Preliminary Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the People's Republic of China, 32072-32074 [E7-11206]

Download as PDF 32072 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 111 / Monday, June 11, 2007 / Notices through March 22, 2007, the Department verified the Section A and quantity and value questionnaire response of Huanri in Panjia Village, Laizhou, PRC. On May 4, 2007, the Department issued the verification report for Huanri. See Memorandum to the File through Wendy J. Frankel, Office Director, and Robert Bolling, Program Manager, From Eugene Degnan, Senior International Trade Analyst, and Paul Stolz, International Trade Compliance Analyst, entitled, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic of China: Verification of Section A and Quantity and Value Response of Shandong Huanri Group Co., Ltd., Laizhou Huanri Automobile Parts Co., Ltd., and Shandong Huanri Group General Co.’’ On May 10, 2007, the Department set the deadlines for submission of case and rebuttal briefs as May 21, 2007, and May 29, 2007, respectively. On May 10, 2007, the Coalition for the Preservation of American Brake Drum and Rotor Aftermarket Manufacturers (‘‘the Petitioner’’), requested a 5-day extension of time to submit rebuttal briefs. On May 15, 2007, the Department granted the Petitioner’s request and extended the deadline for submission of rebuttal briefs to June 5, 2007, for all parties. rmajette on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS Extension of Time Limit of Final Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the ‘‘Act’’) requires the Department to issue the final results within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. However, if it is not practicable to complete this review within the time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the deadline for the final results to a maximum of 180 days after the publication date of the preliminary results. The Department determines that completion of the final results of these reviews within the statutory time period is not practicable. The Department requires additional time to analyze comments regarding the 19 respondents, including 15 separate–rate respondents and three mandatory respondents in the administrative review and one respondent in the new shipper review. Therefore, given the number and complexity of issues and companies in this case, and in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, we are extending the time period for issuing the final results of review by 46 days to 166 days after the publication of the preliminary results. Therefore, the final VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:15 Mar 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 results will be due no later than July 31, 2007. This notice is published pursuant to sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: June 5, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7–11251 Filed 6–8–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–865] Preliminary Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the People’s Republic of China Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Bertrand or Christopher Riker, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3207 and (202) 482–3441, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On November 1, 2006, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot– rolled carbon steel flat products from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) for the period of review (‘‘POR’’) November 1, 2005, through October 31, 2006. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 71 FR 64240 (November 1, 2006). On November 30, 2006, United States Steel (‘‘Petitioner’’), a domestic producer of certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat products, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of Anshan Iron & Steel Group Corp., Angang Group International Trade Corporation, Angang New Iron and Steel Co., Angang New Steel Co., Ltd., and Angang Group Hong Kong Co., Ltd. (collectively ‘‘Angang’’) and Baosteel Group Corporation, Shanghai Baosteel International Economic & Trading Co., Ltd., and Baoshan Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (collectively ‘‘Baosteel’’). On December 27, 2006, the Department PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 published a notice of initiation of an antidumping duty administrative review on certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat products from the PRC. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part (‘‘Notice of Initiation’’), 71 FR 77720 (December 27, 2006). On January 4, 2007, the Department issued a quantity and value questionnaire to Angang and Baosteel. On January 18, 2007, Angang submitted a letter stating that Angang had no sales, shipments, or entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Also on January 18, 2007, Baosteel submitted a letter stating that it had no sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. On February 7, 2007, Petitioner submitted information on the record of this review, in the form of Port Import Export Reporting Service (‘‘PIERS’’) data, which is a subscription service based upon shipping manifests, alleging that there were entries made of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR by Angang and Baosteel. On February 13, 2007, the Department requested that Angang and Baosteel provide comments on the PIERS data placed on the record by Petitioner. Also, on February 13, 2007, the Department requested that Petitioner provide the Harmonized Tariff Codes for the data it provided from PIERS and explain how the information it placed on the record could be tied to actual entry documentation from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’). Baosteel submitted comments on February 16, 2007, and on March 6, 2007, again stating that it had no shipments, sales, or entries of subject merchandise during the POR to the United States, and provided supporting sales documentation for the entries listed in the PIERS data to demonstrate that those entries were not subject merchandise. On February 20, 2007, Angang responded to the Department’s February 13, 2007, questionnaire, and stated again that it had no shipments, sales, or entries of subject merchandise during the POR, and alleged that the PIERS data placed on the record by Petitioner was not reflective of the actual material that was shipped by Angang. Also, on February 20, 2007, Petitioner submitted a response to the Department’s February 13, 2007, questionnaire, and placed a revised version of the PIERS data on the record which contained the tariff code numbers. The Department conducted a CBP data query for possible entries of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR by Angang and Baosteel. E:\ERIC\11JNN1.SGM 11JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 111 / Monday, June 11, 2007 / Notices rmajette on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS The data query response indicated that there were no shipments by either Angang or Baosteel during the POR. On January 16, 2007, we sent inquiries to CBP requesting notification as to whether it had information indicating that there were shipments of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR by Angang or Baosteel. We received responses from several CBP ports indicating that certain shipments by Baosteel to the United States during the POR may contain subject merchandise. We requested all of the documentation relating to these shipments and placed the documentation on the record. See Memorandum to the File from Catherine Bertrand dated April 11, 2007. On April 11, 2007, we sent Baosteel a questionnaire regarding the entry documentation, and requested that Baosteel explain whether the entries were subject merchandise. On May 2, 2007, Baosteel responded and maintained that the entries in the entry documentation were for cold–rolled carbon steel which is outside the scope of the antidumping duty order. See Baosteel’s May 2, 2007, submission: Response to April 11, 2007 Questionnaire. Petitioner did not provide comments on Baosteel’s May 2, 2007, submission. Scope of the Review For purposes of this review, the products covered are certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non–metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate (i.e., flat–rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this review. Specifically included within the scope of this review are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial–free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro–alloying levels of elements such as titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to stabilize VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:15 Mar 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro–alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro–alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. Steel products to be included in the scope of this review, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products in which: i) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; ii) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and iii) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this review unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or specifically excluded from the scope of this review: • Alloy hot–rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, e.g., American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506). • Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron & Steel Institute (AISI) grades of series 2300 and higher. • Ball bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS. • Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS. • Silico–manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent. • ASTM specifications A710 and A736. • USS abrasion–resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500). • All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507). • Non–rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of having been processed by cutting or PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 32073 stamping and which have assumed the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the HTSUS. The merchandise subject to this review is classified in the HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat products covered by this review, including: vacuum degassed fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive. Period of Review The POR is November 1, 2005, through October 31, 2006. Preliminary Rescission of Review The Department has analyzed all of the information on the record regarding alleged U.S. entries of subject merchandise during the POR by Angang and Baosteel. As noted above, Petitioner placed information on the record from PIERS that indicated there may have been U.S. entries of subject merchandise during the POR from Angang and Baosteel. The legal description of what enters the Unites States is determined by CBP entry documentation. Where a conflict exists between PIERS and CBP information, the Department weighs the CBP data more heavily because it contains the actual entry documentation E:\ERIC\11JNN1.SGM 11JNN1 rmajette on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS 32074 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 111 / Monday, June 11, 2007 / Notices for the shipment, including the Customs 7501 form, invoice, and bill of lading. The CBP data regarding Baosteel indicates that the merchandise is not subject to the order covering this review. Additionally, the supporting documents placed on the record by Baosteel concerning these entries indicate that the merchandise at issue was cold–rolled steel, which is not subject to the scope of the order. CBP did not indicate that there were any shipments from Angang of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that the merchandise from the entry documentation is not subject to the scope of the antidumping duty order on hot–rolled carbon steel flat product from the PRC. Because there is no information on the record which indicates that either Angang or Baosteel made sales, shipments, or entries to the United States of subject merchandise during the POR, and because Angang and Baosteel are the only companies subject to this administrative review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with our practice, we are preliminarily rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat products from the PRC for the period of November 1, 2005, to October 31, 2006. If the rescission is confirmed in our final results, the cash deposit rate for Angang and Baosteel will continue to be the rate established in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding. Interested parties may submit comments for consideration in the Department’s final results not later than 30 days after publication of this notice. Responses to those comments may be submitted not later than 10 days following submission of the comments. All written comments must be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303, and must be served on interested parties on the Department’s service list in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary results, and will publish these results in the Federal Register. This notice is published in accordance with sections 751 and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:15 Mar 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 Dated: May 31, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7–11206 Filed 6–8–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–580–829] Stainless Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request by Carpenter Technology Corporation, a domestic interested party, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rod (SSWR) from the Republic of Korea (Korea). This review covers two producers/exporters of the subject merchandise that have been collapsed for purposes of the Department’s analysis, consistent with prior determinations in this proceeding. The period of review is September 1, 2005, through August 31, 2006. The Department has preliminarily determined that the companies subject to this review made U.S. sales of SSWR at prices less than normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review. We will issue the final results of review no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–0410. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On September 15, 1998, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on SSWR from Korea. See Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Korea, 63 FR 49331 (September 15, 1998) (Amended Final Determination), and Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Korea: Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value Pursuant to Court Decision, 66 FR 41550 (August 8, 2001) (Amended Final Determination Pursuant to Court Decision). In September 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative Review’’ of the antidumping duty order on SSWR from Korea. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 71 FR 52061 (September 1, 2006). On September 29, 2006, in accordance with 19 CFR § 351.213(b)(1), Carpenter Technology Corporation requested that the Department conduct a review of Changwon Specialty Steel Co., Ltd. (Changwon), and Dongbang Special Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongbang), and any of their affiliates (collectively, the respondent1) for the period from September 1, 2005, through August 31, 2006. In October 2006, the Department initiated an administrative review of the respondent. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 63752 (October 31, 2006). On November 2, 2006, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to the respondent. The respondent did not respond to the Department’s questionnaire. On December 15, 2006, we sent a letter to the respondent requesting that it respond to our questionnaire. The respondent submitted no response to this letter. The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of review is September 1, 2005, through August 31, 2006. Scope of the Order For purposes of this order, the products covered are those SSWR that are hot–rolled or hot–rolled annealed and/or pickled and/or descaled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils, that may also be coated with a lubricant containing copper, lime 1 We collapsed Changwon and Dongbang in the less-than-fair-value investigation and in every subsequent review of this order because we found ‘‘a close supplier relationship between the entities.’’ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Korea, 63 FR 40404, 40405 (July 29, 1998). E:\ERIC\11JNN1.SGM 11JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 111 (Monday, June 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32072-32074]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-11206]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-865]


Preliminary Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the People's 
Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Bertrand or Christopher 
Riker, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3207 and (202) 482-3441, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 1, 2006, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review 
of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat 
products from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') for the period 
of review (``POR'') November 1, 2005, through October 31, 2006. See 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 71 FR 
64240 (November 1, 2006). On November 30, 2006, United States Steel 
(``Petitioner''), a domestic producer of certain hot-rolled carbon 
steel flat products, requested that the Department conduct an 
administrative review of Anshan Iron & Steel Group Corp., Angang Group 
International Trade Corporation, Angang New Iron and Steel Co., Angang 
New Steel Co., Ltd., and Angang Group Hong Kong Co., Ltd. (collectively 
``Angang'') and Baosteel Group Corporation, Shanghai Baosteel 
International Economic & Trading Co., Ltd., and Baoshan Iron and Steel 
Co., Ltd. (collectively ``Baosteel''). On December 27, 2006, the 
Department published a notice of initiation of an antidumping duty 
administrative review on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products 
from the PRC. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part (``Notice of 
Initiation''), 71 FR 77720 (December 27, 2006).
    On January 4, 2007, the Department issued a quantity and value 
questionnaire to Angang and Baosteel. On January 18, 2007, Angang 
submitted a letter stating that Angang had no sales, shipments, or 
entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 
Also on January 18, 2007, Baosteel submitted a letter stating that it 
had no sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the 
POR.
    On February 7, 2007, Petitioner submitted information on the record 
of this review, in the form of Port Import Export Reporting Service 
(``PIERS'') data, which is a subscription service based upon shipping 
manifests, alleging that there were entries made of subject merchandise 
into the United States during the POR by Angang and Baosteel. On 
February 13, 2007, the Department requested that Angang and Baosteel 
provide comments on the PIERS data placed on the record by Petitioner. 
Also, on February 13, 2007, the Department requested that Petitioner 
provide the Harmonized Tariff Codes for the data it provided from PIERS 
and explain how the information it placed on the record could be tied 
to actual entry documentation from U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(``CBP''). Baosteel submitted comments on February 16, 2007, and on 
March 6, 2007, again stating that it had no shipments, sales, or 
entries of subject merchandise during the POR to the United States, and 
provided supporting sales documentation for the entries listed in the 
PIERS data to demonstrate that those entries were not subject 
merchandise. On February 20, 2007, Angang responded to the Department's 
February 13, 2007, questionnaire, and stated again that it had no 
shipments, sales, or entries of subject merchandise during the POR, and 
alleged that the PIERS data placed on the record by Petitioner was not 
reflective of the actual material that was shipped by Angang. Also, on 
February 20, 2007, Petitioner submitted a response to the Department's 
February 13, 2007, questionnaire, and placed a revised version of the 
PIERS data on the record which contained the tariff code numbers.
    The Department conducted a CBP data query for possible entries of 
subject merchandise into the United States during the POR by Angang and 
Baosteel.

[[Page 32073]]

The data query response indicated that there were no shipments by 
either Angang or Baosteel during the POR.
    On January 16, 2007, we sent inquiries to CBP requesting 
notification as to whether it had information indicating that there 
were shipments of subject merchandise into the United States during the 
POR by Angang or Baosteel. We received responses from several CBP ports 
indicating that certain shipments by Baosteel to the United States 
during the POR may contain subject merchandise. We requested all of the 
documentation relating to these shipments and placed the documentation 
on the record. See Memorandum to the File from Catherine Bertrand dated 
April 11, 2007. On April 11, 2007, we sent Baosteel a questionnaire 
regarding the entry documentation, and requested that Baosteel explain 
whether the entries were subject merchandise. On May 2, 2007, Baosteel 
responded and maintained that the entries in the entry documentation 
were for cold-rolled carbon steel which is outside the scope of the 
antidumping duty order. See Baosteel's May 2, 2007, submission: 
Response to April 11, 2007 Questionnaire. Petitioner did not provide 
comments on Baosteel's May 2, 2007, submission.

Scope of the Review

    For purposes of this review, the products covered are certain hot-
rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 
0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and 
whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other 
non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively 
superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths 
of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 
10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate (i.e., flat-rolled 
products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width 
exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not 
less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a 
thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this 
review.
    Specifically included within the scope of this review are vacuum 
degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free 
(IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, and the substrate 
for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon 
steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or 
niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to 
stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as 
steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, 
niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination 
steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and 
aluminum.
    Steel products to be included in the scope of this review, 
regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS), are products in which: i) iron predominates, by 
weight, over each of the other contained elements; ii) the carbon 
content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and iii) none of the elements 
listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
    1.80 percent of manganese, or
    2.25 percent of silicon, or
    1.00 percent of copper, or
    0.50 percent of aluminum, or
    1.25 percent of chromium, or
    0.30 percent of cobalt, or
    0.40 percent of lead, or
    1.25 percent of nickel, or
    0.30 percent of tungsten, or
    0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
    0.10 percent of niobium, or
    0.15 percent of vanadium, or
    0.15 percent of zirconium.
    All products that meet the physical and chemical description 
provided above are within the scope of this review unless otherwise 
excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or 
specifically excluded from the scope of this review:
     Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of 
the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, e.g., 
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specifications A543, 
A387, A514, A517, A506).
     Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron & 
Steel Institute (AISI) grades of series 2300 and higher.
     Ball bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
     Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
     Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon 
electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
     ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
     USS abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
     All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy 
ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).
     Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result 
of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed 
the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of 
the HTSUS.
    The merchandise subject to this review is classified in the HTSUS 
at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 
7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 
7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 
7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 
7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 
7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 
7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat 
products covered by this review, including: vacuum degassed fully 
stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor 
lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 
7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 
7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 
7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 
7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise 
may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 
7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes, the 
written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The POR is November 1, 2005, through October 31, 2006.

Preliminary Rescission of Review

    The Department has analyzed all of the information on the record 
regarding alleged U.S. entries of subject merchandise during the POR by 
Angang and Baosteel. As noted above, Petitioner placed information on 
the record from PIERS that indicated there may have been U.S. entries 
of subject merchandise during the POR from Angang and Baosteel.
    The legal description of what enters the Unites States is 
determined by CBP entry documentation. Where a conflict exists between 
PIERS and CBP information, the Department weighs the CBP data more 
heavily because it contains the actual entry documentation

[[Page 32074]]

for the shipment, including the Customs 7501 form, invoice, and bill of 
lading. The CBP data regarding Baosteel indicates that the merchandise 
is not subject to the order covering this review. Additionally, the 
supporting documents placed on the record by Baosteel concerning these 
entries indicate that the merchandise at issue was cold-rolled steel, 
which is not subject to the scope of the order. CBP did not indicate 
that there were any shipments from Angang of subject merchandise into 
the United States during the POR. Therefore, the Department 
preliminarily finds that the merchandise from the entry documentation 
is not subject to the scope of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled 
carbon steel flat product from the PRC.
    Because there is no information on the record which indicates that 
either Angang or Baosteel made sales, shipments, or entries to the 
United States of subject merchandise during the POR, and because Angang 
and Baosteel are the only companies subject to this administrative 
review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with our 
practice, we are preliminarily rescinding this review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products 
from the PRC for the period of November 1, 2005, to October 31, 2006. 
If the rescission is confirmed in our final results, the cash deposit 
rate for Angang and Baosteel will continue to be the rate established 
in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding.
    Interested parties may submit comments for consideration in the 
Department's final results not later than 30 days after publication of 
this notice. Responses to those comments may be submitted not later 
than 10 days following submission of the comments. All written comments 
must be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303, and must be served 
on interested parties on the Department's service list in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.303(f). The Department will issue the final results of 
this administrative review, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of 
publication of the preliminary results, and will publish these results 
in the Federal Register.
    This notice is published in accordance with sections 751 and 
777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: May 31, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-11206 Filed 6-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S