Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of Antidumping Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results, 53457-53458 [2022-18803]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2022 / Notices
black inkjet ink bottles for retail sale
(duty rate ranges from 1.8% to 5.3%).
The proposed foreign-status materials
and components include plastic shrink
film, plastic caps for bottles, plastic
pouches, and silicone slit valves (duty
rate ranges from 3% to 5.3%). The
request indicates that certain materials/
components are subject to duties under
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974
(section 301), depending on the country
of origin. The applicable section 301
decisions require subject merchandise
to be admitted to FTZs in privileged
foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from
interested parties. Submissions shall be
addressed to the Board’s Executive
Secretary and sent to: ftz@trade.gov. The
closing period for their receipt is
October 11, 2022.
A copy of the notification will be
available for public inspection in the
‘‘Online FTZ Information System’’
section of the Board’s website.
For further information, contact Diane
Finver at Diane.Finver@trade.gov.
Dated: August 25, 2022.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022–18780 Filed 8–30–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–580–809]
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe
From the Republic of Korea: Notice of
Court Decision Not in Harmony With
the Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review; Notice of
Amended Final Results
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 24, 2022, the U.S.
Court of International Trade (CIT)
issued its final judgment in Hyundai
Steel Company v. United States, Consol.
Court No. 18–00154, sustaining the U.S.
Department of Commerce (Commerce)’s
fourth remand results pertaining to the
administrative review of the
antidumping duty (AD) order on
circular welded non-alloy steel pipe
from the Republic of Korea (Korea)
covering the period November 1, 2015,
through October 31, 2016. Commerce is
notifying the public that the CIT’s final
judgment is not in harmony with
Commerce’s final results of the
administrative review, and that
Commerce is amending the final results
with respect to the dumping margins
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Aug 30, 2022
Jkt 256001
assigned to Hyundai Steel Company and
SeAH Steel Corporation.
DATES: Applicable September 3, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas Schauer, AD/CVD Operations,
Office I, Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0410.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 13, 2018, Commerce
published its Final Results in the 2015–
2016 AD administrative review of
circular welded non-alloy steel pipe
from Korea. Commerce found that a
particular market situation (PMS)
existed in Korea and calculated
weighted-average dumping margins of
30.85 percent for Hyundai Steel
Company and 19.28 percent for SeAH
Steel Corporation.1 Commerce also
calculated a combined assessment rate
for Hyundai’s affiliated importers.
Hyundai Steel Company and SeAH
Steel Corporation appealed Commerce’s
Final Results. On November 25, 2019,
the CIT remanded the Final Results to
Commerce, finding that: (1) Commerce’s
determination of the existence of a PMS
in the Final Results is unsupported by
substantial evidence and remanded the
issue to Commerce for further
proceedings; and (2) Commerce’s
departure from its normal practice of
calculating importer-specific assessment
rates with respect to Hyundai Steel
Company was unsupported by
substantial evidence and remanded the
issue to Commerce for further
proceedings.2 In its first remand
redetermination, issued on February 26,
2020, Commerce further considered its
PMS determination and recalculated
Hyundai Steel Company’s assessment
rates on an importer-specific basis.3
The CIT remanded for a second time,
ordering Commerce to explain the
statutory authority to conduct a costbased PMS analysis when normal value
is based on home market sales and to
adjust the cost of production (COP) for
purposes of the sales-below-cost test.4 In
1 See Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from
the Republic of Korea: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015–
2016, 83 FR 27541 (June 13, 2018) (Final Results).
2 See Hyundai Steel Company v. United States,
415 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (CIT 2019).
3 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel
Pipe from the Republic of Korea, Consolidated
Court No. 18–00154, Slip Op. 19–148 (CIT
November 25, 2019), dated February 26, 2020 (First
Remand), available at https://access.trade.gov/
resources/remands/19-148.pdf.
4 See Hyundai Steel Company v. United States,
483 F. Supp. 3d 1273 (CIT 2020).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53457
its second remand redetermination,
issued on February 2, 2021, Commerce
provided its interpretation of the
statutory authority in accordance with
the Court’s order.5
The CIT remanded for a third time,
ordering Commerce to reconsider its
PMS determination and adjustment in
light of its opinion that Commerce may
not adjust the COP when using normal
value based on home market sales, and
that Commerce is not authorized to
adjust the COP for purposes of the salesbelow-cost test.6 In its third remand
redetermination, issued on September 8,
2021, Commerce recalculated the
weighted-average dumping margin of
Hyundai Steel Company with no
adjustment to account for the PMS that
Commerce had found to have existed
during the period of review; Commerce
also recalculated the rate for the second
mandatory respondent, Husteel Co.,
Ltd., for the sole purpose of calculating
the rate for SeAH Steel Corporation, the
non-examined company which is a
party to this litigation but, in
recalculating Husteel Co., Ltd.’s rate,
Commerce continued to apply a PMS
adjustment for normal value in
situations where normal value was
determined based on constructed
value.7
The CIT remanded for a fourth time,
holding that Commerce calculated
SeAH Steel Corporation’s dumping
margin improperly using an average of
dumping rates based, in part, on a PMS
determination that was unsupported by
substantial evidence, and ordering
Commerce to recalculate SeAH Steel
Corporation’s dumping margin in
accordance with its opinion.8 In its final
remand redetermination, issued in
August 2022, Commerce, under
respectful protest, recalculated the
weighted-average dumping margin for
SeAH Steel Corporation without making
a cost-based PMS adjustment.9 The CIT
5 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel
Pipe from the Republic of Korea, Consolidated
Court No. 18–00154, Slip Op. 20–168 (CIT
November 23, 2020), dated February 2, 2021
(Second Remand)), available at https://
access.trade.gov/Resources/remands/20-168.pdf.
6 See Hyundai Steel Company v. United States,
531 F. Supp. 3d 1344 (CIT 2021).
7 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand, Consolidated Court No. 18–
00154, Slip Op. 21–88 (CIT July 19, 2021), dated
September 8, 2021 (Third Remand), available at
https://access.trade.gov/resources/remands/2188.pdf.
8 See Hyundai Steel Company v. United States,
Court No. 18–00154, Slip Op. 22–67 (CIT June 15,
2022).
9 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel
Pipe from the Republic of Korea, Consolidated
Court No. 18–00154, Slip Op. 22–67 (CIT June 15,
E:\FR\FM\31AUN1.SGM
Continued
31AUN1
53458
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2022 / Notices
sustained Commerce’s final
redetermination.10
USA; or (2) were produced and/or
exported by SeAH Steel Corporation;
and were entered, or withdrawn from
Timken Notice
warehouse, for consumption during the
In its decision in Timken,11 as
period November 1, 2015, through
clarified by Diamond Sawblades,12 the
October 31, 2016. These entries will
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remain enjoined pursuant to the terms
held that, pursuant to section 516A(c)
of the injunctions during the pendency
and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
of any appeals process.
amended (the Act), Commerce must
In the event the CIT’s ruling is not
publish a notice of court decision that
appealed, or, if appealed, upheld by a
is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with a Commerce
final and conclusive court decision,
determination and must suspend
Commerce intends to instruct CBP to
liquidation of entries pending a
assess antidumping duties on
‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s
unliquidated entries of subject
August 24, 2022, judgment constitutes a
merchandise that: (1) were produced by
final decision of the CIT that is not in
Hyundai Steel Company (also known as
harmony with Commerce’s Final
Hyundai Steel Corporation and Hyundai
Results. Thus, this notice is published
Steel and the successor-in-interest to
in fulfillment of the publication
Hyundai HYSCO) and exported by
requirements of Timken.
Hyundai Steel Company or Hyundai
Amended Final Results of Review
Corporation, and imported by Hyundai
Steel USA, Inc. or Hyundai Corporation
Because there is now a final court
USA; or (2) were produced and/or
judgment, Commerce is amending its
exported by SeAH Steel Corporation in
Final Results with respect to Hyundai
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). We
Steel Company and SeAH Steel
will instruct CBP to assess antidumping
Corporation as follows:
duties on all appropriate entries covered
by this review when the importerMargin
Company
(percent)
specific ad valorem assessment rate is
not zero or de minimis. Where an
Hyundai Steel Company .............
12.92
import-specific ad valorem assessment
SeAH Steel Corporation .............
9.77
rate is zero or de minimis,13 we will
instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate
Cash Deposit Requirements
entries without regard to antidumping
Because Hyundai Steel Company and duties.
SeAH Steel Corporation have a
superseding cash deposit rate, i.e., there Notification to Interested Parties
have been final results published in a
This notice is issued and published in
subsequent administrative review, we
accordance with sections 516A(c) and
will not issue revised cash deposit
(e), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
instructions to U.S. Customs and Border
Dated: August 25, 2022.
Protection (CBP). This notice will not
Lisa
W. Wang,
affect the current cash deposit rate.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Liquidation of Suspended Entries
At this time, Commerce remains
enjoined by CIT order from liquidating
entries that: (1) were produced by
Hyundai Steel Company (also known as
Hyundai Steel Corporation and Hyundai
Steel and the successor-in-interest to
Hyundai HYSCO) and exported by
Hyundai Steel Company or Hyundai
Corporation, and imported by Hyundai
Steel USA, Inc. or Hyundai Corporation
2022), dated August 2, 2022, available at https://
access.trade.gov/Resources/remands/22-67.pdf. In
the Third Redetermination, Commerce recalculated
the weighted-average dumping margin of Hyundai
Steel with no adjustment to account for the PMS.
See Third Redetermination at 10.
10 See Hyundai Steel Company v. United States,
Court No. 18–00154, Slip Op. 22–98 (CIT August
24, 2022).
11 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).
12 See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers
Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Aug 30, 2022
Jkt 256001
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022–18803 Filed 8–30–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Submission to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
Review and Approval; Comment
Request; NIST Invention Disclosure
and Inventor Information Collection
National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), Commerce.
AGENCY:
Notice of information collection,
request for comment.
ACTION:
13 See
PO 00000
19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The Department of
Commerce, in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), invites the general public and
other Federal agencies to comment on
proposed, and continuing information
collections, which helps us assess the
impact of our information collection
requirements and minimize the public’s
reporting burden. The purpose of this
notice is to allow for 60 days of public
comment preceding submission of the
collection to OMB.
DATES: To ensure consideration,
comments regarding this proposed
information collection must be received
on or before October 31, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments by
mail to Maureen O’Reilly, Management
Analyst, NIST, by email to
PRAcomments@doc.gov. Please
reference OMB Control Number 0693–
0085 in the subject line of your
comments. Do not submit Confidential
Business Information or otherwise
sensitive or protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
specific questions related to collection
activities should be directed to Jeffrey
DiVietro, Deputy Director, Technology
Partnerships Office, NIST, 100 Bureau
Drive, MS 2200, Gaithersburg, MD
20899–2200 or Jeffrey.DiVietro@nist.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Abstract
The NIST DN–45 Invention
Disclosure Form is used to collect
information pertaining to inventions
created by Federal employees or by nonFederally employed individuals who
have created an invention using NIST
laboratory facilities as NIST Associates.
The collection of this information is
required to protect the United States
rights to inventions created using
Federal resources. The information
collected on the form allows the
Government to determine: (1) if an
invention has been created; (2) the
status of any statutory bar that pertains
to the potential invention or that may
pertain to the invention in the future.
The information collected may allow
the Government to begin a patent
application process.
The Inventor Information Sheet is
used to collect from individuals who
have been named as potential inventors
on a NIST Invention Disclosure Form.
The collection of this information is
used for multiple purposes:
(1) Some of the information may be
required to file a patent application, if
NIST seeks to protect a federally owned
invention, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 207.
E:\FR\FM\31AUN1.SGM
31AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 31, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53457-53458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18803]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-809]
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea:
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 24, 2022, the U.S. Court of International Trade
(CIT) issued its final judgment in Hyundai Steel Company v. United
States, Consol. Court No. 18-00154, sustaining the U.S. Department of
Commerce (Commerce)'s fourth remand results pertaining to the
administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on circular
welded non-alloy steel pipe from the Republic of Korea (Korea) covering
the period November 1, 2015, through October 31, 2016. Commerce is
notifying the public that the CIT's final judgment is not in harmony
with Commerce's final results of the administrative review, and that
Commerce is amending the final results with respect to the dumping
margins assigned to Hyundai Steel Company and SeAH Steel Corporation.
DATES: Applicable September 3, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer, AD/CVD Operations,
Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0410.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 13, 2018, Commerce published its Final Results in the 2015-
2016 AD administrative review of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe
from Korea. Commerce found that a particular market situation (PMS)
existed in Korea and calculated weighted-average dumping margins of
30.85 percent for Hyundai Steel Company and 19.28 percent for SeAH
Steel Corporation.\1\ Commerce also calculated a combined assessment
rate for Hyundai's affiliated importers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic
of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
2015-2016, 83 FR 27541 (June 13, 2018) (Final Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai Steel Company and SeAH Steel Corporation appealed
Commerce's Final Results. On November 25, 2019, the CIT remanded the
Final Results to Commerce, finding that: (1) Commerce's determination
of the existence of a PMS in the Final Results is unsupported by
substantial evidence and remanded the issue to Commerce for further
proceedings; and (2) Commerce's departure from its normal practice of
calculating importer-specific assessment rates with respect to Hyundai
Steel Company was unsupported by substantial evidence and remanded the
issue to Commerce for further proceedings.\2\ In its first remand
redetermination, issued on February 26, 2020, Commerce further
considered its PMS determination and recalculated Hyundai Steel
Company's assessment rates on an importer-specific basis.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, 415 F. Supp. 3d
1293 (CIT 2019).
\3\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of
Korea, Consolidated Court No. 18-00154, Slip Op. 19-148 (CIT
November 25, 2019), dated February 26, 2020 (First Remand),
available at https://access.trade.gov/resources/remands/19-148.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CIT remanded for a second time, ordering Commerce to explain
the statutory authority to conduct a cost-based PMS analysis when
normal value is based on home market sales and to adjust the cost of
production (COP) for purposes of the sales-below-cost test.\4\ In its
second remand redetermination, issued on February 2, 2021, Commerce
provided its interpretation of the statutory authority in accordance
with the Court's order.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, 483 F. Supp. 3d
1273 (CIT 2020).
\5\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of
Korea, Consolidated Court No. 18-00154, Slip Op. 20-168 (CIT
November 23, 2020), dated February 2, 2021 (Second Remand)),
available at https://access.trade.gov/Resources/remands/20-168.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CIT remanded for a third time, ordering Commerce to reconsider
its PMS determination and adjustment in light of its opinion that
Commerce may not adjust the COP when using normal value based on home
market sales, and that Commerce is not authorized to adjust the COP for
purposes of the sales-below-cost test.\6\ In its third remand
redetermination, issued on September 8, 2021, Commerce recalculated the
weighted-average dumping margin of Hyundai Steel Company with no
adjustment to account for the PMS that Commerce had found to have
existed during the period of review; Commerce also recalculated the
rate for the second mandatory respondent, Husteel Co., Ltd., for the
sole purpose of calculating the rate for SeAH Steel Corporation, the
non-examined company which is a party to this litigation but, in
recalculating Husteel Co., Ltd.'s rate, Commerce continued to apply a
PMS adjustment for normal value in situations where normal value was
determined based on constructed value.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, 531 F. Supp. 3d
1344 (CIT 2021).
\7\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Consolidated Court No. 18-00154, Slip Op. 21-88 (CIT July
19, 2021), dated September 8, 2021 (Third Remand), available at
https://access.trade.gov/resources/remands/21-88.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CIT remanded for a fourth time, holding that Commerce
calculated SeAH Steel Corporation's dumping margin improperly using an
average of dumping rates based, in part, on a PMS determination that
was unsupported by substantial evidence, and ordering Commerce to
recalculate SeAH Steel Corporation's dumping margin in accordance with
its opinion.\8\ In its final remand redetermination, issued in August
2022, Commerce, under respectful protest, recalculated the weighted-
average dumping margin for SeAH Steel Corporation without making a
cost-based PMS adjustment.\9\ The CIT
[[Page 53458]]
sustained Commerce's final redetermination.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, Court No. 18-
00154, Slip Op. 22-67 (CIT June 15, 2022).
\9\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of
Korea, Consolidated Court No. 18-00154, Slip Op. 22-67 (CIT June 15,
2022), dated August 2, 2022, available at https://access.trade.gov/Resources/remands/22-67.pdf. In the Third Redetermination, Commerce
recalculated the weighted-average dumping margin of Hyundai Steel
with no adjustment to account for the PMS. See Third Redetermination
at 10.
\10\ See Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, Court No. 18-
00154, Slip Op. 22-98 (CIT August 24, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\11\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\12\ the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that,
pursuant to section 516A(c) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), Commerce must publish a notice of court decision
that is not ``in harmony'' with a Commerce determination and must
suspend liquidation of entries pending a ``conclusive'' court decision.
The CIT's August 24, 2022, judgment constitutes a final decision of the
CIT that is not in harmony with Commerce's Final Results. Thus, this
notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of
Timken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken).
\12\ See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United
States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amended Final Results of Review
Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending
its Final Results with respect to Hyundai Steel Company and SeAH Steel
Corporation as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Company (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai Steel Company....................................... 12.92
SeAH Steel Corporation...................................... 9.77
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because Hyundai Steel Company and SeAH Steel Corporation have a
superseding cash deposit rate, i.e., there have been final results
published in a subsequent administrative review, we will not issue
revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP). This notice will not affect the current cash deposit rate.
Liquidation of Suspended Entries
At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from
liquidating entries that: (1) were produced by Hyundai Steel Company
(also known as Hyundai Steel Corporation and Hyundai Steel and the
successor-in-interest to Hyundai HYSCO) and exported by Hyundai Steel
Company or Hyundai Corporation, and imported by Hyundai Steel USA, Inc.
or Hyundai Corporation USA; or (2) were produced and/or exported by
SeAH Steel Corporation; and were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption during the period November 1, 2015, through October 31,
2016. These entries will remain enjoined pursuant to the terms of the
injunctions during the pendency of any appeals process.
In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or, if appealed,
upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce intends to
instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of
subject merchandise that: (1) were produced by Hyundai Steel Company
(also known as Hyundai Steel Corporation and Hyundai Steel and the
successor-in-interest to Hyundai HYSCO) and exported by Hyundai Steel
Company or Hyundai Corporation, and imported by Hyundai Steel USA, Inc.
or Hyundai Corporation USA; or (2) were produced and/or exported by
SeAH Steel Corporation in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). We will
instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries
covered by this review when the importer-specific ad valorem assessment
rate is not zero or de minimis. Where an import-specific ad valorem
assessment rate is zero or de minimis,\13\ we will instruct CBP to
liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(c) and (e), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: August 25, 2022.
Lisa W. Wang,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-18803 Filed 8-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P