6842 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Notices 

1See Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-toLength Plate from the Republic of Korea: 

Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review, and Intent to Rescind 

Review, in Part; 2019, 86 FR 42788 (August 5, 2021) 

(Preliminary Results), and accompanying 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 

published a Best Practice Document for 

certifiers to increase consistency. AMS 

invites comments on this prioritization. 

Recommendations Related to Genetic 

Engineering and Excluded Methods 

(Multiple) 

NOSB has made a number of 

recommendations related to genetic 

engineering and included methods. For 

example, ‘‘Require Genetic Integrity for 

Transparency of Seed Grown on 

Organic Land—Instructions to 

Certifiers’’ (October 2019) and 

‘‘Guidance of GMO Prevention 

Strategies’’ (October 2015) both 

recommend establishing thresholds for 

addressing the presence of genetic 

material contamination, with significant 

cost implications for testing and 

monitoring. The NOP has not prioritized 

these two recommendations given the 

significant implementation 

requirements and likely costs involved. 

AMS invites comments on this 

prioritization. 

The NOSB has also recommended 

developing ‘‘Guidance for Determining 

which New Technologies are Considered 

Excluded Methods’’ (October 2019). 

NOP has not made this recommendation 

a priority because it believes the current 

definition of Excluded Methods in the 

USDA organic regulations is sufficiently 

broad to cover a large range of new 

technologies. Augmenting this 

regulatory definition with a long list of 

prohibited technologies may cause 

confusion and could lead to an implied 

‘‘allowance by omission’’ for 

technologies not listed. We believe the 

intent of this recommendation could be 

achieved by communicating the 

program’s position on excluded 

methods (that they are not allowed) 

more directly and investing resources 

into communicating with certifiers 

about NOP’s expectations for oversight. 

AMS invites comments on this 

prioritization. 

Develop Organic Personal Care Product 

Standards (December 2009) 

NOP has not made this 

recommendation a regulatory priority. 

This rulemaking would be very complex 

and would require a significant 

expansion of existing regulations. NOP 

has published two items: ‘‘Policy Memo: 

‘‘Organic Personal Care/Cosmetics’’ and 

‘‘Fact Sheet—Personal Care Products’’ 

that have allowed certifiers and 

operations to find a path to certification 

for these products within the existing 

rules and standards. Other private 

standards have been developed that are 

specific to organic cosmetic 

certification. Regulatory action in this 

area would require significant 

interagency cooperation and review, as 

it would need to harmonize with 

current Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) regulations regarding ingredient 

statements on cosmetics and personal 

care products. AMS invites comments 

on this prioritization. 

Restrict the Use of Livestock Vaccines 

Made From Excluded Methods (October 

2019) 

NOP has not made this 

recommendation a regulatory priority. 

There has not been a strong justification 

or demonstrated need for this 

rulemaking. The organic livestock 

industry is not large enough to support 

the development, testing, and 

deployment of non-genetically modified 

(GMO) vaccines. Rulemaking would 

involve adding the non-GMO 

commercial availability as an annotation 

to § 205.603(a)(4). AMS invites 

comments on this prioritization. 

NOP Handbook Updates 

Along with the OFPA and the USDA 

organic regulations, the NOP Handbook, 

titled, The Program Handbook: 

Guidance and Instructions for 

Accredited Certifying Agents and 

Certified Operations provides those who 

own, manage, or certify organic 

operations with guidance, instructions, 

and policy memos that can assist them 

in complying with the USDA organic 

regulations. The Handbook is consistent 

with OMB’s Bulletin on Agency Good 

Guidance Practices (GGPs) published 

January 25, 2007 (72 FR 3432–3440). 

The purpose of the OMB’s GGPs is to 

help ensure that program guidance 

documents are developed with adequate 

public participation, are readily 

available to the public, and are not 

applied as binding requirements. 

The NOP Handbook is an important 

tool for organic operations and for 

certifying agents. There are a number of 

guidance, instructions, and policy 

memos that are part of the NOP 

Handbook that will need to be updated 

as a result of SOE; several also need 

updates to align with current NOP 

policy (e.g., label use-ups when 

certifiers exit the organic program; 

accreditation process updates based on 

NOP’s increased staffing and 

capabilities; and references to 

conservation tools administered by 

other USDA agencies). AMS invites 

public comments with respect to which 

NOP Handbook documents need 

updates from the organic community’s 

perspective. 

Request for Public Comments 

AMS seeks comments on the 

prioritization of outstanding NOSB 

recommendations and NOP Handbook 

updates (specifically, comments on 

whether issues not currently included 

should be considered for regulatory 

action) as it considers future rulemaking 

and policy development activities. AMS 

welcomes input about whether current 

resources should be allocated in a 

different manner to support standards 

development, or other program 

priorities. Comments received in 

response to this notice will inform 

future regulatory and policy 

development activities. 

Erin Morris, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02429 Filed 2–4–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–580–888] 

Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-toLength Plate From the Republic of 

Korea: Final Results and Partial 

Recission of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review; 2019 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) determines that POSCO 

and certain other producers/exporters of 

certain carbon and alloy steel cut-tolength plate (CTL plate) from the 

Republic of Korea (Korea) received de 

minimis net countervailable subsidies 

during the period of review (POR), 

January 1, 2019, through December 31, 

2019. 

DATES: Applicable February 7, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Faris Montgomery or George Ayache, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, 

Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1537 or 

(202) 482–2623. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 5, 2021, Commerce 

published the Preliminary Results of 

this review.1 On November 2, 2021, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Notices 6843 

2See Memorandum, ‘‘Extension of Deadline for 

Final Results,’’ dated November 2, 2021. 

3See Memorandum, ‘‘Post-Preliminary Analysis 

of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review 

of Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length 

Plate from the Republic of Korea,’’ dated December 

2, 2021 (Post-Preliminary Analysis Memorandum). 

4See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: 

Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate 

from the Republic of Korea; 2019,’’ dated 

concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this 

notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). 

5See Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-toLength Plate from the Republic of Korea: 

Countervailing Duty Order, 82 FR 24103 (May 25, 

2017) (Order). 

6See Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

complete discussion. 

7As discussed in the Preliminary Results, 

Commerce found the following companies to be 

cross-owned with POSCO: Pohang Scrap Recycling 

Distribution Center Co. Ltd.; POSCO Chemical; 

POSCO M-Tech; POSCO Nippon Steel RHF Joint 

Venture Co., Ltd.; and POSCO Terminal. No party 

commented on Commerce’s preliminary crossownership determination and there is no 

information on the record which warrants 

reconsideration of this determination. Therefore, for 

these final results, Commerce continues to find the 

above-referenced companies are cross-owned with 

POSCO. Accordingly, POSCO’s subsidy rate applies 

to each of its cross-owned companies. 

8See Appendix II. 

9See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Commerce extended the deadline for the 

final results of this review to no later 

than February 1, 2022.2 Subsequently, 

on December 2, 2021, Commerce issued 

its post-preliminary analysis.3 For a 

complete description of the events that 

followed the Preliminary Results, see 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum.4

Scope of the Order 5

The merchandise covered by the 

Order is CTL plate. For a complete 

description of the scope of the Order, 

see the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in interested parties’ 

briefs are addressed in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum. A list of the 

issues addressed is attached to this 

notice at Appendix I. 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 http://

access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete 

version of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

at https://access.trade.gov/public/ 

FRNoticesListLayout.aspx. 

Change Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of the case and 

rebuttal briefs and the evidence on the 

record, we made one change from the 

Preliminary Results and postpreliminary analysis. This change is 

explained in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. 

Partial Rescission of Administrative 

Review 

As noted in the Preliminary Results, 

Commerce timely received a noshipment certification from Hyundai 

Steel Company (Hyundai). We inquired 

with U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) whether Hyundai had 

shipped merchandise to the United 

States during the POR, and CBP 

provided no evidence to contradict the 

claims of no shipment made by 

Hyundai. Accordingly, in the 

Preliminary Results, Commerce stated 

its intention to rescind the review with 

respect to Hyundai in the final results. 

No party commented on this aspect of 

the Preliminary Results. Because there is 

no evidence on the record to indicate 

that Hyundai had shipments of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR, we are rescinding the 

administrative review of Hyundai, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).6

Companies Not Selected for Individual 

Review 

The statute and Commerce’s 

regulations do not directly address the 

establishment of rates to be applied to 

companies not selected for individual 

examination where Commerce limits in 

examination in an administrative review 

pursuant to section 777(A)(e)(2) of the 

Act. However, Commerce normally 

determines the rates for non-selected 

companies in reviews in a manner that 

is consistent with section 705(c)(5) of 

the Act, which provides instructions for 

calculating the all-others rate in an 

investigation. We also note that section 

777A(e)(2) of the Act provides that ‘‘the 

individual countervailable subsidy rates 

determined under subparagraph (A) 

shall be used to determine the all-others 

rate under section 705(c)(5) {of the 

Act}.’’ Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act 

states that, in general, for companies not 

investigated, we will determine an allothers rate by using the weightedaverage countervailable subsidy rates 

established for exporters and producers 

individually investigated, excluding 

zero and de minimis rates or any rates 

based solely on the facts available. 

Additionally, section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) 

provides that when the countervailable 

subsidy rates established for all 

exporters and producers individually 

investigated are zero or de minimis 

rates, or based solely on facts available, 

Commerce may use any reasonable 

method to establish a rate for the 

companies not individually 

investigated, including averaging the 

weighted-average countervailable 

subsidy rates determined for the 

exporters and producers individually 

investigated. 

In the final results of this review, we 

calculated a de minimis net 

countervailable subsidy rate for POSCO, 

the sole mandatory respondent. As a 

result, for the reasons discussed in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum, we 

have determined that it is appropriate to 

assign to the companies subject to the 

review, but not selected for individual 

examination, the de minimis net 

countervailable subsidy rate calculated 

for POSCO in this review. For a list of 

the 40 companies for which a review 

was requested and not rescinded, and 

which were not selected as mandatory 

respondents or found to be cross-owned 

with a mandatory respondent, see 

Appendix II to this notice. 

Final Results of Administrative Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(5), we calculated an 

individual net countervailable subsidy 

rate for POSCO. Commerce determines 

that, during the POR, the net 

countervailable subsidy rates for the 

producers/exporters under review are as 

follows: 

Company 

Subsidy rate 

(percent ad 

valorem) 

POSCO: 7 .............................. *0.42 

Non-Selected Companies 

Under Review: 8 ................ *0.42 

* (De minimis). 

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.9

Assessment Rate 

Commerce intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP no 

earlier than 35 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

review in the Federal Register. If a 

timely summons is filed at the U.S. 

Court of International Trade, the 

assessment instructions will direct CBP 

not to liquidate relevant entries until the 

time for parties to file a request for a 

statutory injunction has expired (i.e., 

within 90 days of publication). Because 

we have calculated a de minimis 

countervailable subsidy rate for the 

companies under review, we will 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
6844 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Notices 

10See Order, 82 FR at 24104. 

1See Certain Quartz Surface Products from the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Less-ThanFair-Value Investigation, 83 FR 22613 (May 16, 

2018); Certain Quartz Surface Products from the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Countervailing Duty Investigation, 83 FR 22618 

(May 16, 2018). 

instruct CBP to liquidate shipments of 

subject merchandise produced and/or 

exported by the companies listed above, 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse 

for consumption, from January 1, 2019, 

through December 31, 2019, without 

regard to countervailing duties in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2) 

and 19 CFR 351.106(c). For the 

company for which this review is 

rescinded, countervailing duties will be 

assessed at a rate equal to the cash 

deposit of estimated countervailing 

duties required at the time of entry, or 

withdrawal from warehouse, for 

consumption, during the period January 

1, 2019, through December 31, 2019. 

Cash Deposit Rates 

In accordance with section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce 

intends to instruct CBP to continue to 

suspend liquidation but not to collect 

cash deposits of estimated 

countervailing duties on shipments of 

subject merchandise by the companies 

under review entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of this administrative review. For 

all non-reviewed firms subject to the 

Order, we will instruct CBP to continue 

to collect cash deposits of estimated 

countervailing duties at the most recent 

company-specific rate or the all-others 

rate (4.31 percent), as appropriate.10

These cash deposit requirements, 

effective upon publication of these final 

results, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Administrative Protective Order 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to an administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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 terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

Notice to Interested Parties 

We are issuing and publishing these 

final results in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.221(b)(5). 

Dated: January 31, 2022. 

Lisa W. Wang, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

Appendix I 

List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Partial Rescission of Administrative 

Review 

IV. Scope of the Order 

V. Rate for Non-Examined Companies 

VI. Subsidies Valuation Information 

VII. Analysis of Programs 

VIII. Discussion of Comments 

Comment 1: Whether Electricity Is 

Subsidized by the Government of Korea 

Comment 2: Whether Commerce Should 

Modify the Methodology for Attributing 

POSCO International’s Subsidies to 

POSCO 

Comment 3: Whether the Korea Emissions 

Trading System (K–ETS) Is 

Countervailable 

Comment 4: Whether Commerce Should 

Modify the Benchmark Used in the 

Electricity for More Than Adequate 

Remuneration (MTAR) Program 

Comment 5: Whether Commerce Should 

Exclude Quota Tariff Import Duty 

Exemptions Received on Certain Items 

Used To Produce Non-Subject 

Merchandise 

IX. Recommendation 

Appendix II 

Non-Selected Companies Under Review 

1. BDP International 

2. Blue Track Equipment 

3. Boxco 

4. Bukook Steel Co., Ltd. 

5. Buma CE Co., Ltd. 

6. China Chengdu International TechnoEconomic Cooperation Co., Ltd. 

7. Daehan I.M. Co., Ltd. 

8. Daehan Tex Co., Ltd. 

9. Daelim Industrial Co., Ltd. 

10. Daesam Industrial Co., Ltd. 

11. Daesin Lighting Co., Ltd. 

12. Daewoo International Corp. 

13. Dong Yang Steel Pipe 

14. Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. 

15. Dongkuk Industries Co., Ltd. 

16. Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. 

17. EAE Automotive Equipment 

18. EEW KHPC Co., Ltd. 

19. Eplus Expo Inc. 

20. GS Global Corp. 

21. Haem Co., Ltd. 

22. Han Young Industries 

23. Hyosung Corp. 

24. Jinmyung Frictech Co., Ltd. 

25. Khana Marine Ltd. 

26. Kindus Inc. 

27. Korean Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. 

28. Kyoungil Precision Co., Ltd. 

29. Menics 

30. Qian’an Rentai Metal Products Co., Ltd. 

31. Samsun C&T Corp. 

32. Shinko 

33. Shipping Imperial Co., Ltd. 

34. Sinchang Eng Co., Ltd. 

35. SK Networks Co., Ltd. 

36. SNP Ltd. 

37. Steel N People Ltd. 

38. Summit Industry 

39. Sungjin Co., Ltd. 

40. Young Sun Steel 

[FR Doc. 2022–02490 Filed 2–4–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–084, C–570–085] 

Quartz Surface Products From the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation 

of Scope and Circumvention Inquiries 

of the Antidumping Duty and 

Countervailing Duty Orders 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) is self-initiating a scope 

inquiry, pursuant to U.S. trade remedy 

laws, to determine whether imports of 

quartz surface products (QSP), 

completed in Malaysia using inputs 

manufactured in the People’s Republic 

of China (China), are covered by the 

antidumping duty (AD) and 

countervailing duty (CVD) orders on 

QSP from China (collectively, the 

Orders). In addition, in accordance with 

our regulations, Commerce is also selfinitiating a country-wide circumvention 

inquiry to determine whether imports of 

QSP, if not covered by the scope of the 

Orders, are nonetheless circumventing 

the Orders, and is aligning both scope 

and circumvention inquiries in 

accordance with our regulations. 

DATES: Applicable February 7, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ajay 

Menon at (202) 482–0208, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office II or Barb Rawdon at 

(202) 482–0474, Office of Policy, 

Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 17, 2018, Cambria Company 

LLC filed petitions seeking the 

imposition of AD and CVD duties on 

imports of QSP from China.1 Following 

Commerce’s affirmative determinations 

of dumping and countervailable 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1