[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 110 (Friday, June 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32303-32307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-12777]



[[Page 32303]]

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

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, 2006, through December 31, 
2006. We preliminarily find that Ugine & ALZ Belgium received 
countervailable subsidies during the period of review. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, we 
will instruct the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess 
countervailing duties as detailed in the ``Preliminary Results of 
Review'' section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to 
comment on these preliminary results. See the ``Public Comment'' 
section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Neubacher or Alicia Winston, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-5823 and (202) 482-1785, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On May 11, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
published a countervailing duty order 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 countervailing duty 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) (``Amended CVD Order''). On 
May 1, 2007, the Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to 
Request Administrative Review'' for this countervailing duty order. See 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 72 FR 
23796, 23797 (May 1, 2007). On May 31, 2007, we received a request for 
review from U&A.\1\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i) (2004), 
we published a notice of initiation of the review on June 29, 2007. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part and Deferral of Administrative 
Review, 72 FR 35690, 35693 (June 29, 2007) (``Initiation Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\On June 20, 2007, Ugine & ALZ Belgium (``U&A'') provided a 
letter to the Department stating that the company was formerly ALZ 
N.V. (``ALZ'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 13, 2007, we issued countervailing duty questionnaires to 
the Government of Belgium (``GOB''), the Commission of the European 
Union (``EC''), and U&A. We received responses to these questionnaires 
on September 21, and 24, 2007. On April 3, 2008, we issued supplemental 
questionnaires to the GOB and U&A. We issued a further supplemental 
questionnaire to U&A on April 24, 2008. We received a response from U&A 
for both supplemental questionnaires on April 28, 2008. The GOB 
requested an extension to file its supplemental response, which we 
granted. The GOB, however, did not respond to the supplemental 
questionnaire by the extended deadline. We issued additional 
supplemental questionnaires to U&A on May 1, and 8, 2008, and received 
responses to our supplemental questionnaires on May 8, 13, 2008, and 
16, 2008.
    On May 20, 2008, Allegheny Ludlum Corporation; North American 
Stainless; United Auto Workers Local 3303; Zanesville Arco Independent 
Organization; and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC 
(collectively, ``the petitioners'') submitted comments for 
consideration in the preliminary results. We received a response from 
U&A to petitioners' pre-preliminary comments on May 22, 2008.
    On January 9, 2008, we published a postponement of the preliminary 
results in this review until May 30, 2008. See Stainless Steel Plate in 
Coils from Belgium: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 1599 (January 9, 
2008).

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this 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 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, 7219.12.00.05, 
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 this order remains 
dispositive.
    This scope language reflects the March 11, 2003, amendment of the 
antidumping and countervailing duty orders and suspension of 
liquidation which the Department implemented in accordance with the 
Court of International Trade (``CIT'') decision in Allegheny Ludlum v. 
United States, Slip Op. 02-147 (Dec. 12, 2002). See, also, Notice of 
Amended Antidumping 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) and Amended CVD Order.

Period of Review

    The period for which we are measuring subsidies, i.e., the period 
of review (``POR''), is January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006.

[[Page 32304]]

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, provide that the Department 
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary 
information is not on the record or an interested party or any other 
person: (A) Withholds information that has been requested; (B) fails to 
provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form 
and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) 
and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a 
proceeding; or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as 
provided by section 782(i) of the Act.
    Where the Department determines that a response to a request for 
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act 
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the 
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the 
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to 
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to 
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of 
the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) 
of the Act provides that the Department ``shall not decline to consider 
information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary 
to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements 
established by the administering authority'' if the information is 
timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, 
and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in 
providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the 
statute requires the Department to use the information if it can do so 
without undue difficulties.
    In this case, the Department sent a supplemental questionnaire to 
the GOB seeking confirmation that U&A did not receive benefits during 
the 15-year average useful life of renewable physical assets (``AUL'') 
for programs under the program headings ``Industrial Reconversion 
Zones;'' ``Regional Subsidies under the Economic Expansion Law of 1970 
(GOB)'' and ``Regional Subsidies under the Economic Expansion Law of 
1970 (Government of Flanders (``GOF''))''. The GOB, through U&A, 
requested an extension to respond to the supplemental questionnaire, 
which was granted until April 28, 2008. The GOB did not provide a 
response to the supplemental questionnaire by this deadline, but we 
received an extension request on May 6, 2008. The Department granted 
the GOB's request, but the GOB did not file a response by the May 19, 
2008, deadline. On May 23, 2008, the Department received a letter from 
the GOB stating it was still working on providing a response to the 
supplemental questions and would submit an answer as soon as it becomes 
available.
    Thus, in reaching our finding for the preliminary results, pursuant 
to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, we are relying on facts 
otherwise available to determine the countervailable subsidy conferred 
by the GOB under the ``Industrial Reconversion Zones'' and both 
``Economic Expansion Law of 1970'' programs.
    Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may 
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when 
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the 
Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available 
(``AFA'') information derived from the petition, the final 
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information 
placed on the record.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that 
are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as 
``{i{time} nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject 
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the 
subject merchandise.'' See Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d 
Cong., 2d Session (1994) at 870. Corroborate means that the Department 
will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has 
probative value. See SAA at 870. To corroborate secondary information, 
the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability 
and relevance of the information to be used. The SAA emphasizes, 
however, that the Department need not prove that the selected facts 
available are the best alternative information. See SAA at 869.
    The Department states in Certain In-shell Roasted Pistachios from 
the Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results of Countervailing Duty New 
Shipper Review, 73 FR 9993 (February 25, 2008), and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2 (``Pistachios from Iran 2008''), 
that where the foreign government fails to adequately respond to the 
Department's questionnaires, the Department's practice is to apply 
adverse inferences and assume the alleged subsidy programs constitute a 
financial contribution and are specific within the meaning of sections 
771(5)(D) and 771(5A) of the Act, respectively. However, if information 
on the record indicates that the respondent did not use the program, 
the Department will find the program not used, regardless of whether 
the foreign government participated to the best of its ability.
    In its September 24, 2007, questionnaire response, the GOB and U&A 
responded fully to the Department's questions regarding potential 
subsidy programs during the POR. In a subsequent supplemental 
questionnaire to the GOB, the Department asked the GOB to confirm that 
U&A did not receive benefits during the AUL period for programs under 
the ``Industrial Reconversion Zones'' and both ``Economic Expansion Law 
of 1970'' programs. Upon examination of the programs listed under each 
of these headings, we note that several of the programs described are 
recurring subsidy programs that are associated with tax programs 
(Industrial Reconversion Zones: Albufin and Regional Subsidies under 
the Economic Expansion Law of 1970 (GOB): Real Estate Tax Exemption and 
Accelerated Depreciation). As such, we have examined U&A's responses on 
these programs and find that statements by U&A in its questionnaire and 
supplemental questionnaire responses regarding the use of these 
programs during the POR, as well as documentation (e.g., financial 
statements and U&A's 2006 tax return) on the record, support the 
company's assertion that it did not receive benefits under these 
recurring programs in 2006. Although the GOB did not respond to the 
Department's questions regarding these programs, the information on the 
record supports U&A's assertion that it did not use these programs 
during the POR. Therefore, we preliminarily find that U&A did not 
receive benefits under these programs according to section 771(5)(E) of 
the Act.
    For the programs under the Regional Subsidies under the 1970 Law 
(GOF) (Corporate Income Tax Exemption, Capital Registration Tax 
Exemption Government Loan Guarantees, and 1993 Loan Grant programs), 
the Department found these programs to be not used by U&A in the 
investigation and first

[[Page 32305]]

administrative review (the only administrative review for which a 
request for a review was made). We note that no new information on the 
record contradicts our previous finding of non-use for the above GOF 
programs. Moreover, U&A's submitted documentation (2006 financial 
statements and 2006 tax returns) provides additional support that the 
recurring subsidy programs within this group continue to be not used. 
Therefore, consistent with our previous findings of non-use and no new 
information on the record that U&A started to use these programs, we 
preliminarily continue to find the programs under the Regional 
Subsidies under the 1970 Law (GOF) not used.
    The remaining program under these headings involves one non-
recurring program (Industrial Reconversion Zones: Alfin). The 
Department found this program countervailable during the investigation 
and stated that the benefit found had been fully allocated by the end 
of the first administrative review. In the GOB's and U&A's responses to 
the Department regarding this program, both parties stated that the 
benefit the Department found countervailable had been fully allocated 
out in the first administrative review POR, that the program had not 
changed, and that no benefits were provided/received in the POR. The 
GOB and U&A, however, did not address whether benefits were conferred 
upon U&A during the full AUL period. In its supplemental questionnaire 
to the GOB, the Department attempted to clarify those statements and 
confirm that no benefits were provided to U&A for the full AUL period. 
The GOB did not respond to the supplemental questionnaire, and as 
stated above, U&A only provided an incomplete answer in its 
questionnaire response. Thus, the Department has no information on the 
record from which to analyze whether the GOB provided additional 
benefits to U&A under this program over the full AUL period.
    In selecting from among the facts available for U&A, the Department 
has determined that an adverse inference is warranted, pursuant to 
section 776(b) of the Act. The Department preliminarily determines that 
records relating to subsidy distribution by the GOB are records that 
are, or should be kept by both the GOB and U&A. Further, by failing to 
submit a response to the Department's supplemental CVD questionnaire, 
we preliminarily determine that the GOB did not cooperate to the best 
of its ability in providing pertinent information on non-recurring 
programs over the full AUL period. Further, U&A failed to provide a 
complete response to the Department's questionnaire addressing the full 
AUL period. As no information on the record exists for the program 
beyond the original countervailable benefit and POR of this review, and 
neither the GOB nor U&A provided an adequate response for this program, 
we find, as adverse facts available, that the GOB conferred a benefit 
to U&A under the Industrial Reconversion Zones: Alfin program, during 
the AUL period, as per section 771(5)(E) of the Act. We note that 
supplemental questions regarding the use of the above programs during 
the full AUL period were directed only at the GOB. Therefore, we will 
issue an additional supplemental questionnaire to U&A that will request 
supporting documentation regarding the usage of the above programs 
during the full AUL period.

Selection of the Partial Adverse Facts Available Rate

    In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on 
information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in 
the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any 
information placed on the record. It is the Department's practice to 
select, as AFA, the highest calculated rate in any segment of the 
proceeding. See, e.g., Certain In-shell Roasted Pistachios from the 
Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 66165 (November 13, 2006), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at ``Analysis of 
Programs.'' Therefore, the Department has preliminarily assigned the 
first administrative review rate of 0.17% (the highest calculated rate 
for the program during any previous segment) subsidy rate to the 
``Industrial Reconversion Zones: Alfin'' program. In order to satisfy 
itself that such information has probative value, the Department will 
examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of 
the information used. With regard to the reliability aspect of 
corroboration, unlike other types of information, such as publicly 
available data on the national inflation rate of a given country or 
national average interest rates, there typically are no independent 
sources for data on company-specific benefits resulting from 
countervailable subsidy programs. The only source for such information 
normally is administrative determinations.
    In the instant case, no evidence has been presented or obtained 
which contradicts the reliability of the evidence relied upon in 
previous segments of this proceeding.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to 
whether there are circumstances that would render benefit data not 
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the information is not 
appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will not use it. 
See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996). In the instant 
case, no evidence has been presented or obtained which contradicts the 
relevance of the benefit data relied upon in previous segments of this 
proceeding. Thus, in the instant case, the Department finds that the 
information used has been corroborated to the extent practicable.

Changes in Ownership

    Effective June 30, 2003, the Department adopted a new methodology 
for analyzing privatizations in the countervailing duty context. See 
Notice of Final Modification of Agency Practice Under Section 123 of 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 68 FR 37125 (June 23, 2003) 
(``Modification Notice''). The Department's new 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 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.
    U&A's ownership changed during the AUL period as a result of 
mergers and ownership changes. However, during the current 
administrative review, U&A has not attempted to rebut the Department's 
baseline presumption that the non-recurring, allocable subsidies 
received prior to any changes in ownership continue to benefit the 
company throughout the allocation period. See U&A's September 24, 2007, 
questionnaire response at pages 12-13.

Subsidies Valuation Information

Responding Producers

    In earlier proceedings, we found that ALZ N.V.'s (``ALZ's'') parent 
company,

[[Page 32306]]

Sidmar N.V. (``Sidmar''), owned either directly or indirectly 100 
percent of ALZ's voting shares and was the overall majority shareholder 
of U&A Belgium. See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination; Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium, 64 FR 15567 
(March 31, 1999) (``SSPC from Belgium Investigation''); 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''). 
Therefore, in accordance with section 351.525(a)(6)(iii) of the 
Department's regulations, because ALZ was a fully consolidated 
subsidiary of Sidmar, any untied subsidies provided to Sidmar are 
attributable to ALZ.
    In the current review, U&A provided evidence on the record that it 
is wholly owned by Arcelor and that Sidmar transferred shares to 
Arcelor pursuant to the 2002 merger of Sidmar's parent, Arbed, with 
Aceralia and Usinor. Certain details of this transfer are proprietary 
in nature and are discussed in U&A's Calculation Memo. See Memorandum 
to Susan Kuhbach, Director, regarding ``Calculations for the 
Preliminary Results for U&A Belguim'' (May 30, 2008) (``U&A's 
Calculation Memo''). Based on the information provided, we preliminary 
find it appropriate to attribute any non-recurring subsidy benefits 
provided to Sidmar and that are still outstanding during the POR to 
U&A's sales.

Allocation Period

    In SSPC from Belgium Investigation, in accordance with a 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 was 15 years, and that the AUL for Sidmar was 19 
years. See SSPC from Belgium, 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. See SSPC from Belgium First Review, and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 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 non-recurring subsidies over 19 years for 
Sidmar. 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 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.
    During the current administrative review, U&A has not commented on 
the Department's use of the 15-year AUL period or the use of a 19-year 
AUL for Sidmar's non-recurring subsidies received by the company in the 
investigation. For the preliminary results, we will continue to employ 
our previous methodology and use the 15-year AUL for U&A and allocate 
any non-recurring subsidies received by Sidmar in the investigation 
over the 19-year AUL.

Benchmarks for Discount Rate

    Because Sidmar did not obtain long-term commercial loans in the 
year in which the grant was received, as described in section 
351.505(a)(2)(iii), we used a national average rate for long-term, 
fixed-rate debt as the discount rate. See section 351.505(a)(3)(ii) of 
the Department's regulations.

Analysis of Programs

I. Program Previously Determined To Confer Subsidies

    We examined the following program determined to confer subsidies in 
the investigation and the first administrative review and preliminarily 
find that U&A continued to receive benefits under this program during 
the POR.

SidInvest

    SidInvest was incorporated on August 31, 1982, as a holding company 
jointly owned by Sidmar and the Societe Nationale d'Investissement, 
S.A. (``SNI'') (a government financing agency). SidInvest was given 
drawing rights on SNI to finance specific projects. The drawing rights 
took the form of conditional refundable advances (``CRAs''), which were 
interest-free, but repayable to SNI based on a company's profitability. 
See SSPC From Belgium Investigation, 64 FR at 15572.
    SidInvest made periodic repayments of the CRAs it had drawn from 
SNI. However, in 1987, the GOB moved to accelerate the repayment of the 
CRAs. Later, in July 1988, an agreement was reached for the government 
agency Nationale Maatschappig voor de Herstructurering van de Nationale 
Sectoren (``NMNS'') to become a shareholder in SidInvest by 
contributing the CRAs owed to the government by SidInvest in exchange 
for SidInvest stock. The Sidmar Group then repurchased the SidInvest 
shares obtained by NMNS. Id.
    We determined that this program conferred a countervailable subsidy 
within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''). Id. This program provided a financial 
contribution as described in section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. Id. 
Moreover, because the right to establish ``Invests'' (and, 
consequently, any forgiveness of loans given to the Invests) was 
limited to the five national sectors, we determined that the program 
was specific under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. Id. In this 
administrative review, no new information has been placed on the record 
which would warrant reconsideration of this determination.
    To measure the benefit arising from the events of July 29, 1988, we 
have deducted from SidInvest's outstanding indebtedness the cash 
received by the GOB. We have treated the remainder as a grant and 
allocated the benefit over Sidmar's 19-year AUL. We divided the total 
benefit attributable to 2006 by U&A Belgium's total sales during 2006. 
On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy 
for 2006 to be 0.31 percent ad valorem.

Industrial Reconversion Zones: Alfin

    As noted in the ``Use of Facts Otherwise Available ''section above, 
we preliminarily find U&A to have benefitted from the Industrial 
Reconversion Zones: Alfin program during the POR in the amount of 0.17 
percent.

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Used

    We examined the following programs and preliminarily determine that 
U&A 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:
    a. Water Purification Grants
2. Societe Nationale pour la Reconstruction des Secteurs Nationaux
3. Regional subsidies under the 1970 Law Investment and Interest 
Subsidies

[[Page 32307]]

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. 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
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
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

III. Issues for Which More Information Is Required

    On May 1, 2008, the Department sought information from U&A 
concerning amounts appearing in its 2005 and 2006 financial statements. 
U&A submitted some requested information on May 8, 2008, and May 13, 
2008. In addition, in its May 22, 2008, response to petitioners' pre-
preliminary comments, U&A stated that it had inadvertently not included 
all of its divisions and cross-owned companies in its submitted total 
sales and export data. After reviewing the provided documentation, we 
have determined that we do not have sufficient information at this time 
to make a finding on these amounts or the revised sales value and 
export data. Therefore, we intend to seek further information on these 
amounts and revised data and to issue an interim analysis describing 
our preliminary findings with respect to these items before the final 
results so that parties will have the opportunity to comment.

Preliminary Results of Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an 
individual subsidy rate for U&A, the only producer/exporter subject to 
this administrative review. For the period January 1, 2006, through 
December 31, 2006, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy rate for 
U&A to be 0.48 percent ad valorem. This rate is less than 0.5 percent. 
Consequently, if these preliminary results are adopted in our final 
results of this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate 
shipments of SSPC by U&A\2\ entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006, without 
regard to countervailing duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). These 
instructions will be issued fifteen days after publication of the final 
results of this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ During the current review U&A has placed the following 
information on the record. In 2002, ALZ in Belgium merged with 
Ugine, a French producer of stainless steel sheet and strip, to 
become U&A. The Department has reviewed the information provided by 
U&A 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 U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') to confirm that U&A is the only manufacturer of 
subject merchandise exported from Belgium during the period of 
review. Therefore, for countervailing duty review purposes, we will 
consider ALZ to be U&A for cash deposit and assessment purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 this 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 this 
order will be the rate for that company established in the 
investigation or most recent administrative review. See CVD Order. 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 
within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 
351.309(c)(ii). 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 Act.
    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 30, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
 [FR Doc. E8-12777 Filed 6-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P