Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016, 17146-17149 [2018-08114]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
17146
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 18, 2018 / Notices
Issued this 9th day of April 2018.
Karen H. Nies-Vogel,
Director, Office of Exporter Services.
Corporation (SeAH) and NEXTEEL Co.,
Ltd. (NEXTEEL), producers/exporters of
certain oil country tubular goods
(OCTG) from the Republic of Korea
(Korea), sold subject merchandise in the
United States at prices below normal
value (NV) during the period of review
(POR) September 1, 2015 through
August 31, 2016.
[FR Doc. 2018–08040 Filed 4–17–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
DATES:
U.S. Strategy to Address Trade-Related
Forced Localization Barriers Impacting
The U.S. ICT Hardware Manufacturing
Industry; Correction
International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; Correction.
AGENCY:
The International Trade
Administration published a document
in the Federal Register of April 12,
2018, concerning request for comments
to support development of a
comprehensive strategy to address
trade-related forced localization
policies, practices, and measures
impacting the U.S. information and
communications technology (ICT)
hardware manufacturing industry. The
document contained the incorrect
docket number.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted on or before May 14, 2018.
Comments must be in English.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cary
Ingram; 202–482–2872.
Correction: In the Federal Register of
April 12, 2018, in FR Doc. 2018–07584,
on page 15786, in the third column
under the ADDRESSES section, correct
the Docket Number to read: ITA–2018–
0001.
SUMMARY:
Dated: April 13, 2018.
Cary Ingram,
International Trade Specialist.
[FR Doc. 2018–08103 Filed 4–17–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P
Applicable April 18, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Deborah Scott or Michael J. Heaney,
AD/CVD Operations, Office VI,
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2657 or
(202) 482–4475, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 10, 2017, Commerce
published the Preliminary Results of
this administrative review of OCTG
from Korea.1 We invited interested
parties to comment on the Preliminary
Results. Between November 30 and
December 8, 2017, Commerce received
timely filed briefs and rebuttal briefs
from various interested parties. On
January 19, 2018, Maverick Tube
Corporation and TenarisBayCity, and
United States Steel Corporation filed a
duty reimbursement allegation with
respect to NEXTEEL.2
Commerce exercised its discretion to
toll all deadlines affected by the closure
of the Federal Government from January
20 through 22, 2018.3 If the new
deadline falls on a non-business day, in
accordance with Commerce’s practice,
the deadline will become the next
business day. As a result, the revised
deadline for the final results of this
review was February 12, 2018. On
January 31, 2018, Commerce postponed
the final results of this review until
April 11, 2018.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES
[A–580–870]
Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods
From the Republic of Korea: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Final
Determination of No Shipments; 2015–
2016
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(Commerce) determines that SeAH Steel
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:31 Apr 17, 2018
Jkt 244001
1 See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the
Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015–
2016, 82 FR 46963 (October 10, 2017) (Preliminary
Results), and accompanying Decision Memorandum
(Preliminary Decision Memorandum).
2 See Maverick Letter, ‘‘Oil Country Tubular
Goods from The Republic of Korea: Duty
Reimbursement and Further Information in Support
of Duties as a Cost Allegation,’’ dated January 19,
2018, refiled as ‘‘Oil Country Tubular Goods from
The Republic of Korea: Resubmission of Petitioners’
Duty Reimbursement and Further Information in
Support of Duties as a Cost Allegation,’’ dated
February 6, 2018.
3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Deadlines Affected by the
Shutdown of the Federal Government,’’ dated
January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of
the proceeding have been extended by three days.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
These final results cover 31
companies.4 Based on an analysis of the
comments received, Commerce has
made changes to the weighted-average
dumping margins determined for the
respondents. The weighted-average
dumping margins are listed in the
‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section,
below. Commerce conducted this
review in accordance with section
751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act).
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the order
is certain OCTG, which are hollow steel
products of circular cross-section,
including oil well casing and tubing, of
iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both
carbon and alloy), whether seamless or
welded, regardless of end finish (e.g.,
whether or not plain end, threaded, or
threaded and coupled) whether or not
conforming to American Petroleum
Institute (API) or non-API
specifications, whether finished
(including limited service OCTG
products) or unfinished (including
green tubes and limited service OCTG
products), whether or not thread
protectors are attached. The scope of the
order also covers OCTG coupling stock.
For a complete description of the scope
of the order, see the Issues and Decision
Memorandum.5
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this
review are addressed in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum, which is hereby
adopted with this notice. The issues are
identified in Appendix I to this notice.
The Issues and Decision Memorandum
is a public document and is on file
electronically via Enforcement and
Compliance’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
ACCESS is available to registered users
at https://access.trade.gov and is
available to all parties in the Central
Records Unit, room B8024 of the main
Commerce building. In addition, a
complete version of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the internet at https://
enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.
The signed Issues and Decision
4 The 31 companies consist of two mandatory
respondents, four companies for which we made a
final determination of no shipments, and 25
companies not individually examined.
5 See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2015–
2016 Administrative Review of the Antidumping
Duty Order on Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods
from the Republic of Korea,’’ dated concurrently
with this notice (Issues and Decision
Memorandum).
E:\FR\FM\18APN1.SGM
18APN1
17147
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 18, 2018 / Notices
Memorandum and the electronic
version of the Issues and Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of the
comments received, and for the reasons
explained in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum, we made certain changes
to the Preliminary Results. We made one
revision to our preliminary calculation
of the weighted-average dumping
margin for SeAH.6 For NEXTEEL,
Commerce determined that it is
appropriate to apply total adverse facts
available for these final results.7
Application of Facts Available and
Adverse Facts Available
For these final results, we find that
NEXTEEL withheld necessary
information and significantly impeaded
the proceeding and, thus, failed to
cooperate to the best of its ability in
responding to Commerce’s requests for
information. Therefore, we find that the
application of adverse facts available,
pursuant to section 776(a)–(b) of the
Act, is warranted with respect to
NEXTEEL. For a full description of the
methodology and rationale underlying
our conclusions, see Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
Final Determination of No Shipments
In the Preliminary Results, Commerce
preliminarily determined that Hyundai
RB Co., Ltd. (Hyundai RB), Samsung,
Samsung C&T Corporation (Samsung
C&T), and SeAH Besteel Corporation
(SeAH Besteel) had no shipments
during the POR.8 Following publication
of the Preliminary Results, we received
no comments from interested parties
regarding these companies. As a result,
and because the record contains no
evidence to the contrary, we continue to
find that Hyundai RB, Samsung,
Samsung C&T and SeAH Besteel made
no shipments during the POR.
Accordingly, consistent with
Commerce’s practice, we will instruct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) to liquidate any existing entries of
merchandise produced by these four
companies, but exported by other
parties, at the rate for the intermediate
reseller, if available, or at the all-others
rate.9
Duty Absorption
In the Preliminary Results, Commerce
indicated that it would make a
determination in the final results of this
review as to whether SeAH and
NEXTEEL absorbed antidumping duties
during the instant POR.10 For these final
results, we find that SeAH and
NEXTEEL have absorbed antidumping
duties.11
Rate for Non-Examined Companies
The statute and Commerce’s
regulations do not address the
establishment of a rate to be applied to
companies not selected for examination
when Commerce limits its examination
in an administrative review pursuant to
section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally,
Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of
the Act, which provides instructions for
calculating the all-others rate in a
market economy investigation, for
guidance when calculating the rate for
companies which were not selected for
individual review in an administrative
review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of
the Act, the all-others rate is normally
‘‘an amount equal to the weighted
average of the estimated weighted
average dumping margins established
for exporters and producers
individually investigated, excluding any
zero or de minimis margins, and any
margins determined entirely {on the
basis of facts available}.’’
For these final results, we calculated
a weighted-average dumping margin
that is not zero, de minimis, or
determined entirely on the basis of facts
available for SeAH, and we determined
NEXTEEL’s margin entirely on the basis
of facts available. Because SeAH’s
weighted-average dumping margin is
the only margin that is not zero, de
minimis, or determined entirely on the
basis of facts available, in accordance
with our standard practice, Commerce
has assigned to the companies not
individually examined the 6.75 percent
weighted-average dumping margin
calculated for SeAH for these final
results.
Final Results of Review
Commerce determines that the
following weighted-average dumping
margins exist for the period September
1, 2015 through August 31, 2016:
Weighted-average
dumping margins
(percent)
Exporter or producer
NEXTEEL Co., Ltd ......................................................................................................................................................................
SeAH Steel Corporation ..............................................................................................................................................................
Non-examined companies12 .......................................................................................................................................................
Assessment
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce
shall determine, and CBP shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries of subject merchandise in
accordance with the final results of this
review. Commerce intends to issue
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of the final
results of this administrative review in
the Federal Register.
Where the respondent reported
reliable entered values, we calculated
importer- (or customer-) specific ad
valorem rates by aggregating the
dumping margins calculated for all U.S.
sales to each importer (or customer) and
dividing this amount by the total
entered value of the sales to each
importer (or customer).13 Where
Commerce calculated a weightedaverage dumping margin by dividing the
total amount of dumping for reviewed
sales to that party by the total sales
quantity associated with those
transactions, Commerce will direct CBP
to assess importer- (or customer-)
specific assessment rates based on the
resulting per-unit rates.14 Where an
importer- (or customer-) specific ad
6 See Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 14.
7 Id., at Comment 6.
8 See Preliminary Results, 82 FR at 46963.
9 See, e.g., Magnesium Metal From the Russian
Federation: Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 26922, 26923
(May 13, 2010), unchanged in Magnesium Metal
From the Russian Federation: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR
56989 (September 17, 2010).
10 See Preliminary Decision Memorandum, at 6.
11 For further discussion, see Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 5.
12 See Appendizx II for a full list of these
companies.
13 See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
14 Id.
Disclosure
Commerce intends to disclose the
calculations performed for these final
results of review within five days of the
date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.224(b).
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES
75.81
6.75
6.75
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:31 Apr 17, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\18APN1.SGM
18APN1
17148
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 18, 2018 / Notices
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES
valorem or per-unit rate is greater than
de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent),
Commerce will instruct CBP to collect
the appropriate duties at the time of
liquidation.15 Where an importer- (or
customer-) specific ad valorem or perunit rate is zero or de minimis,
Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate
appropriate entries without regard to
antidumping duties.16
For the companies which were not
selected for individual review, we will
assign an assessment rate based on the
methodology described in the ‘‘Rates for
Non-Examined Companies’’ section,
above.
Consistent with Commerce’s
assessment practice, for entries of
subject merchandise during the POR
produced by SeAH, NEXTEEL, or the
non-examined companies for which the
producer did not know that its
merchandise was destined for the
United States, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate unreviewed entries at the allothers rate if there is no rate for the
intermediate company(ies) involved in
the transaction.17
As noted in the ‘‘Final Determination
of No Shipments’’ section, above,
Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate
any existing entries of merchandise
produced by but exported by other
parties, at the rate for the intermediate
reseller, if available, or at the all-others
rate.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective for all
shipments of subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date of the final results of
this administrative review, as provided
for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1)
The cash deposit rates for the
companies listed in these final results
will be equal to the weighted-average
dumping margins established in the
final results of this review; (2) for
merchandise exported by producers or
exporters not covered in this review but
covered in a prior segment of this
proceeding, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recently
completed segment in which the
company was reviewed; (3) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in this
review or the original less-than-fairvalue (LTFV) investigation, but the
producer is, the cash deposit rate will be
15 Id.
19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
a full discussion of this practice, see
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954
(May 6, 2003).
the rate established for the most recently
completed segment of this proceeding
for the producer of the subject
merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit
rate for all other producers or exporters
will continue to be 5.24 percent,18 the
all-others rate established in the LTFV
investigation. These cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a final reminder
to importers of their responsibility
under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a
certificate regarding the reimbursement
of antidumping duties prior to
liquidation of the relevant entries
during this POR. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in
Commerce’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
Notification to Interested Parties
Regarding Administrative Protective
Order
This notice also serves as the only
reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of
their responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which
continues to govern business
proprietary information in this segment
of the proceeding. Timely written
notification of the return or 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.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.213(h).
Dated: April 11, 2018.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations,
performing the non-exclusive functions and
duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix I
List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope of the Order
IV. Duty Absorption
V. Margin Calculations and Application of
AFA
16 See
17 For
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:31 Apr 17, 2018
Jkt 244001
18 See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from
the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not
in Harmony With Final Determination, 81 FR 59603
(August 30, 2016).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
VI. Rate for Non-Examined Companies
VII. Discussion of the Issues
General Issues
Comment 1: Particular Market Situation
Comment 2: Additional Particular Market
Situation Adjustments
Comment 3: Allegation of Improper Political
Influence
Comment 4: Calculation of ILJIN’s Margin
Comment 5: Duty Absorption
Comment 6: Duty Reimbursement and
Application of Adverse Facts Available
Comment 7: Calculation of Constructed
Value Profit
Comment 8: Differential Pricing
Comment 9: Rate for Non-Examined
Respondents
SeAH—Specific Issues
Comment 10: Interested Party Standing
Comment 11: Reporting of Grade Codes
Comment 12: Freight Revenue Cap
Comment 13: Treatment of General and
Administrative Expenses Incurred by
SeAH’s U.S. Affiliate in Further
Manufacturing Costs
Comment 14: Calculation of General and
Administrative Expenses Incurred by
SeAH’s U.S. Affiliate
Comment 15: Treatment of Interest Expenses
for SeAH’s U.S. Affiliate in Further
Manufacturing Costs
NEXTEEL—Specific Issues
Comment 16: NEXTEEL’s Warranty Expense
Calculation
Comment 17: POSCO Daewoo’s Warranty
Expense Calculation
Comment 18: POSCO Daewoo’s Further
Manufacturing Costs
Comment 19: Suspended Production Losses
Comment 20: Cost Adjustment for
Downgraded, Non-OCTG Pipe
Comment 21: Programming Errors
VIII. Recommendation
Appendix 2
List of Companies Not Individually
Examined
BDP International
Daewoo America
Daewoo International Corporation
Dong-A Steel Co. Ltd.
Dong Yang Steel Pipe
Dongbu Incheon Steel
DSEC
Erndtebruecker Eisenwerk and Company
Hansol Metal
Husteel Co., Ltd.
Hyundai HYSCO
Hyundai Steel Company 19
ILJIN Steel Corporation
Jim And Freight Co., Ltd.
19 On September 21, 2016, Commerce published
the final results of a changed circumstances review
with respect to OCTG from Korea, finding that
Hyundai Steel Corporation is the successor-ininterest to Hyundai HYSCO for purposes of
determining antidumping duty cash deposits and
liabilities. See Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review:
Oil Country Tubular Goods From the Republic of
Korea, 81 FR 64873 (September 21, 2016). Hyundai
Steel Company is also known as Hyundai Steel
Corporation and Hyundai Steel Co. Ltd.
E:\FR\FM\18APN1.SGM
18APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 18, 2018 / Notices
Kia Steel Co. Ltd.
KSP Steel Company
Kukje Steel
Kurvers
POSCO Daewoo Corporation
POSCO Daewoo America
Steel Canada
Sumitomo Corporation
TGS Pipe
Yonghyun Base Materials
ZEECO Asia
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Dennis, SPCS2022 Project
Manager, NOAA/NOS/National
Geodetic Survey, 1315 East-West Hwy,
Rm. 9340 N/NGS1, Silver Spring, MD
20910; or Email: Michael.Dennis@
noaa.gov.
[FR Doc. 2018–08114 Filed 4–17–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Policy and Procedures Documents for
the State Plane Coordinate System of
2022
National Geodetic Survey
(NGS), National Ocean Service (NOS),
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of proposed change to
the State Plane Coordinate System;
request for comments.
AGENCY:
NOAA’s National Geodetic
Survey (NGS) will establish the State
Plane Coordinate System of 2022
(SPCS2022) as part of the transition to
the 2022 Terrestrial Reference Frames
(TRFs). SPCS2022 is the successor to
previous versions referenced to the
North American Datums of 1983 and
1927. Like its predecessors, SPCS2022
will be a system of conformal map
projections for the entire National
Spatial Reference System (NSRS). It will
provide surveyors, engineers, and other
geospatial professionals with a practical
means for accessing and using the
NSRS. NGS has developed draft policy
and procedures that propose defining
characteristics and requirements for
SPCS2022. These documents also
provide mechanisms for user input on
initial design of SPCS2022 and
subsequent changes. The aim is for
SPCS2022 to meet the needs of NGS
customers for the future NSRS. To
achieve that goal, NGS is inviting
written comments on the draft
SPCS2022 policy.
In addition, NGS seeks feedback on
purposed ‘‘special purpose’’ zones.
DATES: Comments will be accepted until
Friday, August 31, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
submitted in writing to NGS Feedback,
NOAA/NOS/National Geodetic Survey,
1315 East-West Hwy, Rm. 9340 N/
NGS1, Silver Spring, MD 20910; or via
Email to: NGS.Feedback@noaa.gov.
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:31 Apr 17, 2018
The SPCS
was originally established in the 1930s.
Since that time it has evolved, and there
has been substantial variability in how
it was defined, maintained, and used.
The history and current status of SPCS
is discussed in NOAA Special
Publication NOS NGS 13 (https://
geodesy.noaa.gov/library/pdfs/NOAA_
SP_NOS_NGS_0013_v01_2018-0306.pdf). This publication may prove a
useful companion in reviewing the draft
SPCS2022 policy and procedures by
providing context and insight into the
development of SPCS and the existing
NGS policies pertaining to it. Further
information is available on the NGS
State Plane Coordinate System web
page: https://geodesy.noaa.gov/SPCS/
index.shtml.
Pursuant to the authority provided in
the Coast and Geodetic Survey Act, 33
U.S.C. 883a et seq., the Director of
NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey
invites interested parties to submit
comments to assist NGS in developing
a new State Plane Coordinate System for
the future. Comments may address any
aspect of the draft SPCS2022 policy and
procedures. The draft SPCS2022 policy
is available at: https://geodesy.noaa.gov/
INFO/Policy/files/DRAFT_SPCS2022_
Policy.pdf. The associated draft
procedures are available at: https://
geodesy.noaa.gov/INFO/Policy/files/
DRAFT_SPCS2022_Procedures.pdf.
Specifically, the Director seeks
comments regarding:
1. Usage of current SPCS in your
organization, how your organization
expects to use SPCS2022, and whether
it will facilitate migration to the 2022
TRFs.
2. Whether the proposed default
SPCS2022 definitions will impose a
hardship or be beneficial to your
organization.
3. Whether there is insufficient or
excessive flexibility in the
characteristics of SPCS2022 that can be
established through user input.
4. Whether the deadlines are
acceptable and realistic for making
requests or proposing characteristics for
SPCS2022.
5. Whether including ‘‘special
purpose’’ zones as part of SPCS2022
would be beneficial, problematic, or
irrelevant to your organization.
NGS notes that the draft SPCS2022
policy and procedures do not currently
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17149
include a ‘‘special purpose’’ zone
option, in part, because it would create
areas where zones partially overlap
other zones. Special purpose zones
would, however, provide contiguous
coverage for regions that are not
adequately covered by SPCS2022,
primarily those that fall within two or
more SPCS2022 zones. These zones
would be for major urbanized areas,
large American Indian reservations, or
federal applications covering large
geographic areas. Examples for each
category are:
• Major urbanized areas: New York
City, Chicago, Los Angeles, St. Louis,
Cincinnati, Kansas City, Denver,
Portland, and many others cross zone
(and often state) boundaries.
• Large American Indian
reservations: The Navajo Nation is about
the same area as West Virginia and falls
within five existing SPCS zones (and
three states).
• Regional federal applications: The
Atlantic coast from the Florida-Georgia
border to the Maine-Canada border is a
region that spans 14 existing SPCS
zones but could be covered by a single
zone.
Although these types of zones were
included as a possibility in the 1977
policy, none were created as part of the
SPCS.1 NGS seeks to determine whether
it is appropriate to include special
purpose zones as part of SPCS2022, or
support special purpose zones in some
other manner, if at all.
Dated: March 23, 2018.
Juliana P. Blackwell,
Director, Office of National Geodetic Survey,
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration.
[FR Doc. 2018–08141 Filed 4–17–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–JE–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID: DoD–2018–OS–0020]
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request
Office of the Chief Information
Officer, DoD.
ACTION: Information collection notice.
AGENCY:
1 These zones were considered in 1977 for
‘‘[u]rbanization that requires either different
parameters for existing zones or additional zones
such that a metropolitan area would be located in
a single zone,’’ as documented in the ‘‘Policy on
Publication of Plane Coordinates,’’ located in Vol.
42, No. 57, pages 15943–15944 of the Federal
Register, dated Thursday, March 24, 1977 (https://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1977-03-24/pdf/FR1977-03-24.pdf).
E:\FR\FM\18APN1.SGM
18APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17146-17149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08114]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-870]
Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the Republic of Korea:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final
Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that SeAH
Steel Corporation (SeAH) and NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. (NEXTEEL), producers/
exporters of certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from the Republic
of Korea (Korea), sold subject merchandise in the United States at
prices below normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR)
September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2016.
DATES: Applicable April 18, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Scott or Michael J. Heaney,
AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International
Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2657 or (202) 482-4475,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 10, 2017, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of
this administrative review of OCTG from Korea.\1\ We invited interested
parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. Between November 30 and
December 8, 2017, Commerce received timely filed briefs and rebuttal
briefs from various interested parties. On January 19, 2018, Maverick
Tube Corporation and TenarisBayCity, and United States Steel
Corporation filed a duty reimbursement allegation with respect to
NEXTEEL.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of
Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; 2015-2016, 82 FR 46963 (October 10, 2017) (Preliminary
Results), and accompanying Decision Memorandum (Preliminary Decision
Memorandum).
\2\ See Maverick Letter, ``Oil Country Tubular Goods from The
Republic of Korea: Duty Reimbursement and Further Information in
Support of Duties as a Cost Allegation,'' dated January 19, 2018,
refiled as ``Oil Country Tubular Goods from The Republic of Korea:
Resubmission of Petitioners' Duty Reimbursement and Further
Information in Support of Duties as a Cost Allegation,'' dated
February 6, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by
the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22,
2018.\3\ If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance
with Commerce's practice, the deadline will become the next business
day. As a result, the revised deadline for the final results of this
review was February 12, 2018. On January 31, 2018, Commerce postponed
the final results of this review until April 11, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Memorandum, ``Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the
Federal Government,'' dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this
segment of the proceeding have been extended by three days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These final results cover 31 companies.\4\ Based on an analysis of
the comments received, Commerce has made changes to the weighted-
average dumping margins determined for the respondents. The weighted-
average dumping margins are listed in the ``Final Results of Review''
section, below. Commerce conducted this review in accordance with
section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The 31 companies consist of two mandatory respondents, four
companies for which we made a final determination of no shipments,
and 25 companies not individually examined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the order is certain OCTG, which are
hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well
casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon
and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (e.g.,
whether or not plain end, threaded, or threaded and coupled) whether or
not conforming to American Petroleum Institute (API) or non-API
specifications, whether finished (including limited service OCTG
products) or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG
products), whether or not thread protectors are attached. The scope of
the order also covers OCTG coupling stock. For a complete description
of the scope of the order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Memorandum, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the
Final Results of the 2015-2016 Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the
Republic of Korea,'' dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and
Decision Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties
in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,
which is hereby adopted with this notice. The issues are identified in
Appendix I to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a
public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and
Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic
Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
https://access.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central
Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a
complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the internet at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision
[[Page 17147]]
Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of the comments received, and for the reasons
explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we made certain
changes to the Preliminary Results. We made one revision to our
preliminary calculation of the weighted-average dumping margin for
SeAH.\6\ For NEXTEEL, Commerce determined that it is appropriate to
apply total adverse facts available for these final results.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 14.
\7\ Id., at Comment 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application of Facts Available and Adverse Facts Available
For these final results, we find that NEXTEEL withheld necessary
information and significantly impeaded the proceeding and, thus, failed
to cooperate to the best of its ability in responding to Commerce's
requests for information. Therefore, we find that the application of
adverse facts available, pursuant to section 776(a)-(b) of the Act, is
warranted with respect to NEXTEEL. For a full description of the
methodology and rationale underlying our conclusions, see Issues and
Decision Memorandum.
Final Determination of No Shipments
In the Preliminary Results, Commerce preliminarily determined that
Hyundai RB Co., Ltd. (Hyundai RB), Samsung, Samsung C&T Corporation
(Samsung C&T), and SeAH Besteel Corporation (SeAH Besteel) had no
shipments during the POR.\8\ Following publication of the Preliminary
Results, we received no comments from interested parties regarding
these companies. As a result, and because the record contains no
evidence to the contrary, we continue to find that Hyundai RB, Samsung,
Samsung C&T and SeAH Besteel made no shipments during the POR.
Accordingly, consistent with Commerce's practice, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate any existing entries
of merchandise produced by these four companies, but exported by other
parties, at the rate for the intermediate reseller, if available, or at
the all-others rate.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Preliminary Results, 82 FR at 46963.
\9\ See, e.g., Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR
26922, 26923 (May 13, 2010), unchanged in Magnesium Metal From the
Russian Federation: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 75 FR 56989 (September 17, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duty Absorption
In the Preliminary Results, Commerce indicated that it would make a
determination in the final results of this review as to whether SeAH
and NEXTEEL absorbed antidumping duties during the instant POR.\10\ For
these final results, we find that SeAH and NEXTEEL have absorbed
antidumping duties.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Preliminary Decision Memorandum, at 6.
\11\ For further discussion, see Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate for Non-Examined Companies
The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the
establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for
examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative
review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce
looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for
calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation, for
guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not
selected for individual review in an administrative review. Under
section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally ``an
amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted average
dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually
investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis margins, and any margins
determined entirely {on the basis of facts available{time} .''
For these final results, we calculated a weighted-average dumping
margin that is not zero, de minimis, or determined entirely on the
basis of facts available for SeAH, and we determined NEXTEEL's margin
entirely on the basis of facts available. Because SeAH's weighted-
average dumping margin is the only margin that is not zero, de minimis,
or determined entirely on the basis of facts available, in accordance
with our standard practice, Commerce has assigned to the companies not
individually examined the 6.75 percent weighted-average dumping margin
calculated for SeAH for these final results.
Final Results of Review
Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping
margins exist for the period September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2016:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Appendizx II for a full list of these companies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average dumping
Exporter or producer margins (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEXTEEL Co., Ltd........................... 75.81
SeAH Steel Corporation..................... 6.75
Non-examined companies\12\................. 6.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed for these
final results of review within five days of the date of publication of
this notice in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b).
Assessment
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b),
Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the
final results of this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final
results of this administrative review in the Federal Register.
Where the respondent reported reliable entered values, we
calculated importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rates by
aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each
importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered
value of the sales to each importer (or customer).\13\ Where Commerce
calculated a weighted-average dumping margin by dividing the total
amount of dumping for reviewed sales to that party by the total sales
quantity associated with those transactions, Commerce will direct CBP
to assess importer- (or customer-) specific assessment rates based on
the resulting per-unit rates.\14\ Where an importer- (or customer-)
specific ad
[[Page 17148]]
valorem or per-unit rate is greater than de minimis (i.e., 0.50
percent), Commerce will instruct CBP to collect the appropriate duties
at the time of liquidation.\15\ Where an importer- (or customer-)
specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is zero or de minimis, Commerce
will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to
antidumping duties.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
\14\ Id.
\15\ Id.
\16\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we
will assign an assessment rate based on the methodology described in
the ``Rates for Non-Examined Companies'' section, above.
Consistent with Commerce's assessment practice, for entries of
subject merchandise during the POR produced by SeAH, NEXTEEL, or the
non-examined companies for which the producer did not know that its
merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate
for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ For a full discussion of this practice, see Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties,
68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in the ``Final Determination of No Shipments'' section,
above, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate any existing entries of
merchandise produced by but exported by other parties, at the rate for
the intermediate reseller, if available, or at the all-others rate.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all
shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results
of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C)
of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the companies listed in
these final results will be equal to the weighted-average dumping
margins established in the final results of this review; (2) for
merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this
review but covered in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published
for the most recently completed segment in which the company was
reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or
the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the
producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the
most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of
the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other
producers or exporters will continue to be 5.24 percent,\18\ the all-
others rate established in the LTFV investigation. These cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of
Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final
Determination, 81 FR 59603 (August 30, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement
of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double
antidumping duties.
Notification to Interested Parties Regarding Administrative Protective
Order
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern
business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding.
Timely written notification of the return or 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.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Dated: April 11, 2018.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix I
List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope of the Order
IV. Duty Absorption
V. Margin Calculations and Application of AFA
VI. Rate for Non-Examined Companies
VII. Discussion of the Issues
General Issues
Comment 1: Particular Market Situation
Comment 2: Additional Particular Market Situation Adjustments
Comment 3: Allegation of Improper Political Influence
Comment 4: Calculation of ILJIN's Margin
Comment 5: Duty Absorption
Comment 6: Duty Reimbursement and Application of Adverse Facts
Available
Comment 7: Calculation of Constructed Value Profit
Comment 8: Differential Pricing
Comment 9: Rate for Non-Examined Respondents
SeAH--Specific Issues
Comment 10: Interested Party Standing
Comment 11: Reporting of Grade Codes
Comment 12: Freight Revenue Cap
Comment 13: Treatment of General and Administrative Expenses
Incurred by SeAH's U.S. Affiliate in Further Manufacturing Costs
Comment 14: Calculation of General and Administrative Expenses
Incurred by SeAH's U.S. Affiliate
Comment 15: Treatment of Interest Expenses for SeAH's U.S. Affiliate
in Further Manufacturing Costs
NEXTEEL--Specific Issues
Comment 16: NEXTEEL's Warranty Expense Calculation
Comment 17: POSCO Daewoo's Warranty Expense Calculation
Comment 18: POSCO Daewoo's Further Manufacturing Costs
Comment 19: Suspended Production Losses
Comment 20: Cost Adjustment for Downgraded, Non-OCTG Pipe
Comment 21: Programming Errors
VIII. Recommendation
Appendix 2
List of Companies Not Individually Examined
BDP International
Daewoo America
Daewoo International Corporation
Dong-A Steel Co. Ltd.
Dong Yang Steel Pipe
Dongbu Incheon Steel
DSEC
Erndtebruecker Eisenwerk and Company
Hansol Metal
Husteel Co., Ltd.
Hyundai HYSCO
Hyundai Steel Company \19\
ILJIN Steel Corporation
Jim And Freight Co., Ltd.
[[Page 17149]]
Kia Steel Co. Ltd.
KSP Steel Company
Kukje Steel
Kurvers
POSCO Daewoo Corporation
POSCO Daewoo America
Steel Canada
Sumitomo Corporation
TGS Pipe
Yonghyun Base Materials
ZEECO Asia
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ On September 21, 2016, Commerce published the final results
of a changed circumstances review with respect to OCTG from Korea,
finding that Hyundai Steel Corporation is the successor-in-interest
to Hyundai HYSCO for purposes of determining antidumping duty cash
deposits and liabilities. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Oil Country Tubular Goods From
the Republic of Korea, 81 FR 64873 (September 21, 2016). Hyundai
Steel Company is also known as Hyundai Steel Corporation and Hyundai
Steel Co. Ltd.
[FR Doc. 2018-08114 Filed 4-17-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
