Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Notices 46483 

1The Regulations are currently codified in the 

Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730– 

774 (2017). The Regulations issued pursuant to the 

Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 4601–4623 

(Supp. III 2015) (available at http://

uscode.house.gov)) (‘‘EAA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’). Since 

August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the 

President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 

17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which 

has been extended by successive Presidential 

Notices, the most recent being that of August 15, 

2017 (82 FR 39005 (Aug. 16, 2017)), has continued 

the Regulations in effect under the International 

Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, 

et seq. (2012)). 

‘‘Regulations’’) 1 provides, in pertinent 

part, that ‘‘[t]he Director of the Office of 

Exporter Services, in consultation with 

the Director of the Office of Export 

Enforcement, may deny the export 

privileges of any person who has been 

convicted of a violation of the EAA 

[Export Administration Act], the EAR, 

or any order, license, or authorization 

issued thereunder; any regulation, 

license or order issued under the 

International Emergency Economic 

Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706); 18 

U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of 

the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 

U.S.C. 783(b)); or section 38 of the Arms 

Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).’’ 15 

CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of 

the EAA, 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). The denial 

of export privileges under this provision 

may be for a period of up to 10 years 

from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 

766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). In 

addition, Section 750.8 of the 

Regulations states that the Bureau of 

Industry and Security’s Office of 

Exporter Services may revoke any 

Bureau of Industry and Security (‘‘BIS’’) 

licenses previously issued pursuant to 

the Export Administration Act (‘‘EAA’’ 

or ‘‘the Act’’) or the Regulations in 

which the person had an interest at the 

time of his/her conviction. 

BIS has received notice of Stribling’s 

conviction for violating Section 38 of 

the AECA, and has provided notice and 

an opportunity for Stribling to make a 

written submission to BIS, as provided 

in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. 

BIS has not received a submission from 

Stribling. 

Based upon my review and 

consultations with BIS’s Office of 

Export Enforcement, including its 

Director, and the facts available to BIS, 

I have decided to deny Stribling’s export 

privileges under the Regulations for a 

period of five (5) years from the date of 

Stribling’s conviction. I have also 

decided to revoke all licenses issued 

pursuant to the Act or Regulations in 

which Stribling had an interest at the 

time of his conviction. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered: 

First, from the date of this Order until 

July 6, 2021, John Francis Stribling, 

with a last known address of Inmate 

Number: 87652–083, FCI Loretto, P.O. 

Box 1000, Loretto, PA 15940, and when 

acting for or on his behalf, his 

successors, assigns, employees, agents 

or representatives (‘‘the Denied 

Person’’), may not, directly or indirectly, 

participate in any way in any 

transaction involving any commodity, 

software or technology (hereinafter 

collectively referred to as ‘‘item’’) 

exported or to be exported from the 

United States that is subject to the 

Regulations, including, but not limited 

to: 

A. Applying for, obtaining, or using 

any license, license exception, or export 

control document; 

B. Carrying on negotiations 

concerning, or ordering, buying, 

receiving, using, selling, delivering, 

storing, disposing of, forwarding, 

transporting, financing, or otherwise 

servicing in any way, any transaction 

involving any item exported or to be 

exported from the United States that is 

subject to the Regulations, or engaging 

in any other activity subject to the 

Regulations; or 

C. Benefitting in any way from any 

transaction involving any item exported 

or to be exported from the United States 

that is subject to the Regulations, or 

from any other activity subject to the 

Regulations. 

Second, no person may, directly or 

indirectly, do any of the following: 

A. Export or reexport to or on behalf 

of the Denied Person any item subject to 

the Regulations; 

B. Take any action that facilitates the 

acquisition or attempted acquisition by 

the Denied Person of the ownership, 

possession, or control of any item 

subject to the Regulations that has been 

or will be exported from the United 

States, including financing or other 

support activities related to a 

transaction whereby the Denied Person 

acquires or attempts to acquire such 

ownership, possession or control; 

C. Take any action to acquire from or 

to facilitate the acquisition or attempted 

acquisition from the Denied Person of 

any item subject to the Regulations that 

has been exported from the United 

States; 

D. Obtain from the Denied Person in 

the United States any item subject to the 

Regulations with knowledge or reason 

to know that the item will be, or is 

intended to be, exported from the 

United States; or 

E. Engage in any transaction to service 

any item subject to the Regulations that 

has been or will be exported from the 

United States and which is owned, 

possessed or controlled by the Denied 

Person, or service any item, of whatever 

origin, that is owned, possessed or 

controlled by the Denied Person if such 

service involves the use of any item 

subject to the Regulations that has been 

or will be exported from the United 

States. For purposes of this paragraph, 

servicing means installation, 

maintenance, repair, modification or 

testing. 

Third, after notice and opportunity for 

comment as provided in Section 766.23 

of the Regulations, any other person, 

firm, corporation, or business 

organization related to Stribling by 

ownership, control, position of 

responsibility, affiliation, or other 

connection in the conduct of trade or 

business may also be made subject to 

the provisions of this Order in order to 

prevent evasion of this Order. 

Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of 

the Regulations, Stribling may file an 

appeal of this Order with the Under 

Secretary of Commerce for Industry and 

Security. The appeal must be filed 

within 45 days from the date of this 

Order and must comply with the 

provisions of Part 756 of the 

Regulations. 

Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be 

delivered to Stribling and shall be 

published in the Federal Register. 

Sixth, this Order is effective 

immediately and shall remain in effect 

until July 6, 2021. 

Issued this 28th day of September 2017. 

Karen H. Nies-Vogel, 

Director, Office of Exporter Services. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21471 Filed 10–4–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–489–817] 

Oil Country Tubular Goods From the 

Republic of Turkey: Amendment of 

Countervailing Duty Order 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On May 30, 2017, the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the Department 

of Commerce’s (the Department) remand 

redetermination concerning the 

countervailing duty (CVD) investigation 

of oil country tubular goods (OCTG) 

from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey). 

This judgment was not appealed within 

the 90-day deadline, and became final 

and conclusive on August 28, 2017. The 

Department previously notified the 

public that the final judgment in this 

case by the U.S. Court of International 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
46484 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Notices 

1See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the 

Republic of Turkey: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination and Final 

Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, 

79 FR 41964 (July 18, 2014) (Final Determination). 

2See Letter from the ITC to the Department, dated 

September 2, 2014; see also Certain Oil Country 

Tubular Goods from India, Korea, Philippines, 

Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and Vietnam 

(Investigation Nos. 701–TA–499–500 and 731–TA– 

1215–1217 and 1219–1223 (Final) USITC 

Publication 4489, September 2014. 3See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from 

India and the Republic of Turkey: Countervailing 

Duty Orders and Amended Affirmative Final 

Countervailing Duty Determination for India, 79 FR 

53688 (September 10, 2014) (Orders). 4See Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi Ve 

Ticaret A.S. v. United States, 61 F. Supp. 3d 1306 

(CIT 2015) (Borusan); and Maverick Tube 

Corporation v. United States, Consol. Court No. 14– 

00229, Slip Op. 15–59 (CIT 2015) (Maverick). On 

June 22, 2015, the CIT granted a motion to 

consolidate Court No. 14–00214 into Consolidated 

Court No. 14–00229. 

5See Final Results of Remand Redetermination, 

Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. 

and Borusan Istikbal Ticaret v. United States; 

Maverick Tube Corporation v. United States, 

Consol. Ct. No. 14–00229, 61 F. Supp. 3d 1306 and 

Slip Op. 15–59, dated August 31, 2017 (Remand 

Redetermination). 

6See Maverick Tube Corporation v. United States, 

CIT Consol. Court No. 14–00229, Slip Op. 16–16 

(February 22, 2016). 

7See Oil Country Tubular Goods from Turkey: 

Notice of Court Decision not in Harmony with the 

Final Determination of the Countervailing Duty 

Investigation, 81 FR 12691 (March 10, 2016) 

(Timken Notice). 

8See Message No. 6076302, dated March 16, 2016 

(Message No. 6076302). 

9See Maverick Tube Corporation v. United States, 

857 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 

10See Orders. 

11The Department determined that Tosyali Dis 

Ticaret A.S, Tosc ̧elik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S., 

Tosyali Elektrik Enerjisi Toptan Satis Ith. Ihr. A.S., 

Tosyali Demir Celik San. A.S., and Tosyali Holding 

A.S. are cross-owned. See Final Determination and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, 

at 6–8. 

Trade (CIT) is not in harmony with the 

Department’s final determination in the 

CVD investigation of OCTG from 

Turkey. Because the judgment in this 

case is now final and conclusive, the 

Department is amending its CVD order 

on OCTG from Turkey covering the 

period of investigation of January 1, 

2012, through December 31, 2012, to 

exclude Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S, 

Tosc ̧elik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S., 

Tosyali Elektrik Enerjisi Toptan Satis 

Ith. Ihr. A.S., Tosyali Demir Celik San. 

A.S., and Tosyali Holding A.S. 

(collectively, Tosc ̧elik) from the order, 

and to revise the net countervailing 

subsidy rate for Borusan Istikbal Ticaret, 

Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi, 

Borusan Mannesmann Boru Yatirim 

Holding A.S., and Borusan Holding A.S. 

(collectively, Borusan) and the ‘‘all 

others’’ rate. 

DATES: Applicable March 3, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Aimee Phelan or Jennifer Shore, 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) 482–0697 or (202) 482–2778, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 18, 2014, the Department 

published its final affirmative CVD 

determination and final affirmative 

critical circumstances determination in 

this proceeding.1 The Department 

reached affirmative determinations for 

mandatory respondents Borusan and 

Tosc ̧elik. On September 2, 2014, the 

International Trade Commission 

notified the Department of its 

affirmative determination that an 

industry in the U.S. was materially 

injured by reason of OCTG that were 

subsidized by the Government of 

Turkey (GOT).2 On September 10, 2014, 

the Department published the CVD 

orders on OCTG from India and the 

Republic of Turkey.3 The petitioner, 

Maverick Tube Corporation, and 

Borusan, each appealed the Final 

Determination to the CIT.4 In Borusan, 

the CIT remanded for further 

consideration the Department’s finding 

of distortion in the Turkish hot-rolled 

steel (HRS) market, the Department’s 

selection of a HRS benchmark, and the 

Department’s application of facts 

available with adverse inferences with 

respect to purchases of HRS by 

respondent Borusan. In Maverick, the 

CIT remanded issues pertaining to the 

Department’s HRS benchmark 

calculations as well and, in addition, 

the Department’s benchmark valuation 

for a parcel of land that the GOT granted 

to Tosc ̧elik in 2008 for less than 

adequate remuneration. 

On August 31, 2015, the Department 

issued its Remand Redetermination in 

accordance with the CIT’s Order.5 On 

remand, the Department revised the net 

countervailable subsidy rates for 

Borusan, Tosc ̧elik, and the ‘‘all others’’ 

rate. On February 22, 2016, the CIT 

affirmed the Department’s Remand 

Redetermination.6 In response to the 

CIT’s February 22, 2016, decision, the 

Department published a notice of court 

decision not in harmony with the final 

determination of the CVD investigation, 

and amended its Final Determination 

with respect to Borusan, Tosc ̧elik, and 

the ‘‘all others’’ rate.7 The revised net 

countervailable subsidy rates for 

Tosc ̧elik and Borusan are 0.95 percent 

and 2.39 percent, respectively. The 

revised ‘‘all others’’ rate is 2.39 percent. 

Because neither Tosc ̧elik nor Borusan 

had a superseding cash deposit rate 

(e.g., from an administrative review), the 

Department issued amended cash 

deposit instructions to U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) on March 

16, 2016.8

Borusan appealed, and Maverick 

cross-appealed, the CIT’s decision to the 

CAFC, which affirmed the Department’s 

Remand Redetermination on May 30, 

2017.9 Parties had 90 days, until August 

28, 2017, to appeal the CAFC’s decision 

by filing a petition for writ of certiorari 

with the United States Supreme Court. 

No party appealed. 

Amendment of the Order on OCTG 

From Turkey 

The period to appeal the CAFC’s 

decision has passed, and a final and 

conclusive court decision has been 

reached in this case. Therefore, the 

Department is amending the CVD order 

on OCTG from Turkey 10 to exclude 

from the order subject merchandise 

produced and exported by Tosc ̧elik 11

because the revised net countervailable 

subsidy rate is de minimis. 

Net Countervailable Subsidy Rates 

The net countervailable subsidy rates 

are as follows: 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Notices 46485 

12The Department determined that Borusan 

Istikbal Ticaret, Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi, 

Borusan Mannesmann Boru Yatirim Holding A.S., 

and Borusan Holding A.S. are cross owned. Id. at 

4–6. 

13 Id., 79 FR at 53690; see also Message No. 

4260305, dated September 17, 2014, and Message 

No. 6076302, dated March 16, 2016. 

14See Timken Notice, 81 FR, at 12692. 

1See Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Welded 

Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes from India, 

51 FR 17384 (May 12, 1986); Antidumping Duty 

Order; Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and 

Tubes from Thailand, 51 FR 8341 (March 11, 1986); 

and Antidumping Duty Order; Welded Carbon Steel 

Standard Pipe and Tube Products from Turkey, 51 

FR 17784 (May 15, 1986). 

2See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 

82 FR 25599 (June 2, 2017) (Initiation). 

3See Letters from domestic interested parties 

regarding, ‘‘Fourth Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review Of 

Antidumping Duty Order On Welded Carbon Steel 

Pipe And Tube from India: Domestic Industry’s 

Substantive Response,’’ dated June 30, 2017; 

‘‘Fourth Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review Of 

Antidumping Duty Order On Certain Circular 

Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from 

Thailand: Domestic Industry’s Substantive 

Response,’’ dated June 30, 2017; and Fourth FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Review Of Antidumping Duty 

Order On Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel 

Pipes and Tubes from Turkey: Domestic Industry’s 

Substantive Response,’’ dated June 30, 2017. 

Producer/exporter 

Net subsidy 

rate 

(percent) 

Borusan Istikbal Ticaret, Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi, Borusan Mannesmann Boru Yatirim Holding A.S., and Borusan 

Holding A.S12 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 2.39 

Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S, Tosc ̧elik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S., Tosyali Elektrik Enerjisi Toptan Satis Ith. Ihr. A.S., Tosyali Demir 

Celik San. A.S., and Tosyali Holding A.S ........................................................................................................................................ * 0.95 

All Others ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2.39 

* De minimis. 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation, in Part 

In accordance with section 

705(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act), the Department has 

instructed CBP to continue to suspend 

liquidation on all relevant entries of 

OCTG from Turkey.13 These 

instructions suspending liquidation will 

remain in effect until further notice. 

However, because the revised 

countervailable subsidy rate for Tosc ̧elik 

is de minimis, the Department is 

directing CBP to liquidate all entries 

produced and exported by Tosc ̧elik 

currently suspended without regard to 

countervailing duties, and to 

discontinue the suspension of 

liquidation of entries of subject 

merchandise where Tosc ̧elik acted as 

both the producer and exporter. Entries 

of subject merchandise exported to the 

United States by any other producer and 

exporter combination involving 

Tosc ̧elik are not entitled to this 

exclusion from suspension of 

liquidation and are subject to the cash 

deposit rate for the ‘‘all others’’ entity. 

Because the net countervailable 

subsidy rate determined for Tosc ̧elik is 

de minimis, consistent with the 

requirement under section 705(c)(5)(A) 

of the Act that the calculation of the ‘‘all 

others’’ rate excludes zero or de minimis 

rates calculated for the companies 

individually investigated, the 

Department revised the ‘‘all others’’ 

rate.14 Therefore, for purposes of the 

amended CVD order with respect OCTG 

from Turkey, the ‘‘all others’’ cash 

deposit rate is amended to Borusan’s 

revised calculated subsidy rate of 2.39 

percent. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice constitutes the amended 

CVD order with respect OCTG from 

Turkey. This notice is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

516A(e) and 706(a) of the Act. 

Dated: September 27, 2017. 

Carole Showers, 

Executive Director, Office of Policy 

performing the duties of the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21460 Filed 10–4–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–502, A–549–502, and A–489–501] 

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes 

and Tubes From India, Thailand, and 

Turkey: Final Results of the Expedited 

Fourth Sunset Reviews of the 

Antidumping Duty Orders 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: As a result of this sunset 

review, the Department of Commerce 

(the Department) finds that revocation 

of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on 

certain welded carbon steel pipes and 

tubes (pipes and tubes) from India, 

Thailand, and Turkey would likely lead 

to a continuation or recurrence of 

dumping. Further, the magnitude of the 

margins of dumping that are likely to 

prevail are identified in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

DATES: Applicable October 5, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine Cartsos or Minoo Hatten, 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) 482–1757 and (202) 482–1690, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In 1986, the Department published 

the AD orders on pipes and tubes from 

India, Thailand, and Turkey.1 On June 

2, 2017, the Department published the 

notice of initiation of the fourth sunset 

review of the AD orders on pipes and 

tubes pursuant to section 751(c) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act).2

For each of these sunset reviews the 

Department received notice of intent to 

participate on behalf of Bull Moose 

Tube, TMK IPSCO Tubulars, Zekelman 

Industries, and EXLTUBE (collectively, 

the domestic interested parties) within 

the 15-day period specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). The domestic 

interested parties claimed interested 

party status under section 771(9)(C) of 

the Act as producers in the United 

States of the domestic like product. 

On June 30, 2017, the Department 

received complete substantive responses 

to the Initiation from the domestic 

interested parties within the 30-day 

period, as specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(3)(i).3 We received no 

substantive responses from respondent 

interested parties. As a result, pursuant 

to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the 

Department is conducting expedited 

(120-day) sunset reviews of the AD 

orders on pipe and tube from India, 

Thailand, and Turkey. 

Scope of the Orders 

See the Appendix to this notice. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in these sunset 

reviews, including the likelihood of 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES