1112 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 6 / Monday, January 10, 2022 / Notices 

17 ‘‘Largest relative component by volume, on an 

actual percentage basis’’ means that the percentage 

of R-125 contained in a blend is larger than the 

individual percentages of all the other components. 

For example, R-125 contained in a blend that does 

not conform to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34 and 

which contains 35% R-125 by volume is covered by 

the scope of the investigations if no other 

component part of the blend equals or exceeds 35% 

of the volume of the blend. 

1See Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of 

Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Final Determination of 

If the ITC determines that material 

injury or threat of material injury does 

not exist, the proceeding will be 

terminated, and all cash deposits will be 

refunded. If the ITC determines that 

material injury or threat of material 

injury does exist, Commerce will issue 

a CVD order directing CBP to assess, 

upon further instruction by Commerce, 

countervailing duties on all imports of 

the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation, as 

discussed above in the ‘‘Continuation of 

Suspension of Liquidation’’ section. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

In the event that the ITC issues a final 

negative injury determination, this 

notice will serve 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). 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. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 705(d) and 

777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: December 30, 2021. 

Ryan Majerus, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and 

Negotiations, performing the non-exclusive 

functions and duties of the Assistant 

Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. 

Appendix I 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is pentafluoroethane (R-125), or 

its chemical equivalent, regardless of form, 

type or purity level. R-125 has the Chemical 

Abstracts Service (CAS) registry number of 

354–33–6 and the chemical formula C2HF5. 

R-125 is also referred to as 

Pentafluoroethane, Genetron HFC 125, 

Khladon 125, Suva 125, Freon 125, and Fc125. 

R-125 contained in blends that do not 

conform to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34 is 

included in the scope of this investigation 

when R-125 constitutes the largest relative 

component by volume, on an actual 

percentage basis, of the blend.17 However, R125 incorporated into a blend that conforms 

to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34 is excluded 

from the scope of this investigation. When R125 is blended with other products and 

otherwise falls under the scope of this 

investigation, only the R-125 component of 

the mixture is covered by the scope of this 

investigation. 

Subject merchandise also includes purified 

and unpurified R-125 that is processed in a 

third country or otherwise outside the 

customs territory of the United States, 

including, but not limited to, purifying, 

blending, or any other processing that would 

not otherwise remove the merchandise from 

the scope of this investigation if performed 

in the country of manufacture of the in-scope 

R-125. The scope also includes R-125 that is 

commingled with R-125 from sources not 

subject to this investigation. Only the subject 

component of such commingled products is 

covered by the scope of this investigation. 

Excluded from the scope is merchandise 

covered by the scope of the antidumping 

order on Hydrofluorocarbon Blends from the 

People’s Republic of China, including 

merchandise subject to the affirmative anticircumvention determination in 

Hydrofluorocarbon Blends from the People’s 

Republic of China: Affirmative Final 

Determination of Circumvention of the 

Antidumping Duty Order; Unfinished R–32/ 

R-125 Blends, 85 FR 15428 (March 18, 2020). 

See Hydrofluorocarbon Blends from the 

People’s Republic of China: Antidumping 

Duty Order, 81 FR 55436 (August 19, 2016) 

(the Blends Order). 

R-125 is classified under Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

subheading 2903.39.2035 and 2903.39.2038. 

Merchandise subject to the scope may also be 

entered under HTSUS subheadings 

2903.39.2045, 3824.78.0020, and 

3824.78.0050. The HTSUS subheadings and 

CAS registry number are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes. The 

written description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. 

Appendix II 

List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and 

Decision Memo 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Scope Comments 

IV. Final Affirmative Determination of 

Critical Circumstances 

V. Subsidies Valuation Information 

VI. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and 

Adverse Inferences 

VII. Analysis of Programs 

VIII. Discussion of the Issues 

Comment 1: Application of Adverse Facts 

Available (AFA) to the Export Buyer’s 

Credit Program (EBCP) 

Comment 2: Application of AFA to the 

Provision of Electricity for Less-ThanAdequate-Renumeration (LTAR) Program 

Comment 3: Application of AFA to Other 

Subsidy Programs 

Comment 4: Ministerial Error in the 

Subsidy Rate Calculation for the 

Electricity for LTAR Program for Sanmei 

Comment 5: Selection of Fluorspar for 

LTAR Benchmark Prices 

Comment 6: Creditworthiness of Juhua 

Group Corporation (Juhua Group) 

Comment 7: Undervaluation of the 

Renminbi (RMB) 

Comment 8: Seasonality in the Critical 

Circumstances Analysis 

IX. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2022–00180 Filed 1–7–22; 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: 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 January 3, 2022, the U.S. 

Court of International Trade (CIT) 

issued its final judgment in Husteel Co., 

Ltd. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 

19–00112, sustaining the Department of 

Commerce (Commerce)’s second 

remand results pertaining to the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty (AD) order on welded 

line pipe (WLP) from the Republic of 

Korea (Korea) covering the period 

December 1, 2016, through November 

30, 2017. 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 NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. 

(NEXTEEL), SeAH Steel Corporation 

(SeAH), and non-selected respondents. 

DATES: Applicable January 13, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Goldberger, 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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 14, 2019, Commerce 

published its final results in the 2016– 

2017 AD administrative review of WLP 

from Korea.1 Commerce calculated 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 6 / Monday, January 10, 2022 / Notices 1113 

No Shipments; 2016–2017, 84 FR 27762 (June 14, 

2019) (Final Results), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum (IDM). 

2 Id. 

3See Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of 

Korea: Amended Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review; 2016–2017, 84 FR 

35371 (July 23, 2019) (Amended Final Results). 

4See Husteel Co., Ltd. v. United States, 471 F. 

Supp. 3d 1349 (CIT 2020). 

5See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to Court Remand, Consol. Court No. 19–00112, 

dated January 7, 2021 at 42; see also Corrected Final 

Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 

Remand, Consol. Court No. 19–00112, dated 

January 21, 2021, where Commerce revised: (1) 

NEXTEEL’s margin calculation to use SeAH’s final 

revised calculations as the basis for CV profit and 

selling expenses, resulting in a rate of 11.67 

percent; and (2) the review-specific average rate 

applicable to the non-selected respondents to be 

9.21 percent. 

6See Husteel Co., Ltd. v. United States, 520 F. 

Supp. 3d 1296, 1309 (CIT 2021) (citing Dillinger 

France S.A. v. United States, 981 F.3d 1318, 1321– 

41 (Fed. Cir. 2020 (Dillinger)). 

7See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to Court Remand, Consol. Court No. 19–00112, Slip 

Op. 21–70 dated September 2, 2021, at 5–6. 

8See Husteel Co., Ltd. v. United States, Consol. 

Court No. 19–00012, Slip Op. 22–1 (CIT January 3, 

2022). 

9See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 

(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). 

10See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers 

Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 

2010) (Diamond Sawblades). 11See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

weighted-average dumping margins of 

38.87 percent for NEXTEEL, 27.38 

percent for SeAH, and 32.49 percent for 

the non-selected respondents.2 After 

correcting ministerial errors contained 

in the Final Results, on July 23, 2019, 

Commerce published the Amended 

Final Results and revised the calculated 

weighted-average dumping margins for 

SeAH and the non-selected respondents 

to 22.70 percent and 29.89 percent, 

respectively.3

Husteel Co., Ltd., Hyundai Steel Co. 

(Hyundai Steel), NEXTEEL, and SeAH 

appealed Commerce’s Amended Final 

Results. On August 26, 2020, the CIT 

remanded the Amended Final Results to 

Commerce regarding its: (1) Rejection of 

SeAH’s third country sales to calculate 

normal value (NV); (2) particular market 

situation (PMS) determination and 

resulting adjustment to the reported cost 

of production (COP) for WLP; (3) 

reliance on the constructed value (CV) 

profit ratio and selling expenses 

calculated for Hyundai Steel in the first 

administrative review; (4) 

reclassification of NEXTEEL’s reported 

losses relating to the suspended 

production of certain product lines; (5) 

adjustment to NEXTEEL’s CV to account 

for sales of non-prime products; (6) 

refusal to employ its quarterly cost 

methodology to calculate SeAH’s costs; 

(7) allocation of the general and 

administrative expenses of SeAH’s U.S. 

affiliate Pusan Pipe America (PPA) 

across all of SeAH’s U.S. sales of WLP 

sold through PPA; and (8) calculation of 

the rate assigned to the non-examined 

companies in light of any adjustments 

made to the calculations for either 

respondent stemming from the remand.4

Therefore, the CIT remanded the 

Amended Final Results to Commerce to 

provide further explanation or 

reconsider its treatment of these items. 

In its first remand redetermination, 

issued in January 2021, Commerce 

recalculated SeAH’s weighted-average 

dumping margin using the company’s 

Canadian sales as the basis for NV and 

without making the PMS adjustment to 

the COP. As a result, SeAH’s weightedaverage dumping margin was 7.24 

percent.5

On June 7, 2021, the CIT remanded 

the Amended Final Results to 

Commerce for a second time, ordering 

Commerce to provide further 

explanation or reconsideration of the 

adjustment to NEXTEEL’S CV to 

account for sales of non-prime products, 

consistent with the Court’s opinion and 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit (CAFC)’s ruling in 

Dillinger.6

In its second remand redetermination, 

issued in September 2021, Commerce 

recalculated NEXTEEL’s weighted 

average-dumping margin based on the 

actual costs of prime and non-prime 

merchandise reported by NEXTEEL. The 

revised weighted-average dumping 

margin for NEXTEEL was 11.41 percent 

and the resulting review-specific 

average rate for the non-selected 

respondents was 9.09 percent.7 The CIT 

sustained Commerce’s second 

redetermination.8

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken,9 as clarified 

by Diamond Sawblades,10 the CAFC 

held that, pursuant to sections 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 

January 3, 2022, judgment constitutes a 

final decision of the CIT that is not in 

harmony with Commerce’s Final Results 

and Amended Final Results. Thus, this 

notice is published in fulfillment of the 

publication requirements of Timken. 

Amended Final Results 

Because there is now a final court 

judgment, Commerce is amending its 

Final Results and Amended Final 

Results with respect to NEXTEEL, 

SeAH, and the non-selected respondents 

as follows: 

Producer or exporter 

Weightedaverage 

dumping 

margin 

(percent) 

NEXTEEL Co., Ltd ..................... 11.41 

SeAH Steel Corporation ............. 7.24 

Companies Not Selected for Individual Review ....................... 9.09 

The exporters or producers not 

selected for individual review are listed 

in the appendix. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Because NEXTEEL, SeAH, and the 

non-selected companies 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 rates for 

those exporters/producers. 

Liquidation of Suspended Entries 

At this time, Commerce remains 

enjoined by CIT order from liquidating 

entries that: Were produced and/or 

exported by NEXTEEL, SeAH, and the 

non-selected companies, and were 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption during the period 

December 1, 2016, through November 

30, 2017. These entries will remain 

enjoined pursuant to the terms of the 

injunction 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 produced and/or exported 

by NEXTEEL, SeAH, and the nonselected companies 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,11 we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate the appropriate entries 

without regard to antidumping duties. 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
1114 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 6 / Monday, January 10, 2022 / Notices 

1See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from 

Canada: Final Results of the Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review, 2019, 86 FR 68467 

(December 2, 2021) (Final Results), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 

(IDM). 

2See Resolute’s Letter, ‘‘Softwood Lumber from 

Canada: CVD Second Administrative Review 

Ministerial Error Comments On Behalf Of Resolute 

FP Canada And Affiliates,’’ dated December 7, 

2021. 

3The petitioner is the Committee Overseeing 

Action for Lumber International Trade 

Investigations or Negotiations, an ad hoc 

association whose members are: U.S. Lumber 

Coalition, Inc.; Collum’s Lumber Products, L.L.C.; 

Fox Lumber Sales, Inc.; Hankins, Inc.; Pleasant 

River Lumber Company; PotlatchDeltic; Rex 

Lumber Company; S.I. Storey Lumber Co., Inc.; 

Stimson Lumber Company; Swanson Group; 

Weyerhaeuser Company; Carpenters Industrial 

Council; Giustina Land and Timber Company; and 

Sullivan Forestry Consultants, Inc. 

4See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Certain Softwood 

Lumber Products from Canada: Ministerial Error 

Allegations,’’ dated December 13, 2021 (Petitioner 

Ministerial Error Allegation Submission); see also 

Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Certain Softwood Lumber 

Products from Canada: Response to Resolute 

Ministerial Error Allegation,’’ dated December 13, 

2021. 

5See Petitioner Ministerial Error Allegation 

Submission. 

6 Id. 

7 Id. 

8See JDIL’s Letter, ‘‘Softwood Lumber Products 

from Canada: Reply to Petitioner’s Ministerial Error 

Allegations,’’ dated December 17, 2021; see also 

West Fraser’s Letter, ‘‘Certain Softwood Lumber 

Products from Canada, Case No. C–122–858: West 

Fraser Mills Ltd.’s Response to Ministerial Error 

Comments,’’ dated December 17, 2021. 

9See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from 

Canada: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order, 

83 FR 347 (January 3, 2018) (Order). 

Dated: January 4, 2022. 

Ryan Majerus, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and 

Negotiations, performing the non-exclusive 

functions and duties of the Assistant 

Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. 

Appendix—Review-Specific Average 

Rate Applicable to Companies Not 

Selected for Individual Review 

1. AJU Besteel Co., Ltd. 

2. BDP International, Inc. 

3. Daewoo International Cooperation 

4. Dongbu Incheon Steel Co. 

5. Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. 

6. Dongkuk Steel Mill 

7. Dong Yang Steel Pipe 

8. EEW Korea Co., Ltd. 

9. Husteel Co., Ltd. 

10. Hyundai RB Co. Ltd. 

11. Hyundai Steel Company/Hyundai 

HYSCO 

12. Kelly Pipe Co., LLC. 

13. Keonwoo Metals Co., Ltd. 

14. Kolon Global Corp. 

15. Korea Cast Iron Pipe Ind. Co., Ltd. 

16. Kurvers Piping Italy S.R.L. 

17. MSTEEL Co., Ltd. 

18. Miju Steel MFG Co., Ltd. 

19. Poongsan Valinox (Valtimet Division) 

20. POSCO 

21. POSCO Daewoo 

22. R&R Trading Co. Ltd. 

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

24. Sin Sung Metal Co., Ltd. 

25. SK Networks 

26. Soon-Hong Trading Company 

27. Steel Flower Co., Ltd. 

28. TGS Pipe 

29. Tokyo Engineering Korea Ltd. 

[FR Doc. 2022–00181 Filed 1–7–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–122–858] 

Certain Softwood Lumber Products 

From Canada: Notice of Amended 

Final Results of the Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review, 2019 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) is amending its notice of 

final results of the 2019 administrative 

review of the countervailing duty (CVD) 

order on certain softwood lumber 

products (softwood lumber) from 

Canada. 

DATES: Applicable January 10, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathan Hall-Eastman (Canfor), John 

Hoffner (JDIL), Kristen Johnson/Samuel 

Brummitt (Resolute), and Laura Griffith 

(West Fraser), AD/CVD Operations, 

Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1468, 

(202) 482–3315, (202) 482–4793/(202) 

482–7851, and (202) 482–6430, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 2, 2021, Commerce 

published its final results in the 2019 

administrative review of the CVD order 

on certain softwood lumber from 

Canada.1 On December 7, 2021, 

Resolute FP Canada Inc. (Resolute) 

alleged that Commerce committed a 

ministerial error in the Final Results 

regarding the net subsidy rate 

calculation under the Provision of 

Stumpage for Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration (LTAR) programs of the 

Government of Quebec (GOQ) and 

Government of Ontario (GOO).2 On 

December 13, 2021, the petitioner 3

submitted ministerial error comments, 

as well as rebuttal comments arguing 

that Resolute’s ministerial error 

comments were untimely as they were 

not submitted during the time period 

specified under Commerce’s regulations 

and therefore Commerce should not 

change Resolute’s stumpage 

calculations.4

In the Petitioner Ministerial Error 

Allegation Submission, the petitioner 

alleged with respect to J.D. Irving, 

Limited (JDIL) that Commerce 

committed ministerial errors regarding 

the subsidy calculations for New 

Brunswick License Management Fees, 

Capital Cost Allowance for Class 1 

Assets, New Brunswick Gasoline & Fuel 

Tax Exemptions and Refund, and Large 

Industrial Renewable Energy Purchase 

(LIREPP) programs.5 The petitioner also 

alleged that Commerce committed 

ministerial errors with respect to West 

Fraser Mills Ltd. (West Fraser) regarding 

the calculated benefit for lower tax rates 

for Coloured Fuel/British Columbia 

Coloured Fuel Certification program and 

for payments made to West Fraser for 

cruising and block layout activities.6 In 

addition, the petitioner alleged that 

Commerce miscalculated the net 

subsidy rate under the Provision of 

Stumpage for LTAR for the Government 

of Alberta (GOA), the Government of 

British Columbia (GBC), and the British 

Columbia Log Export Restrictions 

Restraint (LER) programs for West 

Fraser.7 On December 17, 2021, JDIL 

and West Fraser submitted rebuttal 

comments to the Petitioner Ministerial 

Error Allegation Submission.8

Scope of the Order 9

The product covered by the Order is 

certain softwood lumber products from 

Canada. For a complete description of 

the scope of the Order, see the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum in the Final 

Results. 

Ministerial Errors 

Section 351.224(e) of Commerce’s 

regulations provides that Commerce 

will analyze any comments received 

and, if appropriate, correct any 

ministerial error by amending the final 

results of the review. Section 751(h) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), and 19 CFR 351.224(f) define a 

‘‘ministerial error’’ as an error ‘‘in 

addition, subtraction, or other 

arithmetic function, clerical error 

resulting from inaccurate copying, 

duplication, or the like, and any other 

similar type of unintentional error 

which the Secretary considers 

ministerial.’’ 

We analyzed the ministerial error 

comments and determined, in 

accordance with section 751(h) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e) and (f), that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES