Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 68412-68416 [2013-27316]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
68412
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Notices
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: November 14,
2013.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(Department) has determined that
requests for new shipper reviews of the
antidumping duty order on freshwater
crawfish tail meat (crawfish) from the
People’s Republic of China (PRC), meet
the statutory and regulatory
requirements for initiation. The period
of review (POR) for these new shipper
reviews is September 1, 2012, through
August 31, 2013.1
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bryan Hansen, AD/CVD Operations
Office I, Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; Telephone:
(202) 482–3683.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The antidumping duty order on
crawfish from the PRC published in the
Federal Register on September 15,
1997.2 Pursuant to section
751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (the Act), we received
timely requests for new shipper reviews
of the order from Hubei Nature
Agriculture Industry Co., Ltd. (Hubei
Nature) 3 and Hubei Zhenghe Food Co.,
Ltd. (Hubei Zhenghe).4 Each company
certified that it is both the producer and
exporter of the subject merchandise
upon which the request was based.5
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i),
Hubei Nature and Hubei Zhenghe each
certified that it did not export subject
merchandise to the United States during
the period of investigation (POI).6 In
addition, pursuant to section
751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), Hubei Nature and
Hubei Zhenghe each certified that, since
the initiation of the investigation, it has
never been affiliated with any exporter
1 See
19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(A).
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Freshwater Crawfish Tail
Meat From the People’s Republic of China, 62 FR
41347 (August 1, 1997), as amended by Notice of
Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order:
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People’s
Republic of China, 62 FR 48218 (September 15,
1997).
3 See Hubei Nature’s new shipper request dated
September 18, 2013.
4 See Hubei Zhenghe’s new shipper request dated
September 30, 2013.
5 See Hubei Nature’s new shipper request at
Exhibit 2 and Hubei Zhenghe’s new shipper request
at Exhibit 1.
6 Id.
or producer who exported subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POI, including those respondents
not individually examined during the
POI.7 As required by 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), Hubei Nature and
Hubei Zhenghe also certified that their
export activities were not controlled by
the government of the PRC.8
In addition to the certifications
described above, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2), Hubei Nature and Hubei
Zhenghe each submitted documentation
establishing the following: (1) The date
on which it first shipped subject
merchandise for export to the United
States; (2) the volume of its first
shipment; and (3) the date of its first
sale to an unaffiliated customer in the
United States.9
Initiation of New Shipper Review
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), the
Department finds that the requests from
Hubei Nature and Hubei Zhenghe meet
the threshold requirements for initiation
of new shipper reviews for shipments of
crawfish from the PRC produced and
exported by Hubei Nature and produced
and exported by Hubei Zhenghe.10
The Department intends to issue the
preliminary results of these reviews no
later than 180 days from the date of
initiation and final results of these
reviews no later than 90 days after the
date the preliminary results are
issued.11 It is the Department’s usual
practice, in cases involving non-market
economy countries, to require that a
company seeking to establish eligibility
for an antidumping duty rate separate
from the country-wide rate provide
evidence of de jure and de facto absence
of government control over the
company’s export activities.
Accordingly, we will issue a
questionnaire to Hubei Nature and
Hubei Zhenghe which will include a
section requesting information
concerning their eligibility for a separate
rate. The new shipper review of Hubei
Nature will be rescinded if the
Department determines that Hubei
TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Nov 13, 2013
Jkt 232001
7 Id.
9 Hubei
Nature’s new shipper request at Exhibit
1 and Hubei Zhenghe’s new shipper request at
Exhibit 2.
10 See the memoranda to the file entitled
‘‘Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s
Republic of China: Initiation Checklist for
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Hubei
Nature Agriculture Industry Co., Ltd.’’ and
‘‘Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s
Republic of China: Initiation Checklist for
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Hubei
Zhenghe Food Co., Ltd.’’ dated concurrently with
this notice.
11 See section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act.
Frm 00003
Dated: November 6, 2013.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2013–27312 Filed 11–13–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
8 Id.
PO 00000
Nature has not demonstrated that it is
eligible for a separate rate. Likewise, the
new shipper review of Hubei Zhenghe
will be rescinded if the Department
determines that Hubei Zhenghe has not
demonstrated that it is eligible for a
separate rate.
We will instruct U.S. Customs and
Border Protection to allow, at the option
of the importer, the posting, until the
completion of the review, of a bond or
security in lieu of a cash deposit for
each entry of the subject merchandise
from Hubei Nature and Hubei Zhenghe
in accordance with section
751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.214(e). Because each company
certified that it produced and exported
subject merchandise, the sale of which
is the basis for the requests for new
shipper reviews, we will apply the
bonding privilege to Hubei Nature and
Hubei Zhenghe only for subject
merchandise which were produced and
exported by Hubei Nature and produced
and exported by Hubei Zhenghe.
To assist in its analysis of the bona
fides of these two companies’ sales,
upon initiation of this new shipper
review, the Department will require
them to submit on an ongoing basis
complete transaction information
concerning any sales of subject
merchandise to the United States that
were made subsequent to the POR.
Interested parties requiring access to
proprietary information in these new
shipper reviews should submit
applications for disclosure under
administrative protective order in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and
351.306. This initiation and notice are
published in accordance with section
751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
[C–570–997, C–580–873, C–583–852]
Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the
People’s Republic of China, the
Republic of Korea, and Taiwan:
Initiation of Countervailing Duty
Investigations
Enforcement and Compliance,
formerly Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM
14NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Notices
DATES:
Effective Date: November 14,
2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joshua Morris at (202) 482–1779 (the
People’s Republic of China (PRC));
Austin Redington at (202) 482–1664 (the
Republic of Korea (Korea)); and Patricia
Tran at (202) 482–1503 (Taiwan), AD/
CVD Operations, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
The Petitions
On September 30, 2013,1 the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) received countervailing
duty (CVD) petitions concerning
imports of non-oriented electrical steel
(NOES) from the PRC, Korea, and
Taiwan, filed in proper form on behalf
of AK Steel Corporation (petitioner).
The CVD petitions were accompanied
by six antidumping duty (AD)
petitions.2 The petitioner is a domestic
producer of NOES. On October 22, 2013,
the Department requested information
and clarification for certain areas of the
Petitions.3 The petitioner filed
responses to these requests on October
25,4 and October 30, 2013.5
TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
1 As
explained in the memorandum from the
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance, the Department has exercised its
discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the
closure of the Federal Government from October 1,
through October 16, 2013. See Memorandum for the
Record from Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Deadlines Affected
by the Shutdown of the Federal Government’’
(October 18, 2013). Therefore, all deadlines in this
segment of the proceeding have been extended by
16 days.
2 See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duties on Imports of NonOriented Electrical Steel from People’s Republic of
China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea,
Sweden, and Taiwan, dated September 30, 2013
(Petitions).
3 See letter from the Department to petitioner
entitled ‘‘Re: Petitions for the Imposition of
Antidumping Duties on Imports of Non-Oriented
Electrical Steel from the People’s Republic of China,
the Federal Republic of Germany, Japan, Republic
of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan and Countervailing
Duties on Imports of Non-Oriented Electrical Steel
from the People’s Republic of China, Republic of
Korea, and Taiwan: Supplemental Questions, dated
October 22, 2013, and letters from the Department
to petitioner entitled ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Non-Oriented
Electrical Steel from {country}: Supplemental
Questions’’ on each of the country-specific records
dated October 22, 2013.
4 See Supplemental to the PRC Petition, dated
October 25, 2013 (PRC Supplemental);
Supplemental to the Korea Petition, dated October
25, 2013 (Korea Supplemental); and Supplemental
to the Taiwan Petition, dated October 25, 2013
(Taiwan Supplemental).
5 See Supplemental to the Japan Petition, dated
October 30, 2013 (Japan Supplemental).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Nov 13, 2013
Jkt 232001
In accordance with section 702(b)(1)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), the petitioner alleges that the
Governments of the PRC (GOC), Korea
(GOK), and Taiwan (GOT) are providing
countervailable subsidies (within the
meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of
the Act) to imports of NOES from the
PRC, Korea, and Taiwan, and that such
imports are materially injuring, or
threaten to cause material injury to, the
domestic industry producing NOES in
the United States pursuant to section
701 of the Act. Also, consistent with
section 702(b)(1) of the Act, the
Petitions are accompanied by
information reasonably available to
petitioner supporting its allegations.
The Department finds that the
petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of
the domestic industry because the
petitioner is an interested party as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act,
and that the petitioner has demonstrated
sufficient industry support with respect
to the initiation of the investigations the
petitioner is requesting.6
Period of Investigations
The period of the investigations is
January 1, 2012, through December 31,
2012.
Scope of Investigations
The product covered by these CVD
investigations is NOES from the PRC,
Korea, and Taiwan. For a full
description of the scope of these
investigations, see the ‘‘Scope of
Investigations’’ in Appendix I of this
notice.
Comments on Scope of Investigations
During our review of the Petitions, the
Department issued questions to, and
received responses from, the petitioner
pertaining to the proposed scope to
ensure that the scope language in the
Petitions would be an accurate
reflection of the products for which the
domestic industry is seeking relief. As
discussed in the preamble to the
regulations,7 we are setting aside a
period for interested parties to raise
issues regarding product coverage. The
Department encourages interested
parties to submit such comments by
5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November
26, 2013. All comments must be filed on
the records of the PRC, Korea, and
Taiwan CVD investigations, as well as
the concurrent PRC, Germany, Japan,
Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan AD
investigations.
6 See ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the
Petitions’’ below.
7 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties,
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68413
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department
must be filed electronically using IA
ACCESS.8 An electronically filed
document must be received successfully
in its entirety by the time and date
noted above. Documents excepted from
the electronic submission requirements
must be filed manually (i.e., in paper
form) with Enforcement and
Compliance’s APO/Dockets Unit, Room
1870, U.S. Department of Commerce,
14th Street and Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230, and
stamped with the date and time of
receipt by the deadline noted above.
Consultations
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of
the Act, the Department invited
representatives of the GOC, the GOK,
and the GOT for consultations with
respect to the Petitions.9 Consultations
were held with the GOT on October 28,
2013, the GOC on November 4, 2013,
and the GOK on November 5, 2013.10
All memoranda are on file electronically
via IA ACCESS.11
Determination of Industry Support for
the Petitions
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires
that a petition be filed on behalf of the
domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A)
of the Act provides that a petition meets
this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the
8 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures;
Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR
39263 (July 6, 2011) for details of the Department’s
electronic filing requirements, which went into
effect on August 5, 2011. Information on help using
IA ACCESS can be found at https://
iaaccess.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can
be found at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/
Handbook%20on%20Electronic
%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
9 See Letter of Invitation Regarding
Countervailing Duty Petition on Non-Electrical
Steel from the People’s Republic of China, dated
September 30, 2013; Letter of Invitation Regarding
Countervailing Duty Petition on Non-Electrical
Steel from the Republic of Korea, dated September
30, 2013; Letter of Invitation for Consultations to
Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition Regarding
Countervailing Duty Petition on Non-Oriented
Electrical Steel from Taiwan, dated September 30,
2013.
10 See Ex-Parte Memorandum, ‘‘Ex-Parte Meeting
with Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative
Office in the United States on the Countervailing
Duty Petition on Non-Oriented Electrical Steel
(NOES) from Taiwan,’’ dated October 29, 2013; ‘‘ExParte Meeting with Officials from the Government
of Korea on the Countervailing Duty Petition on
Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from Korea,’’ dated
November 5, 2013; ‘‘Consultations with Officials
from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on the
Countervailing Duty Petition on Non-Oriented
Electrical Steel from the PRC,’’ dated November 5,
2013.
11 See supra note 8 for information pertaining to
IA ACCESS.
E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM
14NON1
TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
68414
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Notices
petition account for: (i) At least 25
percent of the total production of the
domestic like product; and (ii) more
than 50 percent of the production of the
domestic like product produced by that
portion of the industry expressing
support for, or opposition to, the
petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D)
of the Act provides that, if the petition
does not establish support of domestic
producers or workers accounting for
more than 50 percent of the total
production of the domestic like product,
the Department shall: (i) Poll the
industry or rely on other information in
order to determine if there is support for
the petition, as required by
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine
industry support using a statistically
valid sampling method to poll the
industry.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines
the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a
whole of a domestic like product. Thus,
to determine whether a petition has the
requisite industry support, the statute
directs the Department to look to
producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The International
Trade Commission (ITC), which is
responsible for determining whether
‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been
injured, must also determine what
constitutes a domestic like product in
order to define the industry. While both
the Department and the ITC must apply
the same statutory definition regarding
the domestic like product,12 they do so
for different purposes and pursuant to a
separate and distinct authority. In
addition, the Department’s
determination is subject to limitations of
time and information. Although this
may result in different definitions of the
like product, such differences do not
render the decision of either agency
contrary to law.13
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the
domestic like product as ‘‘a product
which is like, or in the absence of like,
most similar in characteristics and uses
with, the article subject to an
investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the
reference point from which the
domestic like product analysis begins is
‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’
(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to
be investigated, which normally will be
the scope as defined in the Petitions).
With regard to the domestic like
product, the petitioner does not offer a
definition of the domestic like product
distinct from the scope of the
12 See
section 771(10) of the Act.
USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp.
2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd.
v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988),
aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
13 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Nov 13, 2013
Jkt 232001
investigations. Based on our analysis of
the information submitted on the
record, we have determined that NOES
constitutes a single domestic like
product and we have analyzed industry
support in terms of that domestic like
product.14
In determining whether the petitioner
has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A)
of the Act, we considered the industry
support data contained in the Petitions
with reference to the domestic like
product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of the
Investigations,’’ in Appendix I of this
notice. To establish industry support,
the petitioner provided its own
production of the domestic like product
in 2012.15 The petitioner states that it is
the only producer of NOES in the
United States; therefore, the Petitions
are supported by 100 percent of the U.S.
industry.16
On October 28, 2013, we received a
submission on behalf of JFE Steel
Corporation and Nippon Steel &
Sumitomo Metal Corporation, Japanese
producers of NOES, questioning the
petitioner’s industry support
calculation. On October 30, 2013, the
petitioner responded to the Japanese
producers’ industry support
comments.17
Our review of the data provided in the
Petitions, supplemental submissions,
and other information readily available
to the Department indicates that the
petitioner has established industry
support.18 First, the Petitions
established support from domestic
producers (or workers) accounting for
more than 50 percent of the total
production of the domestic like
14 For a discussion of the domestic like product
analysis in this case, see Countervailing Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Non-Oriented
Electrical Steel from the People’s Republic of China
(PRC CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II,
Analysis of Industry Support for the Petitions
Covering Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from the
People’s Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the
Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan
(Attachment II); Countervailing Duty Investigation
Initiation Checklist: Non-Oriented Electrical Steel
from the Republic of Korea (Korea CVD Initiation
Checklist), at Attachment II; and Countervailing
Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: NonOriented Electrical Steel from Taiwan (Taiwan CVD
Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II. These
checklists are dated concurrently with this notice
and on file electronically via IA ACCESS. Access
to documents filed via IA ACCESS is also available
in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main
Department of Commerce building.
15 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2.
16 Id., at 2 and Exhibit I–1.
17 For further discussion of these submissions, see
PRC AD Initiation Checklist, Germany Initiation
Checklist, Japan Initiation Checklist, Korea AD
Initiation Checklist, Sweden Initiation Checklist,
and Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment
II.
18 See China CVD Initiation Checklist, Korea CVD
Initiation Checklist, and Taiwan CVD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
product.19 Second, the domestic
producers (or workers) have met the
statutory criteria for industry support
under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petitions
account for at least 25 percent of the
total production of the domestic like
product.20 Finally, the domestic
producers (or workers) have met the
statutory criteria for industry support
under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petitions
account for more than 50 percent of the
production of the domestic like product
produced by that portion of the industry
expressing support for, or opposition to,
the Petitions.21 Accordingly, the
Department determines that the
Petitions were filed on behalf of the
domestic industry within the meaning
of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.
The Department finds that the
petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of
the domestic industry because it is an
interested party as defined in section
771(9)(C) of the Act and it has
demonstrated sufficient industry
support with respect to the CVD
investigations that it is requesting the
Department initiate.22
Injury Test
Because the PRC, Korea, and Taiwan
are ‘‘Subsidies Agreement Countries’’
within the meaning of section 701(b) of
the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act
applies to these investigations.
Accordingly, the ITC must determine
whether imports of the subject
merchandise from the PRC, Korea, and/
or Taiwan materially injure, or threaten
material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
The petitioner alleges that imports of
the subject merchandise are benefitting
from countervailable subsidies and that
such imports are causing, or threaten to
cause, material injury to the U.S.
industry producing the domestic like
product. The petitioner alleges that
subject imports exceed the negligibility
threshold provided for under section
771(24)(A) of the Act.23
The petitioner contends that the
industry’s injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share;
underselling and price depression or
19 Id.;
see also section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act.
PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, Korea CVD
Initiation Checklist, and Taiwan CVD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II.
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 11 and Exhibit
I–8.
20 See
E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM
14NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Notices
suppression; lost sales and revenues;
and adversely impacted production,
capacity utilization, and financial
performance.24 We have assessed the
allegations and supporting evidence
regarding material injury, threat of
material injury, and causation, and we
have determined that these allegations
are properly supported by adequate
evidence and meet the statutory
requirements for initiation.25
Initiation of Countervailing Duty
Investigations
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires
the Department to initiate a CVD
investigation whenever an interested
party files a CVD petition on behalf of
an industry that: (1) Alleges the
elements necessary for an imposition of
a duty under section 701(a) of the Act;
and (2) is accompanied by information
reasonably available to the petitioner
supporting the allegations. In the
Petitions, the petitioner alleges that
producers of NOES in the PRC, Korea,
and Taiwan benefited from
countervailable subsidies bestowed by
their respective governments. The
Department has examined the Petitions
and finds that they comply with the
requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the
Act. Therefore, in accordance with
section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are
initiating CVD investigations to
determine whether manufacturers,
producers, or exporters of NOES from
the PRC, Korea, and Taiwan receive
countervailable subsidies from their
respective governments.
PRC
Based on our review of the Petitions,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation of 30 alleged programs.
For a full discussion of the basis for our
decision to initiate or not initiate on
each program, see PRC CVD Initiation
Checklist.
Korea
TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Based on our review of the Petitions,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation of 17 alleged programs.
For a full discussion of the basis for our
decision to initiate or not initiate on
each program, see Korea CVD Initiation
Checklist.
24 Id.,
at 9–28 and Exhibits I–6 through I–25.
China CVD Initiation Checklist, Korea CVD
Initiation Checklist, and Taiwan CVD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations
and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for
the Petitions Covering Non-Oriented Electrical Steel
from the People’s Republic of China, Germany,
Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan.
25 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Nov 13, 2013
Jkt 232001
Taiwan
Based on our review of the Petitions,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation of 6 alleged programs. For
a full discussion of the basis for our
decision to initiate or not initiate on
each program, see Taiwan CVD
Initiation Checklist.
A public version of the initiation
checklist for each investigation is
available on IA ACCESS and at https://
trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.
Respondent Selection
Petitioner named three companies as
producers/exporters of NOES from
Korea, two from Taiwan, and 25 from
the PRC.26 Following standard practice
in CVD investigations, the Department
will, where appropriate, select
respondents based on U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S.
imports of NOES. For Korea and the
PRC, we intend to release CBP data
under Administrative Protective Order
(APO) to all parties with access to
information protected by APO shortly
after the announcement of these case
initiations. For Taiwan, the Department
intends to examine all known
producers/exporters identified in the
Petitions in these investigations.27 The
Department invites comments regarding
respondent selection within seven days
of publication of this Federal Register
notice.
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section
702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public version
of the Petitions have been provided to
the representatives of the GOC, GOK,
and GOT. To the extent practicable, we
will attempt to provide a copy of the
public version of the Petitions to each
known exporter (as named in the
Petitions), as provided in 19 CFR
351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We have notified the ITC of our
initiation, as required by section 702(d)
of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine,
within 45 days after the date on which
the Petitions were filed,28 whether there
26 See
the Petitions at Volume I, Exhibit I–4.
Petitions name China Steel Corporation
and Leicong Industrial Company, Ltd., as
producers/exporters of NOES in Taiwan. See id.
28 Due to the shutdown of the Federal
Government, the ITC has also tolled its preliminary
determination by 16 days, which is Saturday,
November 30, 2013. Because November 30 is a
Saturday, the actual deadline is Monday, December
2, 2013.
27 The
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68415
is a reasonable indication that imports
of NOES from the PRC, Korea, and
Taiwan are materially injuring, or
threatening material injury to, a U.S.
industry.29 A negative ITC
determination for any country will
result in the investigation being
terminated with respect to that country;
otherwise, these investigations will
proceed according to statutory and
regulatory time limits.
Submission of Factual Information
On April 10, 2013, the Department
published Definition of Factual
Information and Time Limits for
Submission of Factual Information:
Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10,
2013), which modified two regulations
related to AD and CVD proceedings: The
definition of factual information (19
CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits
for the submission of factual
information (19 CFR 351.301). The final
rule identifies five categories of factual
information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21),
which are summarized as follows: (i)
Evidence submitted in response to
questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted
in support of allegations; (iii) publicly
available information to value factors
under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure
the adequacy of remuneration under 19
CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed
on the record by the Department; and (v)
evidence other than factual information
described in (i)–(iv). The final rule
requires any party, when submitting
factual information, to specify under
which subsection of 19 CFR
351.102(b)(21) the information is being
submitted and, if the information is
submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct
factual information already on the
record, to provide an explanation
identifying the information already on
the record that the factual information
seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The
final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301
so that, rather than providing general
time limits, there are specific time limits
based on the type of factual information
being submitted. These modifications
are effective for all proceeding segments
initiated on or after May 10, 2013, and
thus are applicable to these
investigations. Please review the final
rule, available at https://
enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/
1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to
submitting factual information in these
investigations.
Revised Extension of Time Limits
Regulation
On September 20, 2013, the
Department modified its regulation
29 See
E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM
section 703(a) of the Act.
14NON1
68416
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Notices
TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
concerning the extension of time limits
for submissions in AD and CVD
proceedings.30 The modification
clarifies that parties may request an
extension of time limits before a time
limit established under Part 351 expires,
or as otherwise specified by the
Secretary. In general, an extension
request will be considered untimely if it
is filed after the time limit established
under Part 351 expires. For submissions
which are due from multiple parties
simultaneously, an extension request
will be considered untimely if it is filed
after 10:00 a.m. on the due date.
Examples include, but are not limited
to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual
information to value factors under
section 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to
measure the adequacy of remuneration
under section 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2),
filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)
and rebuttal, clarification and correction
filed pursuant to 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments
concerning the selection of a surrogate
country and surrogate values and
rebuttal; (4) comments concerning CBP
data; and (5) quantity and value
questionnaires. Under certain
circumstances, the Department may
elect to specify a different time limit by
which extension requests will be
considered untimely for submissions
which are due from multiple parties
simultaneously. In such a case, the
Department will inform parties in the
letter or memorandum setting forth the
deadline (including a specified time) by
which extension requests must be filed
to be considered timely. This
modification also requires that an
extension request must be made in a
separate, stand-alone submission, and
clarifies the circumstances under which
the Department will grant untimelyfiled requests for the extension of time
limits. These modifications are effective
for all segments initiated on or after
October 21, 2013. Review Extension of
Time Limits; Final Rule, available at
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-201309-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to
submitting factual information in this
segment.
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual
information in an AD or CVD
proceeding must certify to the accuracy
and completeness of that information.31
Parties are hereby reminded that revised
certification requirements are in effect
for company/government officials, as
30 See Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR
57790 (September 20, 2013).
31 See section 782(b) of the Act.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Nov 13, 2013
Jkt 232001
well as their representatives, in all
segments of any AD or CVD proceedings
initiated on or after March 14, 2011.32
The formats for the revised certifications
are provided at the end of the Interim
Final Rule. Foreign governments and
their officials may continue to submit
certifications in either the format that
was in use prior to the effective date of
the Interim Final Rule, or in the format
provided in the Interim Final Rule.33
The Department intends to reject factual
information submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with
the revised certification requirements.
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under APO
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On
January 22, 2008, the Department
published Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Documents Submission Procedures;
APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate
in either investigation should ensure
that they meet the requirements of these
procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of
appearance as discussed at 19 CFR
351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: November 6, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
0.08 percent of carbon, and not more than 1.5
percent of aluminum.
NOES is subject to these investigations
whether it is fully processed (fully annealed
to develop final magnetic properties) or semiprocessed (finished to final thickness and
physical form but not fully annealed to
develop final magnetic properties); whether
or not it is coated (e.g., with enamel, varnish,
natural oxide surface, chemically treated or
phosphate surface, or other non-metallic
materials). Fully processed NOES is typically
made to the requirements of ASTM
specification A 677, Japanese Industrial
Standards (JIS) specification C 2552, and/or
International Electrotechnical Commission
(IEC) specification 60404–8–4. Semiprocessed NOES is typically made to the
requirements of ASTM specification A 683.
However, the scope of these investigations is
not limited to merchandise meeting the
specifications noted above.
NOES is sometimes referred to as coldrolled non-oriented electrical steel (CRNO),
non-grain oriented (NGO), non-oriented
(NO), or cold-rolled non-grain oriented
(CRNGO). These terms are interchangeable.
The subject merchandise is provided for in
subheadings 7225.19.0000, 7226.19.1000,
and 7226.19.9000 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Subject merchandise may also be entered
under subheadings 7225.50.8085,
7225.99.0090, 7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050,
7226.92.8050, 7226.99.0180 of the HTSUS.
Although HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope is
dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2013–27316 Filed 11–13–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise subject to these
investigations consists of non-oriented
electrical steel (NOES), which includes coldrolled, flat-rolled, alloy steel products,
whether or not in coils, regardless of width,
having an actual thickness of 0.20 mm or
more, in which the core loss is substantially
equal in any direction of magnetization in the
plane of the material. The term ‘‘substantially
equal’’ in the prior sentence means that the
cross grain direction of core loss is no more
than 1.5 times the straight grain direction
(i.e., the rolling direction) of core loss. NOES
has a magnetic permeability that does not
exceed 1.65 Tesla when tested at a field of
800 A/m (equivalent to 10 Oesteds) along
(i.e., parallel to) the rolling direction of the
sheet (i.e., B800 value). NOES contains by
weight at least 1.25 percent of silicon but less
than 3.5 percent of silicon, not more than
32 See Certification of Factual Information for
Import Administration during Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Interim Final
Rule, 76 FR 7491 (February 10, 2011) (Interim Final
Rule), amending 19 CFR 351.303(g)(1) and (2).
33 See Certification of Factual Information to
Import Administration During Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Supplemental
Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 54697 (September 2,
2011).
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XC978
South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (SAFMC); Public Meeting
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting of the
South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (Council).
AGENCY:
The Council will hold a
Council Member Visioning Workshop
and a Council Member Data Workshop.
In addition, the Council will hold a joint
meeting of the Habitat and EcosystemBased Management Committees;
Protected Resources Committee,
Southeast Data, Assessment and Review
Committee (partially CLOSED
SESSION); Advisory Panel Selection
Committee (CLOSED SESSION);
Snapper Grouper Committee; King &
Spanish Mackerel Committee; Executive
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM
14NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 220 (Thursday, November 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68412-68416]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27316]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-570-997, C-580-873, C-583-852]
Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People's Republic of
China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Initiation of Countervailing
Duty Investigations
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
[[Page 68413]]
DATES: Effective Date: November 14, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Morris at (202) 482-1779 (the
People's Republic of China (PRC)); Austin Redington at (202) 482-1664
(the Republic of Korea (Korea)); and Patricia Tran at (202) 482-1503
(Taiwan), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
The Petitions
On September 30, 2013,\1\ the Department of Commerce (the
Department) received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning
imports of non-oriented electrical steel (NOES) from the PRC, Korea,
and Taiwan, filed in proper form on behalf of AK Steel Corporation
(petitioner). The CVD petitions were accompanied by six antidumping
duty (AD) petitions.\2\ The petitioner is a domestic producer of NOES.
On October 22, 2013, the Department requested information and
clarification for certain areas of the Petitions.\3\ The petitioner
filed responses to these requests on October 25,\4\ and October 30,
2013.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary
for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its
discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the
Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013. See
Memorandum for the Record from Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance, ``Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of
the Federal Government'' (October 18, 2013). Therefore, all
deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by 16
days.
\2\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Non-Oriented Electrical Steel
from People's Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of
Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan, dated September 30, 2013 (Petitions).
\3\ See letter from the Department to petitioner entitled ``Re:
Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of
Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from the People's Republic of China,
the Federal Republic of Germany, Japan, Republic of Korea, Sweden,
and Taiwan and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Non-Oriented
Electrical Steel from the People's Republic of China, Republic of
Korea, and Taiwan: Supplemental Questions, dated October 22, 2013,
and letters from the Department to petitioner entitled ``Petition
for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Non-
Oriented Electrical Steel from {country{time} : Supplemental
Questions'' on each of the country-specific records dated October
22, 2013.
\4\ See Supplemental to the PRC Petition, dated October 25, 2013
(PRC Supplemental); Supplemental to the Korea Petition, dated
October 25, 2013 (Korea Supplemental); and Supplemental to the
Taiwan Petition, dated October 25, 2013 (Taiwan Supplemental).
\5\ See Supplemental to the Japan Petition, dated October 30,
2013 (Japan Supplemental).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Governments of the
PRC (GOC), Korea (GOK), and Taiwan (GOT) are providing countervailable
subsidies (within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act) to
imports of NOES from the PRC, Korea, and Taiwan, and that such imports
are materially injuring, or threaten to cause material injury to, the
domestic industry producing NOES in the United States pursuant to
section 701 of the Act. Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the
Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available
to petitioner supporting its allegations.
The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on
behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested
party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and that the
petitioner has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to
the initiation of the investigations the petitioner is requesting.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See ``Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions''
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigations
The period of the investigations is January 1, 2012, through
December 31, 2012.
Scope of Investigations
The product covered by these CVD investigations is NOES from the
PRC, Korea, and Taiwan. For a full description of the scope of these
investigations, see the ``Scope of Investigations'' in Appendix I of
this notice.
Comments on Scope of Investigations
During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions
to, and received responses from, the petitioner pertaining to the
proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would
be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic
industry is seeking relief. As discussed in the preamble to the
regulations,\7\ we are setting aside a period for interested parties to
raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages
interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on
November 26, 2013. All comments must be filed on the records of the
PRC, Korea, and Taiwan CVD investigations, as well as the concurrent
PRC, Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan AD investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296,
27323 (May 19, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically
using IA ACCESS.\8\ An electronically filed document must be received
successfully in its entirety by the time and date noted above.
Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be
filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's
APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the
date and time of receipt by the deadline noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011) for details of the
Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect
on August 5, 2011. Information on help using IA ACCESS can be found
at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found
at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consultations
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department
invited representatives of the GOC, the GOK, and the GOT for
consultations with respect to the Petitions.\9\ Consultations were held
with the GOT on October 28, 2013, the GOC on November 4, 2013, and the
GOK on November 5, 2013.\10\ All memoranda are on file electronically
via IA ACCESS.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Letter of Invitation Regarding Countervailing Duty
Petition on Non-Electrical Steel from the People's Republic of
China, dated September 30, 2013; Letter of Invitation Regarding
Countervailing Duty Petition on Non-Electrical Steel from the
Republic of Korea, dated September 30, 2013; Letter of Invitation
for Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition
Regarding Countervailing Duty Petition on Non-Oriented Electrical
Steel from Taiwan, dated September 30, 2013.
\10\ See Ex-Parte Memorandum, ``Ex-Parte Meeting with Taipei
Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States on
the Countervailing Duty Petition on Non-Oriented Electrical Steel
(NOES) from Taiwan,'' dated October 29, 2013; ``Ex-Parte Meeting
with Officials from the Government of Korea on the Countervailing
Duty Petition on Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from Korea,'' dated
November 5, 2013; ``Consultations with Officials from the People's
Republic of China (PRC) on the Countervailing Duty Petition on Non-
Oriented Electrical Steel from the PRC,'' dated November 5, 2013.
\11\ See supra note 8 for information pertaining to IA ACCESS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the
[[Page 68414]]
petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production
of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the
production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the
industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition.
Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the
petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers
accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the
domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or
rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for
the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine
industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll
the industry.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which
is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has
been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic
like product,\12\ they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a
separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's
determination is subject to limitations of time and information.
Although this may result in different definitions of the like product,
such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary
to law.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\13\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT
2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F.
Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the
Petitions).
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope
of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information
submitted on the record, we have determined that NOES constitutes a
single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in
terms of that domestic like product.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in
this case, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation
Checklist: Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from the People's Republic
of China (PRC CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis
of Industry Support for the Petitions Covering Non-Oriented
Electrical Steel from the People's Republic of China, Germany,
Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan (Attachment II);
Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Non-Oriented
Electrical Steel from the Republic of Korea (Korea CVD Initiation
Checklist), at Attachment II; and Countervailing Duty Investigation
Initiation Checklist: Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from Taiwan
(Taiwan CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II. These
checklists are dated concurrently with this notice and on file
electronically via IA ACCESS. Access to documents filed via IA
ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of
the main Department of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data
contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in Appendix I of
this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its
own production of the domestic like product in 2012.\15\ The petitioner
states that it is the only producer of NOES in the United States;
therefore, the Petitions are supported by 100 percent of the U.S.
industry.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2.
\16\ Id., at 2 and Exhibit I-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 28, 2013, we received a submission on behalf of JFE
Steel Corporation and Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation,
Japanese producers of NOES, questioning the petitioner's industry
support calculation. On October 30, 2013, the petitioner responded to
the Japanese producers' industry support comments.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ For further discussion of these submissions, see PRC AD
Initiation Checklist, Germany Initiation Checklist, Japan Initiation
Checklist, Korea AD Initiation Checklist, Sweden Initiation
Checklist, and Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, supplemental
submissions, and other information readily available to the Department
indicates that the petitioner has established industry support.\18\
First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or
workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of
the domestic like product.\19\ Second, the domestic producers (or
workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under
section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product.\20\ Finally, the
domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for
industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the
domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for
more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or
opposition to, the Petitions.\21\ Accordingly, the Department
determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic
industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See China CVD Initiation Checklist, Korea CVD Initiation
Checklist, and Taiwan CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\19\ Id.; see also section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act.
\20\ See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, Korea CVD Initiation
Checklist, and Taiwan CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on
behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated
sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigations that
it is requesting the Department initiate.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury Test
Because the PRC, Korea, and Taiwan are ``Subsidies Agreement
Countries'' within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section
701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the
ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the
PRC, Korea, and/or Taiwan materially injure, or threaten material
injury to, a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are
benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are
causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry
producing the domestic like product. The petitioner alleges that
subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under
section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 11 and Exhibit I-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price depression
or
[[Page 68415]]
suppression; lost sales and revenues; and adversely impacted
production, capacity utilization, and financial performance.\24\ We
have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding
material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have
determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate
evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Id., at 9-28 and Exhibits I-6 through I-25.
\25\ See China CVD Initiation Checklist, Korea CVD Initiation
Checklist, and Taiwan CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III,
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and
Causation for the Petitions Covering Non-Oriented Electrical Steel
from the People's Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of
Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a
CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on
behalf of an industry that: (1) Alleges the elements necessary for an
imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is
accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner
supporting the allegations. In the Petitions, the petitioner alleges
that producers of NOES in the PRC, Korea, and Taiwan benefited from
countervailable subsidies bestowed by their respective governments. The
Department has examined the Petitions and finds that they comply with
the requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in
accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating CVD
investigations to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or
exporters of NOES from the PRC, Korea, and Taiwan receive
countervailable subsidies from their respective governments.
PRC
Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation of 30 alleged
programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to
initiate or not initiate on each program, see PRC CVD Initiation
Checklist.
Korea
Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation of 17 alleged
programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to
initiate or not initiate on each program, see Korea CVD Initiation
Checklist.
Taiwan
Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation of 6 alleged
programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to
initiate or not initiate on each program, see Taiwan CVD Initiation
Checklist.
A public version of the initiation checklist for each investigation
is available on IA ACCESS and at https://trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.
Respondent Selection
Petitioner named three companies as producers/exporters of NOES
from Korea, two from Taiwan, and 25 from the PRC.\26\ Following
standard practice in CVD investigations, the Department will, where
appropriate, select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of NOES. For Korea and the PRC,
we intend to release CBP data under Administrative Protective Order
(APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO
shortly after the announcement of these case initiations. For Taiwan,
the Department intends to examine all known producers/exporters
identified in the Petitions in these investigations.\27\ The Department
invites comments regarding respondent selection within seven days of
publication of this Federal Register notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See the Petitions at Volume I, Exhibit I-4.
\27\ The Petitions name China Steel Corporation and Leicong
Industrial Company, Ltd., as producers/exporters of NOES in Taiwan.
See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been
provided to the representatives of the GOC, GOK, and GOT. To the extent
practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of
the Petitions to each known exporter (as named in the Petitions), as
provided in 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
702(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date
on which the Petitions were filed,\28\ whether there is a reasonable
indication that imports of NOES from the PRC, Korea, and Taiwan are
materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S.
industry.\29\ A negative ITC determination for any country will result
in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country;
otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and
regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Due to the shutdown of the Federal Government, the ITC has
also tolled its preliminary determination by 16 days, which is
Saturday, November 30, 2013. Because November 30 is a Saturday, the
actual deadline is Monday, December 2, 2013.
\29\ See section 703(a) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of Factual Information
On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual
Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information:
Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two
regulations related to AD and CVD proceedings: The definition of
factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for
the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule
identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR
351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted
in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of
allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors
under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration
under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the
Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described
in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any party, when submitting factual
information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)
the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted
to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the
record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already
on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or
correct. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather
than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits
based on the type of factual information being submitted. These
modifications are effective for all proceeding segments initiated on or
after May 10, 2013, and thus are applicable to these investigations.
Please review the final rule, available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to
submitting factual information in these investigations.
Revised Extension of Time Limits Regulation
On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation
[[Page 68416]]
concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in AD and CVD
proceedings.\30\ The modification clarifies that parties may request an
extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351
expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an
extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the
time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions which
are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will
be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date.
Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs,
filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value
factors under section 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of
remuneration under section 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19
CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction filed
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the
selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4)
comments concerning CBP data; and (5) quantity and value
questionnaires. Under certain circumstances, the Department may elect
to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be
considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties
simultaneously. In such a case, the Department will inform parties in
the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a
specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be
considered timely. This modification also requires that an extension
request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and
clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant
untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. These
modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after
October 21, 2013. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule,
available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in this segment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790
(September 20, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\31\
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are
in effect for company/government officials, as well as their
representatives, in all segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated
on or after March 14, 2011.\32\ The formats for the revised
certifications are provided at the end of the Interim Final Rule.
Foreign governments and their officials may continue to submit
certifications in either the format that was in use prior to the
effective date of the Interim Final Rule, or in the format provided in
the Interim Final Rule.\33\ The Department intends to reject factual
information submissions if the submitting party does not comply with
the revised certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\32\ See Certification of Factual Information for Import
Administration during Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 7491 (February 10, 2011)
(Interim Final Rule), amending 19 CFR 351.303(g)(1) and (2).
\33\ See Certification of Factual Information to Import
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Supplemental Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 54697 (September
2, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the
Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in either investigation
should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures
(e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR
351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of
the Act.
Dated: November 6, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise subject to these investigations consists of non-
oriented electrical steel (NOES), which includes cold-rolled, flat-
rolled, alloy steel products, whether or not in coils, regardless of
width, having an actual thickness of 0.20 mm or more, in which the
core loss is substantially equal in any direction of magnetization
in the plane of the material. The term ``substantially equal'' in
the prior sentence means that the cross grain direction of core loss
is no more than 1.5 times the straight grain direction (i.e., the
rolling direction) of core loss. NOES has a magnetic permeability
that does not exceed 1.65 Tesla when tested at a field of 800 A/m
(equivalent to 10 Oesteds) along (i.e., parallel to) the rolling
direction of the sheet (i.e., B800 value). NOES contains
by weight at least 1.25 percent of silicon but less than 3.5 percent
of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, and not more than
1.5 percent of aluminum.
NOES is subject to these investigations whether it is fully
processed (fully annealed to develop final magnetic properties) or
semi-processed (finished to final thickness and physical form but
not fully annealed to develop final magnetic properties); whether or
not it is coated (e.g., with enamel, varnish, natural oxide surface,
chemically treated or phosphate surface, or other non-metallic
materials). Fully processed NOES is typically made to the
requirements of ASTM specification A 677, Japanese Industrial
Standards (JIS) specification C 2552, and/or International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) specification 60404-8-4. Semi-
processed NOES is typically made to the requirements of ASTM
specification A 683. However, the scope of these investigations is
not limited to merchandise meeting the specifications noted above.
NOES is sometimes referred to as cold-rolled non-oriented
electrical steel (CRNO), non-grain oriented (NGO), non-oriented
(NO), or cold-rolled non-grain oriented (CRNGO). These terms are
interchangeable.
The subject merchandise is provided for in subheadings
7225.19.0000, 7226.19.1000, and 7226.19.9000 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Subject merchandise
may also be entered under subheadings 7225.50.8085, 7225.99.0090,
7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, 7226.92.8050, 7226.99.0180 of the HTSUS.
Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2013-27316 Filed 11-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
