the CVD 

context. See Notice of Final 

Modification of Agency Practice Under 

Section 123 of the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, 68 FR 37125 (June 23, 

2003). The Department’s methodology is 

based on a rebuttable ‘‘baseline’’ 

presumption that non–recurring, 

allocable subsidies continue to benefit 

the subsidy recipient throughout the 

allocation period (which normally 

corresponds to the average useful life 

(‘‘AUL’’) of the recipient’s assets). Id., at 

37127. However, an interested party 

may rebut this baseline presumption by 

demonstrating that, during the 

allocation period, a change in 

ownership occurred in which the former 

owner sold all or substantially all of a 

company or its assets, retaining no 

control of the company or its assets, and 

that the sale was an arm’s length 

transaction for fair market value. Id. 

As explained above, AMS Belgium’s 

ownership changed during the AUL 

period as a result of various mergers. 

However, AMS Belgium has not 

attempted to rebut the Department’s 

baseline presumption that the nonrecurring, allocable subsidies received 

prior to any changes in ownership 

continue to benefit the company 

throughout the allocation period. See 

AMS QR at page 13. 

Allocation Period and Attribution 

In prior reviews, the Department 

attributed subsidies received by Sidmar 

N.V. to ALZ N.V., in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iii), because ALZ 

N.V. was a fully consolidated subsidiary 

of Sidmar N.V. 

In SSPC from Belgium Investigation, 

in accordance with a U.S. Court of 

International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) decision, we 

calculated company-specific allocation 

periods for non-recurring subsidies 

using company-specific AUL data. See 

British Steel plc v. United States, 929 F. 

Supp. 426, 439 (CIT 1996). We 

determined that the AUL for ALZ N.V. 

was 15 years, and that the AUL for 

Sidmar N.V. was 19 years. See SSPC 

from Belgium Investigation, 64 FR at 

15568. 

In the first administrative review, the 

Department adopted new CVD 

regulations, which were applicable to 

the review, and determined to use a 15– 

year AUL for the review including any 

new subsidies received by Sidmar N.V. 

See SSPC from Belgium First Review, 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. See 19 

CFR 351.524(d)(2). However, with 

respect to non-recurring subsidies 

received prior to the first administrative 

review which had already been 

countervailed and allocated based on an 

allocation period established in SSPC 

from Belgium Investigation, we 

continued to allocate those nonrecurring subsidies over 19 years for 

Sidmar N.V. As we noted at the time, 

this methodology was consistent with 

our approach in Certain Carbon Steel 

Products from Sweden; Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 62 FR 16549 (April 7, 1997) and 

Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results 

of the Third Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review, 66 FR 11269 

(February 23, 2001) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

‘‘Allocation Period.’’ See SSPC from 

Belgium First Review, and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

In the current administrative review, 

AMS Belgium has not commented on 

the Department’s use of the 15-year AUL 

period or the use of a 19-year AUL for 

Sidmar N.V.’s non-recurring subsidies 

received by the company in the 

investigation. For the preliminary 

results, we are using a 15-year AUL for 

AMS Belgium, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.524(d)(2). The subsidy benefits 

previously found to have been received 

by Sidmar N.V. in the investigation and 

allocated over the 19-year AUL have 

been fully allocated and, therefore, are 

not included in the CVD rate established 

in this review. 

Analysis of Programs 

I. Programs Preliminarily Determined 

Not to Have Been Used or Not to Have 

Provided Benefits 

We examined the following programs 

and preliminarily determine that AMS 

Belgium did not apply for or receive 

benefits under these programs during 

the POR: 

A. Government of Belgium Programs 

1. Subsidies Provided to Sidmar that 

are Potentially Attributable to ALZ 

N.V.: 

a. Water Purification Grants 

2. Societe Nationale pour la 

Reconstruction des Secteurs 

Nationaux 

3. Regional Subsidies under the 1970 

Law Investment and Interest 

Subsidies 

4. Regional Subsidies under the 

Economic Expansion Law of 1970 

a. Expansion Real Estate Tax 

Exemption 

b. Accelerated Depreciation 

5. Reduced Social Security 

Contributions Pursuant to the 

Maribel Scheme (Article 35 of the 

Law of June 29, 1981) 

6. 1987 ALZ Common Share 

Transaction Between the GOB and 

Sidmar (also identified as 1985 ALZ 

Share Subscriptions and 

Subsequent Transactions in the 

CVD Order) 

7. Industrial Reconversion Zones: 

a. Alfin 

b. Albufin 

8. Belgian Industrial Finance 

Company (‘‘Belfin’’) Loans 

9. Societe Nationale de Credite a 

l’Industrie (‘‘SNCI’’) Loans 

10. Conversion of Sidmar’s Debt to 

Equity (OCPC-to-PB) in 1985 

11. SidInvest Conditional Refundable 

Advances 

B. Government of Flanders Programs 

1. Regional subsidies under the 1970 

Law 

a. Corporate Income Tax Exemption 

b. Capital Registration Tax Exemption 

c. Government Loan Guarantees 

d. 1993 Expansion Grant 

2. Special Depreciation Allowance 

26846 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 106 / Thursday, June 4, 2009 / Notices 

2 During the current review AMS Belgium has 

placed the following information on the record. In 

2006, U&A Belgium’s parent company, Arcelor 

S.A., agreed to merge with Mittal Steel N.V. This 

merger was completed on November 13, 2007. As 

a result of this merger, U&A Belgium became AMS 

Belgium on November 13, 2007. The Department 

has reviewed the information provided by AMS 

Belgium with regard to the merger and evaluated 

the company and its affiliates for receipt of 

countervailable subsidies. In addition, we have 

reviewed entry data provided by CBP to confirm 

that U&A Belgium is the only manufacturer of 

subject merchandise exported from Belgium during 

the POR. For countervailing duty review purposes, 

we will consider U&A Belgium to be AMS Belgium 

for cash deposit purposes. Since the merger 

happened during the POR, we will issue assessment 

instructions for both U&A Belgium and AMS 

Belgium. 

3. Preferential Short–Term Export 

Credit 

4. Interest Rate Rebates 

C. Programs of the European 

Commission 

1. ECSC Article 54 Loans and Interest 

Rebates 

2. ECSC Article 56 Conversion Loans, 

Interest Rebates and Redeployment 

Aid 

3. European Social Fund Grants 

4. European Regional Development 

Fund Grants 

5. Resider II Program 

II. Issues for Which More Information 

is Required 

On May 4, 2009, the Department 

sought information from the GOB 

concerning a research and development 

program administered by the Institute 

for the Promotion of Innovation by 

Science and Technology in Flanders. 

See March 4, 2009 AMS Belgium 

supplemental questionnaire response at 

pages 12–14 and Appendices S–5 and 

S–12 through S–17. In the previous 

review, the Department stated that it 

would defer examination of this 

program until a future review. See 2006 

SSPC Final, and accompanying ‘‘Issues 

and Decision Memorandum for the 

Final Results of the Eighth (2006) 

Administrative Review of the 

Countervailing Duty Order on Stainless 

Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium’’ in 

the ‘‘Analysis of Programs’’ section. On 

May 8, 2009, the GOB requested, and we 

granted, an extension to file its 

supplemental response on this program. 

As a result, we will not receive the 

GOB’s supplemental response until after 

the preliminary results of this review 

are issued. 

After reviewing the documentation 

receive to date, we have determined that 

we do not have sufficient information to 

make a finding regarding this program at 

this time. After we receive the GOB’s 

supplemental questionnaire response, 

we intend to issue an interim analysis 

providing preliminary findings with 

respect to this program so that parties 

will have the opportunity to comment. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily find that AMS 

Belgium, the only producer/exporter 

subject to this administrative review, 

had no countervailable subsidies during 

the POR. Therefore, for the period 

January 1, 2007, through December 31, 

2007, we preliminarily determine the 

net subsidy rate for AMS Belgium to be 

0.00 percent ad valorem. Consequently, 

if these preliminary results are adopted 

in our final results of this review, the 

Department will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to 

liquidate shipments of SSPC by AMS 

Belgium2 entered or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption from 

January 1, 2007, through December 31, 

2007, without regard to countervailing 

duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). We 

intend to issue these instructions 15 

days after publication of the final results 

of this review. 

The final results of this review shall 

be the basis for future deposits of 

estimated duties. If the cash deposit rate 

calculated in the final results is zero or 

de minimis, no cash deposit will be 

required. The cash deposit requirement, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

We will instruct CBP to continue to 

collect cash deposits for non–reviewed 

companies covered by the order at the 

most recent company–specific rate 

applicable to the company. Accordingly, 

the cash deposit rate that will be 

applied to non–reviewed companies 

covered by the order will be the rate for 

that company established in the 

investigation or most recent 

administrative review. The ‘‘all others’’ 

rate shall apply to all non–reviewed 

companies that have not received an 

individual rate. 

Public Comment 

Interested parties may submit written 

arguments in case briefs no later than 

one week after the issuance of the 

interim analysis. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). 

Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised 

in case briefs, may be filed not later than 

five days after the date of filing the case 

briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties 

who submit briefs in this proceeding 

should provide a summary of the 

arguments not to exceed five pages and 

a table of statutes, regulations, and cases 

cited. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and 

(d)(2). Copies of case briefs and rebuttal 

briefs must be served on interested 

parties in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.303(f). 

Interested parties may request a 

hearing within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Unless otherwise specified, 

the hearing, if requested, will be held 

two days after the scheduled date for 

submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 

CFR 351.310(d)(1). 

The Department will publish a notice 

of the final results of this administrative 

review within 120 days from the 

publication of these preliminary results. 

See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’). 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: May 28, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–13066 Filed 6–3–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–552–805] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination in the Countervailing 

Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 4, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gene Calvert or Jun Jack Zhao, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3586 and (202) 

482–1396, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 20, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) initiated 

the countervailing duty investigation of 

polyethylene retail carrier bags from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam. See 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Vietnam: Initiation of Countervailing 

Duty Investigation and Request for 

Public Comment on the Application of 

the Countervailing Duty Law on Imports 

From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 

74 FR 19064 (April 27, 2009). Currently, 

the preliminary determination is due no 

later than June 24, 2009.