Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Notices 33715 

1See Hyundai RB Co., Ltd.’s Letter, ‘‘Request for 

Administrative Review,’’ dated May 28, 2021; see 

also SeAH Steel Corporation’s Letter, ‘‘Request for 

Administrative Review,’’ dated June 1, 2021; 

Hyundai Steel’s Letter, ‘‘Request for Administrative 

Review,’’ dated June 1, 2021; Domestic Interested 

Party’s Letter, ‘‘Request for Administrative 

Review,’’ dated June 1, 2021; and Hyundai Steel 

Company’s and Husteel Co., Ltd.’s Letter, ‘‘Request 

for Administrative Review,’’ dated June 3, 2021. 

The domestic interested party is The American Line 

Pipe Producers Association Trade Committee. 

2See Large Diameter Welded Pipe from the 

Republic of Korea: Countervailing Duty Order, 84 

FR 18773 (May 2, 2019) (Order). 

3See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 86 FR 

35481 (July 6, 2021) (Initiation Notice). 

4See Memorandum, ‘‘Respondent Selection,’’ 

dated July 29, 2021. 

5See Memorandum, ‘‘Extension of Deadline for 

Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review; 2020,’’ dated January 4, 

2022. 

6See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for 

the Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 

the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 

2020: Large Diameter Welded Pipe from the 

Republic of Korea,’’ dated concurrently with, and 

hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum). 

7See Domestic Interested Party’s Letter, ‘‘Partial 

Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review,’’ 

dated October 4, 2021. 

8As stated in the Initiation Notice, subject 

merchandise both produced and exported by 

Husteel Co., Ltd. (Husteel) is excluded from the 

CVD order. Thus, Husteel’s inclusion in this 

administrative review is limited to entries for which 

Husteel was the producer or exporter of the subject 

merchandise, but not both the producer and 

exporter. 

9As stated in the Initiation Notice, subject 

merchandise both produced and exported by 

Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai Steel) and 

subject merchandise produced by Hyundai Steel 

and exported by Hyundai Corporation are excluded 

from the CVD order. Thus, Hyundai Steel’s 

inclusion in this administrative review is limited to 

entries for which Hyundai Steel was not the 

producer and exporter of the subject merchandise 

and for which Hyundai Steel was not the producer 

and Hyundai Corporation was not the exporter of 

subject merchandise. 

10See Memorandum, ‘‘Notice of Intent to Rescind 

Review, In Part,’’ dated February 11, 2022. 

11See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act 

regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) 

Continued 

Amended Cash Deposit Rates 

Commerce will issue revised cash 

deposit instructions to U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection for all firms 

above that do not have a superseding 

cash deposit rate (e.g., from a 

subsequent administrative review). For 

such firms, the revised cash deposit 

rates will be the rates indicated above, 

effective May 29, 2022. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 

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

Dated: May 27, 2022. 

Lisa W. Wang, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11938 Filed 6–2–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–580–898] 

Large Diameter Welded Pipe From the 

Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results 

and Partial Rescission of the 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review; 2020 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily 

determines that countervailable 

subsidies are being provided to 

producers and exporters of large 

diameter welded pipe (welded pipe) 

from the Republic of Korea (Korea). The 

period of review (POR) is January 1, 

2020, through December 31, 2020. 

DATES: Applicable June 3, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dennis McClure or Jonathan Schueler, 

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) 482–5973 or 

(202) 482–9175, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

BACKGROUND

On May 28, and June 1 and 3, 2021, 

we received multiple requests for an 

administrative review 1 of the 

countervailing duty (CVD) order on 

welded pipe from Korea.2 On July 6, 

2021, Commerce published a notice of 

initiation of an administrative review of 

the Order.3 On July 29, 2021, Commerce 

selected Hyundai RB Co., Ltd. (Hyundai 

RB) and SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH 

Steel) as the mandatory respondents in 

this administrative review.4 On January 

4, 2022, Commerce extended the 

deadline for the preliminary results of 

this review to no later than May 31, 

2022.5

For a complete description of the 

events that followed the initiation of 

this review, see the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum.6 A list of topics 

discussed in the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum is included at the 

appendix to this notice. The Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum is a public 

document and is on file electronically 

via Enforcement and Compliance’s 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Centralized Electronic Service System 

(ACCESS). ACCESS is available to 

registered users at https://

access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete 

version of the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

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

FRNoticesListLayout.aspx. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by the 

Order is welded pipe. For a complete 

description of the scope of the Order, 

see the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum. 

Final Rescission of Administrative 

Review 

As noted in the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum, the domestic interested 

party timely withdrew their requests for 

administrative review with respect to 

EM Solution Co., Ltd.; Hansol Metal Co., 

Ltd.; Hawin; Hyosung; and POSCO.7 No 

other parties requested a review of these 

companies. On February 23, 2022, 

Commerce notified interested parties 

that we intended to rescind this 

administrative review of the companies 

named above and the following 

companies in the absence of suspended 

entries during the POR: (1) AJU Besteel 

Co., Ltd.; (2) Daiduck Piping Co., Ltd.; 

(3) Dongbu Incheon Steel Co., Ltd.; (4) 

EEW KHPC Co., Ltd.; (5) Husteel Co., 

Ltd.; 8 (6) Hyundai Steel; (7) Hyundai 

Steel Co., Ltd.; (8) Hyundai Steel 

Company; 9 (9) Kiduck Industries Co., 

Ltd.; (10) Kum Kang Kind. Co., Ltd.; (11) 

Kumsoo Connecting Co., Ltd.; (12) 

Nexteel Co., Ltd.; (13) Samkang M&T 

Co., Ltd.; (14) SeAH Steel, Co., Ltd.; (15) 

Seonghwa Industrial Co., Ltd.; (16) SIN– 

E B&P Co., Ltd.; (17) Steel Flower Co., 

Ltd.; and (18) WELTECH Co., Ltd.10 No 

parties commented on the notification 

of intent to rescind the review of the 23 

companies named above. Therefore, we 

determine that there were no entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR by 

these companies. As a result, we are 

rescinding this review, in part, pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) and 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(3) with respect to the 23 

companies listed above. 

Methodology 

Commerce is conducting this review 

in accordance with section 751(a)(l)(A) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act). For each of the subsidy 

programs found countervailable, we 

preliminarily determine that there is a 

subsidy, i.e., a government-provided 

financial contribution that confers a 

benefit to the recipient, and that the 

subsidy is specific.11 For a full 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
33716 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Notices 

of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of 

the Act regarding specificity. 

12As discussed in the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum, Commerce has found the following 

companies to be cross-owned with SeAH Steel 

Corporation: SeAH Holdings Corporation and ESAB 

SeAH Corporation. The subsidy rates apply to all 

cross-owned companies. 

13This rate is based on the rates for the 

respondents that were selected for individual 

review, excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, 

or based entirely on facts available. See section 

735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. 

14See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

15See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). 

16See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1); see also See 

Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD Service 

Requirements Due to COVID–19; Extension of 

Effective Period, 85 FR 41363 (July 10, 2020) 

(Temporary Rule). 

17See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 18See Temporary Rule. 

description of the methodology 

underlying our conclusions, see the 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 

Companies Not Selected for Individual 

Review 

The statute and Commerce’s 

regulations do not directly address the 

CVD rates to be applied to companies 

not selected for individual examination 

where Commerce limited its 

examination in an administrative review 

pursuant to section 777A(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. 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) of the Act 

states that for companies not 

investigated, in general, we will 

determine an all-others rate by weightaveraging the countervailable subsidy 

rates established for each of the 

companies individually investigated, 

excluding zero and de minimis rates or 

any rates based solely on the facts 

available. 

In this review, we preliminarily 

determine that only Hyundai RB 

received countervailable subsidies at a 

rate above de minimis. Therefore, we are 

preliminarily applying the net subsidy 

rate calculated for Hyundai RB to the 

non-selected companies. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an 

individual net countervailable subsidy 

rate for Hyundai RB and SeAH. 

Commerce preliminarily determines 

that, during the POR, the net 

countervailable subsidy rates for the 

producers/exporters under review are as 

follows: 

Producer/exporter 

Subsidy rate 

(percent ad 

valorem) 

Hyundai RB Co., Ltd ...... 1.66 

SeAH Steel Corporation 12.0.31 (de minimis) 

Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable 

to the Following Companies 13

Chang Won Bending 

Co., Ltd.

1.66 

Dong Yang Steel Pipe 

Co., Ltd.

1.66 

EEW Korea Co., Ltd ...... 1.66 

Histeel Co., Ltd .............. 1.66 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

We intend to disclose to parties to this 

proceeding the calculations performed 

in reaching the preliminary results 

within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice.14 Interested 

parties may submit case briefs no later 

than 30 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary 

results.15 Rebuttal briefs, limited to 

issues raised in case briefs, may be filed 

no later than seven days after the date 

for filing case briefs.16 Pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties 

who submit arguments are requested to 

submit with the argument: (1) A 

statement of the issue; (2) a brief 

summary of the argument; and (3) a 

table of authorities. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing must submit a written request 

to the Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, using 

Enforcement and Compliance’s ACCESS 

system within 30 days of publication of 

this notice.17 Requests should contain: 

(1) The party’s name, address, and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of issues to be 

discussed. Issues raised in the hearing 

will be limited to those raised in the 

respective case and rebuttal briefs. If a 

request for a hearing is made, Commerce 

intends to hold the hearing at a time and 

date to be determined. Parties should 

confirm the date and time of the hearing 

two days before the scheduled date. 

Parties are reminded that all briefs 

and hearing requests must be filed 

electronically using ACCESS and 

received successfully in their entirety by 

5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. 

Note that Commerce has temporarily 

modified certain of its requirements for 

serving documents containing business 

proprietary information, until further 

notice.18

Unless the deadline is extended 

pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), 

Commerce intends to issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of our analysis of 

the issues raised by the parties in any 

written briefs, no later than 120 days 

after the date of publication of these 

preliminary results. 

Assessment Rates 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(4)(i), we preliminarily 

assigned subsidy rates in the amounts 

shown above for the producers/ 

exporters shown above. Upon 

completion of the administrative 

review, consistent with section 751(a)(1) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), 

Commerce shall determine, and U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

shall assess, CVDs on all appropriate 

entries covered by this review. For the 

companies for which this review is 

rescinded, we will instruct CBP to 

assess CVDs on all appropriate entries at 

a rate equal to the cash deposit of 

estimated CVDs required at the time of 

entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, 

for consumption, during the period 

January 1, 2020, through December 31, 

2020, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(c)(l)(i). We intend to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP for these 

companies no earlier than 35 days after 

the date of publication of the 

preliminary results of this review in the 

Federal Register. 

For the companies remaining in the 

review, we intend 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). 

Cash Deposit Rate 

In accordance with section 751(a)(1) 

of the Act, Commerce intends, upon 

publication of the final results, to 

instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of 

estimated CVDs in the amounts 

calculated in the final results of this 

review for each of the reviewed 

companies listed above on shipments of 

subject merchandise entered, or 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Notices 33717 

19See Order at 84 FR 18775. 

1See Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck 

Tires from the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 

2015–2016, 83 FR 11690 (March 16, 2018) (Final 

Results), and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (IDM). 

2 Id. at 28. 

3Pirelli Tyre Co., Pirelli Tyre LLC. and Pirelli 

Tyre S.p.A. (collectively ‘‘Pirelli’’). 

4See Shandong Yongtai Grp. Co., Ltd. v. United 

States, 415 F. Supp. 3d 1303, 1317 (CIT 2019). 

5See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to Court Remand, Shandong Yongtai Group Co., 

Ltd. et al. v. United States, Court No. 18–00077, 

Slip Op. 19–150, dated November 27, 2019 

(Passenger Tires First Remand Redetermination). 

6Qingdao Sentury Tire Co., Ltd.; Sentury Tire 

USA Inc., and Sentury (Hong Kong) Trading Co., 

Limited (collectively, Qingdao Sentury). 

7See Shandong Yongtai Group Co., Ltd. v. United 

States, 487 F. Supp. 3d 1335, 1346, 1348 (CIT 

2020). The Court also sustained Commerce’s 

successor-in-interest determination regarding 

Shandong Yongtai Group Co., Ltd., formerly known 

as Shandong Yongtai Chemical Co., Ltd. Id., 487 F. 

Supp. 3d at 1348. The Court then severed the 

consolidated cases in Shandong Yongtai Grp. Co. v. 

United States, 493 F. Supp. 3d. 1342 (CIT 2021), 

entering a final judgment for Shandong Yongtai 

Grp. Co. v. United States and ordering that all 

further proceedings occur under Qingdao Sentury 

Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 18–79. 

Commerce issued amended final results with 

respect to the antidumping duty margin assigned to 

Shandong Yongtai Chemical Co., Ltd. and its 

successor-in-interest Shandong Yongtai Group Co., 

Ltd. and ordered liquidation of those entries. See 

Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires 

from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Court Decision Not in Harmony with the Results of 

Antidumping Administrative Review; Notice of 

Amended Final Results, 86 FR 20659 (April 21, 

2021); CBP Message 1127401, dated May 7, 2021. 

8See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to Court Order, Pirelli Tyre Co., Ltd., Pirelli Tyre 

S.p.A., and Pirelli Tire LLC v. United States, Court 

Continued 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

review. For all non-reviewed firms, we 

will instruct CBP to continue to collect 

cash deposits of estimated CVDs at the 

all-others rate as established in the 

Order (i.e., 9.29 percent) 19 or the most 

recent company-specific rate applicable 

to the company, as appropriate. These 

cash deposit instructions, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

These preliminary results of review 

are issued and published pursuant to 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 

351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: May 27, 2022. 

Lisa W. Wang, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

Appendix 

List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Scope of the Order 

IV. Period of Review 

V. Partial Rescission of Administrative 

Review 

VI. Diversification of Korea’s Economy 

VII. Subsidies Valuation Information 

VIII. Benchmarks and Interest Rates 

IX. Analysis of Programs 

X. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2022–11941 Filed 6–2–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–016] 

Certain Passenger Vehicles and Light 

Truck Tires From the People’s 

Republic of China: 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 May 19, 2022, the U.S. 

Court of International Trade (the Court) 

issued its final judgment in Qingdao 

Sentury Tire Co., Ltd., et al. v. United 

States, Consol. Court No. 18–00079, 

sustaining the U.S. Department of 

Commerce’s (Commerce) third remand 

results pertaining to the administrative 

review of the antidumping duty (AD) 

order on certain passenger vehicles and 

light truck tires (passenger tires) from 

the People’s Republic of China (China), 

covering the period January 27, 2015, 

through July 31, 2016. Commerce is 

notifying the public that the Court’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 margin 

assigned to Qingdao Sentury Tire Co., 

Ltd. and certain separate rate 

respondents. In addition, Commerce is 

amending the final results for Pirelli 

Tyre Co., Ltd. (Pirelli Tyre Co.) for a 

portion of the period of review (POR) 

(i.e., January 27, 2015, through October 

19, 2015). 

DATES: Applicable May 29, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles DeFilippo, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office VII, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 

(202) 482–3979. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 16, 2018, Commerce 

published its Final Results in the 2015– 

2016 AD administrative review of 

passenger tires from China. In the Final 

Results, Commerce determined that 

Pirelli Tyre Co. did not qualify for a 

separate rate because it failed to rebut 

the presumption of de facto or de jure 

Chinese government control of its 

operations during the POR.1 In addition, 

Commerce also denied Pirelli Tyre Co. 

a separate rate for the portion of the 

administrative review before China 

National Chemical Corporation (Chem 

China) acquired majority indirect 

ownership in the company, January 

2015 to October 2015.2

Pirelli 3 appealed Commerce’s Final 

Results. On November 27, 2019, the 

Court remanded the Final Results to 

Commerce for a more fulsome 

discussion of the criteria for de jure and 

de facto government control regarding 

Commerce’s finding that Pirelli does not 

qualify for a separate rate, stating that 

Commerce failed to 

adequately explain how the acquisition of 

Pirelli S.p.A. by Chem China in Italy altered 

the ownership of Pirelli entities in China 

such that the rebuttable presumption of 

government ownership applies or that if the 

presumption applies, that evidence on the 

record was not sufficient to rebut the 

presumption.4

In the Passenger Tires First Remand 

Redetermination issued in March 2020, 

Commerce continued to find that Pirelli 

Tyre Co. failed to rebut the presumption 

of de facto Chinese-government control 

during the POR.5 On December 21, 

2020, the Court sustained Commerce’s 

finding on remand that Pirelli Tyre Co. 

failed to rebut the presumption of 

government control and Commerce’s 

assignment of the China-wide entity rate 

to Pirelli Tyre Co. for the period October 

20, 2015, through July 31, 2016. 

However, the Court remanded 

Commerce’s irrecoverable value-added 

tax (VAT) determination, ordering 

Commerce to recalculate Qingdao 

Sentury’s 6 export price without any 

adjustment for its irrecoverable VAT.7

In the Passenger Tires Second 

Remand Redetermination issued on 

March 1, 2021, Commerce removed the 

downward adjustment to Qingdao 

Sentury’s export price accounting for its 

irrecoverable VAT from our final 

calculations, and accordingly, revised 

the weighted-average dumping margin 

for Qingdao Sentury as well as for 

certain separate rate respondents.8 The 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES