Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Notices 33919 

1See Welded Line Pipe from Korea: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review; 2015–2016, 83 FR 1023 (January 9, 2018) 

(Preliminary Results). 

2See Memorandum, ‘‘Welded Line Pipe from 

Korea from the Republic of Korea: Extension of 

Deadline for Final Results of 2015–2016 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews,’’ dated 

February 23, 2018. 

3See Hyundai Steel’s Case Brief, ‘‘Case Brief of 

Hyundai Steel Company,’’ dated March 23, 2018; 

SeAH’s Case Brief, ‘‘Case Brief of SeAH Steel 

Corporation,’’ dated March 23, 2018; Husteel’s Case 

Brief, ‘‘Case Brief of Husteel Co., Ltd.,’’ dated March 

23, 2018; NEXTEEL’s letter, ‘‘Welded Line Pipe 

from the Republic of Korea: NEXTEEL’s Letter in 

Support of Respondents’ Case Briefs,’’ dated March 

23, 2018; and Maverick’s Case Brief, ‘‘Welded Line 

Pipe from the Republic of Korea: Case Brief,’’ dated 

March 23, 2018 (Maverick Case Brief). Maverick 

resubmitted certain pages of its case brief to reflect 

the public disclosure of certain information 

previously treated as business proprietary. See 

Maverick’s letter, ‘‘Welded Line Pipe from the 

Republic of Korea: Resubmission of Selected Pages 

in Case Brief,’’ dated April 25, 2018. 

4See Hyundai Steel’s Rebuttal Brief, ‘‘Rebuttal 

Brief of Hyundai Steel Company,’’ dated April 2, 

2018; SeAH’s Rebuttal Brief, ‘‘Rebuttal Brief of 

SeAH Steel Corporation,’’ dated April 2, 2018; 

Husteel’s Rebuttal Brief, ‘‘Welded Line Pipe from 

the Republic of Korea. Case No. A–580–876: 

Rebuttal Brief,’’ dated April 2, 2018; and Maverick’s 

Rebuttal Brief, ‘‘Rebuttal Brief of Maverick Tube 

Corporation,’’ dated April 2, 2018. Hyundai Steel 

resubmitted certain pages of its case brief to reflect 

the public disclosure of certain information 

previously treated as business proprietary. See 

Hyundai Steel’s letter, ‘‘Welded Line Pipe from the 

Republic of Korea: Resubmission of Certain Pages 

of Hyundai Steel’s Rebuttal Brief,’’ dated April 25, 

2018. 

5See Maverick’s Letter, ‘‘Welded Line Pipe from 

the Republic of Korea: Response to Factual 

Information Placed on the Record by the 

Department on June 25,’’ dated June 27, 2018. We 

rejected SeAH’s June 27, 2018 letter, which 

contained untimely-filed written argument. See 

Commerce Letter re: 2015–2016 Administrative 

Review of Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of 

Korea, dated June 28, 2018. However, upon further 

consideration, we authorized SeAH to resubmit its 

June 27, 2018 submission; we also authorized 

parties to submit rebuttal comments to SeAH’s 

written arguments. See Commerce Letter re: 2015– 

2016 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 

Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea, dated 

June 29, 2018. SeAH resubmitted its rejected filing 

Continued 

for the production of passenger vehicle 

and sport utility vehicle (SUV) 

subassemblies. Pursuant to 15 CFR 

400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited 

to the specific foreign-status materials 

and components and specific finished 

products described in the submitted 

notification (as described below) and 

subsequently authorized by the FTZ 

Board. 

Production under FTZ procedures 

could exempt Brose from customs duty 

payments on the foreign-status 

components used in export production. 

On its domestic sales, for the foreignstatus materials/components noted 

below, Brose would be able to choose 

the duty rates during customs entry 

procedures that apply to seat frames, 

motor vehicle seat adjusters, automobile 

door modules, lift gate spindles, handsfree lift gate access modules, and 

cooling fan modules (duty rate ranges 

from duty-free to 4.4%). Brose would be 

able to avoid duty on foreign-status 

components which become scrap/waste. 

Customs duties also could possibly be 

deferred or reduced on foreign-status 

production equipment. 

The components and materials 

sourced from abroad include: 

Automotive grease/lubricant; thermal 

transfer film; plastic tubes; plastic 

hoses; self-adhesive plastic sheets in 

rolls; vehicle door plastic handles; 

plastic mountings; plastic brackets; 

decals; plastic spacers; plastic seals; 

rubber o-rings; rubber seals; rubber 

gaskets; rubber spacers; rubber end 

stops; rubber caps; blank self-adhesive 

labels; steel self-tapping screws; screws, 

bolts, and nut assemblies; steel nuts; 

steel torsion spring washers and lock 

washers; steel washers, steel spacers; 

steel rivets; steel cotters and cotter pins; 

steel pins; helical steel springs; steel 

springs; steel cable drum wire; steel 

metal clips/clamps; motor vehicle locks; 

base metal mountings; steel brackets; 

metal mountings for seats; steel tubular 

rivets; fan impellers, shrouds, and 

frames; steel bearing balls; transmission 

shafts; plain shaft bearings; gear boxes, 

gears, and gearing to adjust vehicle 

seats; grooved pulleys; gearing housings; 

motors to lift/tilt vehicle seats (electric 

DC motors, universal AC/DC motors, DC 

motors, and multi-phase AC motors); DC 

generators; electrical lighting or 

signaling equipment; loudspeakers; antipinch sensors; proximity sensors/ 

switches; electronic control modules; 

coaxial cables; automotive wiring 

harnesses; vehicle bumper carrier 

plates; door carrier plates; mechanical 

cables for motor vehicles; seat pans; 

coated cross tubes; side panels; slider 

assemblies; seat frames; black ink 

ribbons; and, colored ink ribbons (duty 

rate ranges from duty-free to 8.5%). 

Public comment is invited from 

interested parties. Submissions shall be 

addressed to the Board’s Executive 

Secretary at the address below. The 

closing period for their receipt is August 

27, 2018. 

A copy of the notification will be 

available for public inspection at the 

Office of the Executive Secretary, 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 

21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

1401 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the 

‘‘Reading Room’’ section of the Board’s 

website, which is accessible via 

www.trade.gov/ftz. 

For further information, contact 

Juanita Chen at juanita.chen@trade.gov 

or 202–482–1378. 

Dated: July 12, 2018. 

Elizabeth Whiteman, 

Acting Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15328 Filed 7–17–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–876] 

Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of 

Korea: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review; 2015– 

2016 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) finds that manufacturers/ 

exporters of welded line pipe from the 

Republic of Korea sold welded line pipe 

at less than normal value during the 

period of review (POR), May 22, 2015, 

through November 30, 2016. 

DATES: Applicable July 18, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Goldberger or Ross Belliveau, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office II, 

Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4136 or 

(202) 482–4952, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This review covers 24 producers and/ 

or exporters. Commerce selected two 

companies, Hyundai Steel Company 

(Hyundai Steel) and SeAH Steel 

Company (SeAH), for individual 

examination. The producers and/or 

exporters not selected for individual 

examination are listed in the ‘‘Final 

Results of the Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

On January 9, 2018, Commerce 

published the Preliminary Results.1 On 

February 23, 2018, we postponed the 

final results by 60 days, until July 11, 

2018.2

On March 23, 2018, we received case 

briefs from Hyundai Steel, SeAH, 

Husteel Co. Ltd. (Husteel), NEXTEEL 

Co., Ltd., and Maverick Tube 

Corporation (Maverick).3 On April 2, 

2018, we received rebuttal briefs from 

Hyundai Steel, SeAH, Husteel, and 

Maverick.4 On June 27, 2018, Maverick 

and SeAH submitted comments in 

response to factual information 

Commerce placed on the record on June 

25, 2018.5 On July 2, 2018, Maverick 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
33920 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Notices 

on June 29, 2018. See SeAH’s letter, 

‘‘Administrative Review of the Antidumping Order 

on Welded Line Pipe from Korea—Response to New 

Factual Information,’’ dated June 29, 2018. 

6See Maverick’s Letter, ‘‘Welded Line Pipe from 

the Republic of Korea: Rebuttal Comments to 

SeAH’s written argument,’’ dated July 2, 2018. 

7For a complete description of the scope of the 

order, see Preliminary Results and accompanying 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 

8See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2015– 

2016 Administrative Review of the Antidumping 

Duty Order on Welded Line Pipe from Korea,’’ 

(dated concurrently with these results) (IDM), 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

9See accompanying IDM. 

10As discussed in Welded Line Pipe from the 

Republic of Korea: Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, 80 FR 61366 (October 13, 

2015), and accompanying IDM at 1, Hyundai 

HYSCO merged with Hyundai Steel subsequent to 

the period of investigation and Hyundai HYSCO no 

longer exists. Accordingly, our examination of 

Hyundai Steel includes entries made by Hyundai 

HYSCO prior to the date of the merger. 

11This rate is based on the actual weightedaverage margin using the publicly-ranged data 

calculated for those companies selected for 

individual review. Because we cannot apply our 

normal methodology of calculating a weightedaverage margin due to requests to protect business 

proprietary information, we find this rate to be the 

best proxy of the actual weighted-average margin 

determined for the mandatory respondents. See Ball 

Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, et al.: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Final Results of Changed-Circumstances 

Review, and Revocation of an Order in Part, 75 FR 

53661, 53663 (September 1, 2010); see also 

Memorandum, ‘‘Calculation of the Review-Specific 

Average Rate for the Final Results,’’ dated 

concurrently with this notice. 

12This rate was calculated as discussed in 

footnote 11, above. 

13See section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act. 

submitted information rebutting SeAH’s 

submission.6

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to the order 

is welded line pipe.7 The product is 

currently classified under the following 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) item numbers: 

7305.11.1030, 7305.11.1060, 

7305.11.5000, 7305.12.1030, 

7305.12.1060, 7305.12.5000, 

7305.19.1030, 7305.19.5000, 

7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 

7306.19.5110, and 7306.19.5150. 

Although the HTSUS numbers are 

provided for convenience and for 

customs purposes, the written product 

description remains dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs are listed in the 

Appendix to this notice and addressed 

in the IDM.8 Interested parties can find 

a complete discussion of these issues 

and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum, which 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 http://access.trade.gov, and is also 

available to all interested parties in the 

Central Records Unit, Room B8024, of 

the main Department of Commerce 

building. In addition, a complete 

version of the IDM can be accessed 

directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/ 

frn/index.html. The signed IDM and the 

electronic version of the IDM are 

identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on a review of the record and 

comments received from interested 

parties regarding our Preliminary 

Results, we made certain changes to the 

preliminary weighted-average margin 

calculations for Hyundai Steel and 

SeAH.9

Final Results of the Review 

We are assigning the following 

weighted-average dumping margins to 

the firms listed below for the period 

May 22, 2015, through November 30, 

2016: 

Exporter/producer 

Weightedaverage 

dumping 

margin 

(percent) 

Hyundai Steel Company/ 

Hyundai HYSCO 10 ............... 18.77 

SeAH Steel Company .............. 17.81 

Review-Specific Average Rate 

Applicable to the Following 

Companies: 11

Exporter/producer 

Weightedaverage 

dumping 

margin 

(percent) 

AJU BESTEEL CO., Ltd ........... 18.30 

Daewoo International Corporation ........................................ 18.30 

Dong Yang Steel Pipe .............. 18.30 

Dongbu Incheon Steel Co ........ 18.30 

Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd .............. 18.30 

Dongkuk Steel Mill .................... 18.30 

EEW Korea Co, Ltd .................. 18.30 

HISTEEL Co., Ltd ..................... 18.30 

Husteel Co., Ltd ........................ 18.30 

Keonwood Metals Co., Ltd ....... 18.30 

Kolon Global Corp .................... 18.30 

Korea Cast Iron Pipe Ind. Co., 

Ltd ......................................... 18.30 

Miju Steel MFG Co., Ltd ........... 18.30 

MSTEEL Co., Ltd ..................... 18.30 

NEXTEEL Co., Ltd ................... 18.30 

Poongsan Valinox (Valtimet Division) .................................... 18.30 

POSCO ..................................... 18.30 

Sam Kang M&T Co., Ltd .......... 18.30 

Sin Sung Metal Co., Ltd ........... 18.30 

Soon-Hong Trading Company .. 18.30 

Steel Flower Co., Ltd ................ 18.30 

Exporter/producer 

Weightedaverage 

dumping 

margin 

(percent) 

TGS Pipe .................................. 18.30 

We intend to disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

Assessment Rates 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the 

Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), 

Commerce has determined, and U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries of subject 

merchandise in accordance with the 

final results of this review. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), 

where Hyundai Steel and SeAH 

reported the entered value of their U.S. 

sales, we calculated importer-specific 

ad valorem duty assessment rates based 

on the ratio of the total amount of 

dumping calculated for the examined 

sales to the total entered value of the 

sales for which entered value was 

reported. Where Hyundai Steel did not 

report entered value, we calculated the 

entered value in order to calculate the 

assessment rate. Where either the 

respondent’s weighted-average dumping 

margin is zero or de minimis within the 

meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), or an 

importer-specific rate is zero or de 

minimis, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate the appropriate entries 

without regard to antidumping duties. 

For the companies which were not 

selected for individual review, we will 

assign an assessment rate based on the 

average 12 of the cash deposit rates 

calculated for Hyundai Steel and SeAH. 

The final results of this review shall be 

the basis for the assessment of 

antidumping duties on entries of 

merchandise covered by the final results 

of this review and for future deposits of 

estimated duties, where applicable.13

We intend to issue liquidation 

instructions to CBP 15 days after 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results of 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Notices 33921 

14See Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of 

Korea and the Republic of Turkey: Antidumping 

Duty Orders, 80 FR 75056, 75057 (December 1, 

2015). 

this administrative review, as provided 

by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) 

The cash deposit rate for each specific 

company listed above will be that 

established in the final results of this 

review, except if the rate is less than 

0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis 

within the meaning of 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash 

deposit rate will be zero; (2) for 

previously investigated companies not 

participating in this review, the cash 

deposit will continue to be the 

company-specific rate published for the 

most recently completed segment of this 

proceeding in which the company 

participated; (3) if the exporter is not a 

firm covered in this review, or the 

original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 

investigation, but the manufacturer is, 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

established for the most recent segment 

for the manufacturer of the 

merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit 

rate for all other manufacturers or 

exporters will continue to be 4.38 

percent, the all-others rate established 

in the LTFV investigation.14 These 

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 review period. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Secretary’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

Administrative Protective Order 

This notice 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 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 notice is issued and published in 

accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: July 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 

List of Topics Discussed in the IDM 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Margin Calculations 

IV. Discussion of the Issues 

General Issues: 

Comment 1: Existence of a Particular 

Market Situation (PMS) 

Comment 2: Additional PMS Adjustments 

Comment 3: Allegations of Improper 

Political Influence in Determining the 

PMS 

Comment 4: Differential Pricing 

Comment 5: Reimbursement of 

Antidumping Duties 

Hyundai Steel-Specific Issues: 

Comment 6: Collapsing Hyundai RB with 

Hyundai Steel 

Comment 7: Date of Sale for Hyundai 

Steel’s U.S. Sales 

Comment 8: Reporting of Hyundai Steel’s 

Downstream Sales 

Comment 9: Assignment of Costs for 

Hyundai Steel’s Non-Prime Pipe 

Comment 10: Hyundai Steel’s Foreign 

Inland Freight Expenses 

Comment 11: Calculation Error for 

Hyundai Steel in the Preliminary Results 

SeAH-Specific Issues: 

Comment 12: SeAH’s Third Country 

Comparison Market Viability 

Comment 13: Constructed Export Price 

(CEP) Offset for SeAH 

V. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2018–15327 Filed 7–17–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

[Docket No. 171003965–7965–01] 

Hollings Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership Program; Knowledge 

Sharing Strategies. 

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; request for information. 

SUMMARY: The Hollings Manufacturing 

Extension Partnership (MEP) Program 

includes a network of centers located in 

all 50 States and Puerto Rico, and is a 

source of trusted advice about new 

technologies, production techniques 

and business management practices. In 

order for the MEP System to grow, 

improve and have a greater impact on 

the growth and competitiveness of U.S. 

manufacturers in the global 

marketplace, the MEP System needs to 

transform to an organizationally and 

operationally integrated MEP National 

Network. This transformation will 

require a learning and knowledge 

sharing infrastructure, which NIST MEP 

envisions will be stood up as ‘‘The MEP 

Network Learning and Knowledge 

Sharing System’’ (MEP NLKSS). NIST is 

requesting information from interested 

vendors and others on possible designs 

and implementation of networked 

learning and knowledge sharing. The 

responses will inform NIST’s planning 

of the MEP NLKSS, including assisting 

NIST MEP with the development of the 

final Statement of Work for a 

performance-based contract. 

DATES: NIST will accept responses to 

this request for information until 11:59 

p.m. Eastern Time on August 17, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Responses will be accepted 

by email only. Responses must be sent 

to meprfi@nist.gov with the subject line 

‘‘MEP Network Learning and 

Knowledge Sharing System RFI 

Response.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Simpson, 100 Bureau Drive, 

Mail Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, MD 

20899–4800, 301–975–5020, meprfi@

nist.gov; or Mary Ann Pacelli, 100 

Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800, 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899–4800, 301– 

975–5020, meprfi@nist.gov. Please 

direct media inquiries to NIST’s Office 

of Public Affairs at 301–975–NIST 

(6478). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NIST will 

consider the information obtained in 

response to this request for information 

in the development of a Scope of Work 

for a competitively awarded contract to 

develop and/or implement any or all 

parts of the MEP NLKSS. 

Background—The MEP System 

The MEP System consists of NIST 

MEP and its MEP Centers located in all 

50 States and Puerto Rico. For almost 30 

years the MEP Centers have served as 

trusted advisors focused largely on the 

continuous improvement of U.S. 

manufacturers for the purpose of 

achieving improved productivity. MEP 

Centers are a diverse system of state, 

university-based, and other non-profit 

organizations, comprising more than 

1,300 technical experts offering 

products, technical expertise and 

services that address the critical needs 

of their local manufacturers. MEP 

Centers are funded through cooperative 

agreements issued by NIST. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1