Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands; Final Results of the Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order and Revocation of the Order, 35220-35222 [E7-12435]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
35220
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 27, 2007 / Notices
Budget (OMB) for clearance the
following proposal for collection of
information under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
chapter 35).
Agency: U.S. Census Bureau.
Title: 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal.
Form Number(s): DX–1, DX–1(UL),
DX–1(E/S), DX–1(C), DX–10, DX–10(S),
DX–10(C), DX–15, DX–20, DX–20(S),
DX–21.
Agency Approval Number: 0607–
0919.
Type of Request: Reinstatement, with
change, of an expired collection.
Burden Hours: 101,501.
Number of Respondents: 624,502.
Average Hours Per Response: 10
minutes.
Needs and Uses: The U.S. Census
Bureau requests authorization from the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to collect data from the public as
part of the 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal.
The 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal is
the final opportunity for the Census
Bureau to preview the operational
design of the 2010 Census.
Census 2000 was an operational and
data quality success. However, that
success was achieved at great
operational risk and great expense. In
response to the lessons learned from
Census 2000, and in striving to better
meet our Nation’s ever-expanding needs
for social, demographic, and geographic
information, the U.S. Department of
Commerce and the Census Bureau have
developed a multi-year effort to
completely modernize and re-engineer
the 2010 Census of Population and
Housing. This effort required an
iterative series of tests in 2003, 2004,
2005 and in 2006, that provided an
opportunity to evaluate new or
improved question wording and
questionnaire design, methodologies,
and use of technology.
The 2003 Census Test was conducted,
and designed to evaluate alternative
self-response options and alternative
presentation of the race and Hispanic
origin question; the 2004 Census Test,
which studied new methods to improve
coverage, including procedures for
reducing duplication, and tested
respondent reaction to revised race and
Hispanic origin questions, examples,
and instructions; the 2005 National
Census Test, designed to evaluate
variations of questionnaire content and
methodology; and the 2006 Census Test,
which relied on the results of the 2004
Census Test to expand on the number of
new and refined methods. The 2008
Census Dress Rehearsal is the final step
in the decennial cycle of research and
development leading up to the
implementation of the 2010 Census.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Jun 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
The 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal will
integrate the various operations and
procedures planned for the 2010 Census
under as close to census-like conditions
as possible. The results of this
undertaking will be applied to the final
plans for the 2010 Census operations
where feasible.
The 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal will
be conducted in two sites, one urban,
and the other one, a mix of urban and
suburban. San Joaquin County,
California is the urban site. South
Central North Carolina has been
selected as the urban/suburban mix test
site. This area consists of Fayetteville
and nine counties surrounding
Fayetteville (Chatham, Cumberland,
Harnett, Hoke, Lee, Montgomery,
Moore, Richmond and Scotland). The
combination of a large urban site and a
small city-suburban-rural site provides a
comprehensive environment for
demonstrating the planned 2010 Census
methodology. These two sites,
comprising of approximately 480,000
housing units, reflect characteristics that
provide a good operational proof of
concept of the planned 2010 Census
operations, procedures, methods, and
systems. Each site will have a Regional
Office, which will guide and support
the work of the temporary Local Census
Offices in their jurisdiction.
Affected Public: Individuals or
households.
Frequency: One time.
Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory.
Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C.,
Sections 141 and 193.
OMB Desk Officer: Brian HarrisKojetin, (202) 395–7314.
Copies of the above information
collection proposal can be obtained by
calling or writing Diana Hynek,
Departmental Paperwork Clearance
Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of
Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
dhynek@doc.gov).
Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent
within 30 days of publication of this
notice to Brian Harris-Kojetin, OMB
Desk Officer either by fax (202–395–
7245) or e-mail bharrisk@omb.eop.gov).
Dated: June 21, 2007.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E7–12382 Filed 6–26–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–07–P
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–421–807]
Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products from the Netherlands; Final
Results of the Sunset Review of
Antidumping Duty Order and
Revocation of the Order
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On February 16, 2007, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) published a notice of
preliminary results of the full sunset
review of the antidumping duty order
on certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat
products from the Netherlands pursuant
to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). Since the
publication of the preliminary results,
the order has been revoked.
Consequently, in the absence of an order
currently in force, the Department
cannot make a finding that revocation of
the antidumping duty order would
likely lead to the continuation or
recurrence of dumping.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 27, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Bezirganian or Robert James, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution
Avenue, NW. Washington, DC, 20230;
telephone: 202–482–1131 and 202–482–
0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
The Department published the
antidumping dumping duty order in the
Federal Register on November 29, 2001.
See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain
Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products
From the Netherlands, 66 FR 59565
(November 29, 2001). On February 16,
2007, the Department published a notice
of preliminary results of the full sunset
review of the antidumping duty order
on certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat
products from the Netherlands pursuant
to section 751(c) of the Act. See Certain
Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products
from the Netherlands; Preliminary
Results of the Sunset Review of
Antidumping Duty Order, 72 FR 7604
(February 16, 2007) (‘‘Preliminary
Results’’). We provided interested
parties an opportunity to comment on
our preliminary results. The Department
received a case brief from Corus Staal
BV (‘‘Corus Staal’’) on April 16, 2007,
and rebuttal briefs from United States
E:\FR\FM\27JNN1.SGM
27JNN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 27, 2007 / Notices
Steel Corporation, Mittal Steel USA Inc.,
and Nucor Corporation on April 27,
2007. A hearing was not held because
none was requested.
Scope of the Order
For purposes of this order, 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 the order.
Specifically included within the scope
of this order 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 silicon and aluminum.
Steel products to be included in the
scope of this order, 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Jun 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
0.15 percent of zirconium.
All products that meet the physical
and chemical description provided
above are within the scope of this order
unless otherwise excluded. The
following products, by way of example,
are outside or specifically excluded
from the scope of this order:
• Alloy hot–rolled steel products in
which at least one of the chemical
elements exceeds those listed above
(including, e.g., ASTM
specifications A543, A387, A514,
A517, A506).
• Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE)/American Iron and Steel
Institute (AISI) grades of series 2300
and higher.
• Ball bearings 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 order
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 flat–rolled carbon
steel flat products covered by this order,
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35221
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
7226.99.01.80. 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
scope of this order is dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in this sunset review
are referenced in the ‘‘Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the Sunset
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order
on Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products from the Netherlands; Final
Results,’’ to David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, dated June 20, 2007
(‘‘Decision Memorandum’’), which is
hereby adopted by this notice. A list of
the issues which parties have raised, all
of which are in the Decision
Memorandum, is attached to this notice
as an appendix. Parties can find this
memorandum on file in the Central
Records Unit, room B–099 of the main
Department building. In addition, a
complete version of the Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly
via the Internet at www.ia.ita.doc.gov.
The paper copy and electronic version
of the Decision Memorandum are
identical in content.
Final Results of Review
Section 751(d)(2) of the Act requires
the Department in a sunset review to
‘‘revoke...an antidumping duty order or
finding,...unless...{it} makes a
determination that dumping...would be
likely to continue or recur....’’ Thus, the
finding of likelihood is contingent upon
an analysis of what would happen if an
order is revoked. This presumes the
existence of an antidumping duty order
currently in force, which is manifestly
not the case here. Consequently, in the
absence of an order currently in force,
the Department cannot make a finding
that it is likely that dumping will
continue or recur if the order is revoked.
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i),
this revocation will be effective
November 29, 2006, the fifth
anniversary of the date of publication of
the order.
We will notify the U.S. International
Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) of our final
results. We do not intend, however, to
report a rate to the ITC as the
Department did not determine that
revocation of the order would likely
E:\FR\FM\27JNN1.SGM
27JNN1
35222
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 27, 2007 / Notices
lead to continuation or recurrence of
dumping.
The Department will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection to
liquidate without regard to dumping
duties entries of the subject
merchandise entered or withdrawn from
warehouse for consumption on or after
November 29, 2006 (the effective date of
this revocation), and to discontinue
collection of cash deposits of
antidumping duties for entries of subject
merchandise entered or withdrawn from
warehouse for consumption on or after
November 29, 2006.
This notice serves as a final reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary material
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely
notification of 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 sunset review and notice are in
accordance with sections 751(c), 752,
and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 20, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Appendix - Issues in Decision
Memorandum
1. Whether ‘‘other factors’’ require that
the Department consider two recent
World Trade Organization (‘‘WTO’’)
determinations with respect to zeroing
2. Whether the Department’s conclusion
in the April 9, 2007, ‘‘Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the Final
Results of the Section 129
Determinations’’ (‘‘Final Section 129
Determination’’) to revoke the order
undermines the validity of Preliminary
Results
3. Whether the Department’s
implementation in ‘‘Final Section 129
Determination’’ of WTO rulings
pertaining to zeroing undermines the
validity of Preliminary Results
4. Whether the recalculated weighted–
average margin of zero percent for Corus
Staal in ‘‘Final Section 129
Determination’’ undermines the ‘‘likely
margin to prevail’’ if the order were
revoked that was referenced in
Preliminary Results
5. Whether the Department may rely on
the presumptions embodied in Policies
Regarding the Conduct of Five–year
(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy
Bulletin, 63 FR 18871, 18872 (April 16,
1998) (‘‘Sunset Review Policy Bulletin’’)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:40 Jun 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
6. Whether the Department’s decision in
‘‘Final Section 129 Determination’’ to
revoke the order means that Corus Staal
will not dump in the future
7. Whether Sunset Review Policy
Bulletin presupposes a validly issued
order and would not apply in the
absence of a validly issued order
8. Whether the Department may rely on
margins calculated in administrative
reviews based on zeroing
9. Whether domestic producers’
withdrawals of administrative review
requests prevented meaningful analysis
of import and margin trends.
10. The impact of the Section 201 tariffs
on steel product imports.
11. The significance of declining
margins and steady (or rising) imports
[FR Doc. E7–12435 Filed 6–26–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
Patent Term Extension
ACTION:
Proposed collection; comment
request.
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork
and respondent burden, invites the
general public and other Federal
agencies to take this opportunity to
comment on the continuing information
collection, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–
13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted on or before August 27, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• E-mail: Susan.Fawcett@uspto.gov.
Include ‘‘0651–0020 comment’’ in the
subject line of the message.
• Fax: 571–272–0112, marked to the
attention of Susan Fawcett.
• Mail: Susan K. Fawcett, Records
Officer, Office of the Chief Information
Officer, Customer Information Services
Group, Public Information Services
Division, U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA
22313–1450.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information
should be directed to Robert A. Clarke,
Deputy Director, Office of Patent Legal
Administration, U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450,
Alexandria, VA 22313–1450; by
telephone at 571–272–7735; or by e-mail
at Robert.Clarke@uspto.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
I. Abstract
The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act at 35 U.S.C. 156 permits the United
States Patent and Trademark Office
(USPTO) to restore the patent term lost
due to certain types of regulatory review
by the Federal Food and Drug
Administration or the Department of
Agriculture. Only patents for drug
products, medical devices, food
additives, and color additives are
eligible for extension. The maximum
length that a patent may be extended in
order to restore the lost portion of the
patent term is five years.
The USPTO may in some cases extend
the term of an original patent due to
certain delays in the prosecution of the
patent application, including delays
caused by interference proceedings,
secrecy orders, or appellate review by
the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences or a Federal court in
which the patent is issued pursuant to
a decision reversing an adverse
determination of patentability. The
patent term provisions of 35 U.S.C.
154(b), as amended by Title IV, Subtitle
D of the Intellectual Property and
Communications Omnibus Reform Act
of 1999, require the USPTO to notify the
applicant of the patent term adjustment
in the notice of allowance and give the
applicant an opportunity to request
reconsideration of the USPTO’s patent
term adjustment determination. The
USPTO may also reduce the amount of
patent term adjustment granted if delays
were caused by an applicant’s failure to
make a reasonable effort to respond
within three months of the mailing date
of a communication from the USPTO.
Applicants may petition for
reinstatement of a reduction in patent
term adjustment with a showing that, in
spite of all due care, the applicant was
unable to respond to a communication
from the USPTO within the three month
period.
The USPTO administers 35 U.S.C. 154
and 156 through 37 CFR 1.701–1.791.
These rules permit the public to submit
applications to the USPTO to extend the
term of a patent past its original
expiration date, to request interim
extensions and review of final eligibility
decisions, and to withdraw an
application requesting a patent term
extension after it is submitted. Under 35
U.S.C. 156(d), an application for patent
term extension must identify the
approved product, the patent to be
extended, the claims included in the
patent for the approved product, and a
method of use or manufacturing for the
approved product. In addition, the
application for patent term extension
must provide a brief description of the
E:\FR\FM\27JNN1.SGM
27JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35220-35222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-12435]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-421-807]
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the
Netherlands; Final Results of the Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty
Order and Revocation of the Order
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On February 16, 2007, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') published a notice of preliminary results of the full
sunset review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled
carbon steel flat products from the Netherlands pursuant to section
751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). Since the
publication of the preliminary results, the order has been revoked.
Consequently, in the absence of an order currently in force, the
Department cannot make a finding that revocation of the antidumping
duty order would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of
dumping.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 27, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Bezirganian or Robert James, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution
Avenue, NW. Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: 202-482-1131 and 202-482-
0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published the antidumping dumping duty order in the
Federal Register on November 29, 2001. See Antidumping Duty Order:
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Netherlands, 66
FR 59565 (November 29, 2001). On February 16, 2007, the Department
published a notice of preliminary results of the full sunset review of
the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat
products from the Netherlands pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act.
See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands;
Preliminary Results of the Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 72
FR 7604 (February 16, 2007) (``Preliminary Results''). We provided
interested parties an opportunity to comment on our preliminary
results. The Department received a case brief from Corus Staal BV
(``Corus Staal'') on April 16, 2007, and rebuttal briefs from United
States
[[Page 35221]]
Steel Corporation, Mittal Steel USA Inc., and Nucor Corporation on
April 27, 2007. A hearing was not held because none was requested.
Scope of the Order
For purposes of this order, 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 the
order. Specifically included within the scope of this order 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 silicon and
aluminum.
Steel products to be included in the scope of this order,
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 order unless otherwise
excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or
specifically excluded from the scope of this order:
Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of
the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, e.g., ASTM
specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506).
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron and
Steel Institute (AISI) grades of series 2300 and higher.
Ball bearings 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 order 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 flat-rolled carbon
steel flat products covered by this order, 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 7226.99.01.80. 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 scope of this order is dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in this sunset review are referenced in the
``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Sunset Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products
from the Netherlands; Final Results,'' to David M. Spooner, Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, dated June 20, 2007 (``Decision
Memorandum''), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the
issues which parties have raised, all of which are in the Decision
Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an appendix. Parties can find
this memorandum on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the
main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly via the Internet at
www.ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the
Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Final Results of Review
Section 751(d)(2) of the Act requires the Department in a sunset
review to ``revoke...an antidumping duty order or
finding,...unless...{it{time} makes a determination that
dumping...would be likely to continue or recur....'' Thus, the finding
of likelihood is contingent upon an analysis of what would happen if an
order is revoked. This presumes the existence of an antidumping duty
order currently in force, which is manifestly not the case here.
Consequently, in the absence of an order currently in force, the
Department cannot make a finding that it is likely that dumping will
continue or recur if the order is revoked. Consistent with 19 CFR
351.222(i)(2)(i), this revocation will be effective November 29, 2006,
the fifth anniversary of the date of publication of the order.
We will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of
our final results. We do not intend, however, to report a rate to the
ITC as the Department did not determine that revocation of the order
would likely
[[Page 35222]]
lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping.
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to
liquidate without regard to dumping duties entries of the subject
merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or
after November 29, 2006 (the effective date of this revocation), and to
discontinue collection of cash deposits of antidumping duties for
entries of subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse for
consumption on or after November 29, 2006.
This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary material disclosed under APO
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of 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 sunset review and notice are in accordance with sections
751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 20, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
Appendix - Issues in Decision Memorandum
1. Whether ``other factors'' require that the Department consider two
recent World Trade Organization (``WTO'') determinations with respect
to zeroing
2. Whether the Department's conclusion in the April 9, 2007, ``Issues
and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Section 129
Determinations'' (``Final Section 129 Determination'') to revoke the
order undermines the validity of Preliminary Results
3. Whether the Department's implementation in ``Final Section 129
Determination'' of WTO rulings pertaining to zeroing undermines the
validity of Preliminary Results
4. Whether the recalculated weighted-average margin of zero percent for
Corus Staal in ``Final Section 129 Determination'' undermines the
``likely margin to prevail'' if the order were revoked that was
referenced in Preliminary Results
5. Whether the Department may rely on the presumptions embodied in
Policies Regarding the Conduct of Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR
18871, 18872 (April 16, 1998) (``Sunset Review Policy Bulletin'')
6. Whether the Department's decision in ``Final Section 129
Determination'' to revoke the order means that Corus Staal will not
dump in the future
7. Whether Sunset Review Policy Bulletin presupposes a validly issued
order and would not apply in the absence of a validly issued order
8. Whether the Department may rely on margins calculated in
administrative reviews based on zeroing
9. Whether domestic producers' withdrawals of administrative review
requests prevented meaningful analysis of import and margin trends.
10. The impact of the Section 201 tariffs on steel product imports.
11. The significance of declining margins and steady (or rising)
imports
[FR Doc. E7-12435 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
