[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 220 (Thursday, November 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68412-68416]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 http://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 http://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 http://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