[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 222 (Monday, November 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69041-69047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27304]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-996, A-428-843, A-588-872, A-580-872, A-401-809, A-583-851]


Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People's Republic of 
China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan: 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: November 18, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yang Jin Chun at (202) 482-5760 (the 
People's Republic of China (PRC)); Patrick O'Connor at (202) 482-0989 
(Germany); Thomas Martin at (202) 482-3936 (Japan); Dmitry Vladimirov 
at (202) 482-0665 (the Republic of Korea (Korea)); Drew Jackson at 
(202) 482-4406 (Sweden); or Krisha Hill at (202) 482-4037 (Taiwan), AD/
CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitions

    On September 30, 2013, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of non-
oriented electrical steel (NOES) from the PRC, Germany, Japan, Korea, 
Sweden, and Taiwan filed in proper form on behalf of AK Steel 
Corporation (Petitioner). The AD petitions were accompanied by three 
countervailing duty (CVD) petitions.\1\ Petitioner is the sole domestic 
producer of NOES.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Non-Oriented Electrical Steel 
From the People's Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of 
Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan, dated September 30, 2013 (Petitions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 22, 2013, and October 29, 2013, the Department requested 
additional information and clarification of certain areas of the 
Petitions.\2\ Petitioner filed responses to these requests on October 
25, 2013, October 28, 2013 and October 30, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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, the Republic of Korea, 
Sweden, and Taiwan and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Non-
Oriented Electrical Steel from the People's Republic of China, the 
Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Supplemental Questions'' dated 
October 22, 2013, and letters from the Department to Petitioner 
entitled ``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 
Imports of Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from {country{time} : 
Supplemental Questions'' on each of the country-specific records 
dated October 22, 2013; see also Memorandum to the File entitled, 
Antidumping Duty Investigations of Non-Oriented Electrical Steel 
from the Federal Republic of Germany and from the State of Japan,'' 
dated October 29, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), Petitioner alleges that imports of NOES from the 
PRC, Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan are being, or are likely 
to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the 
meaning of section 731 of the Act and that such imports are materially 
injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United 
States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the 
Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to 
Petitioner supporting its allegations.
    The Department finds that Petitioner filed these Petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested 
party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also 
finds that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficient industry support with 
respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that Petitioner is 
requesting. See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the 
Petitions'' section below.

Periods of Investigations

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), because the Petitions were filed 
on September 30, 2013, the period of investigation (POI) for the PRC 
investigation is January 1, 2013, through June 30, 2013. The POI for 
the Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan investigations is July 1, 
2012, through June 30, 2013.

Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is NOES from the PRC, 
Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan. For a full description of 
the scope of the investigations, see the ``Scope of the 
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, 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

[[Page 69042]]

regulations,\3\ we are setting aside a period for interested parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all 
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, Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan AD investigations as 
well as the concurrent PRC, Korea, and Taiwan CVD investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically 
using IA ACCESS.\4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Product Characteristics for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires

    The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding 
the appropriate physical characteristics of NOES to be reported in 
response to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaires. This 
information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics 
of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors and 
costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate 
product-comparison criteria.
    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that 
they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of 
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to 
which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product 
characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is 
not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-
comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful 
commercial differences among products. In other words, while there may 
be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to 
describe NOES, it may be that only a select few product characteristics 
take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In 
addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the 
physical characteristics should be used in matching products. 
Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical 
characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.
    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in 
developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, we must receive comments 
on product characteristics by November 20, 2013. Rebuttal comments must 
be received by November 27, 2013. All comments and submissions to the 
Department must be filed electronically using IA ACCESS, as referenced 
above.

Tolling of Deadlines

    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.\5\ Therefore, all 
deadlines in these investigations have been tolled by 16 days. The 
revised deadline for the initiation of these investigations is November 
6, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Memorandum for the Record from Paul Piquado, Assistant 
Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ``Deadlines Affected by 
the Shutdown of the Federal Government'' dated October 18, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the 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 732(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,\6\ 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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \7\ 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, 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.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in 
this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 
Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from the People's Republic of China 
(the PRC AD 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); Antidumping 
Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Non-Oriented Electrical 
Steel from Germany (Germany Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; 
Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Non-Oriented 
Electrical Steel from Japan (Japan Initiation Checklist), at 
Attachment II; Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 
Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from the Republic of Korea (Korea AD 
Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; Antidumping Duty 
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Non-Oriented Electrical Steel 
from Sweden (Sweden Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; and 
Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Non-Oriented 
Electrical Steel from Taiwan (Taiwan AD 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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 69043]]

    In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section 
732(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, Petitioner provided its own 
production of the domestic like product in 2012.\9\ 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.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2.
    \10\ 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 Petitioner's industry support 
calculation. On October 30, 2013, Petitioner responded to the Japanese 
producers' challenge.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For further discussion of these submissions, see the 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 Petitioner has established industry support.\12\ 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 and, as such, the Department is not required to 
take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., 
polling).\13\ Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the 
statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(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.\14\ Finally, the domestic producers (or 
workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under 
section 732(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.\15\ Accordingly, the Department determines that the 
Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the 
meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.; see also section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act.
    \14\ See the 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.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that 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 AD investigations that it is 
requesting the Department initiate.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic 
like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with 
material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise 
sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, Petitioner alleges 
that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for 
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 11 and Exhibit I-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price depression 
or suppression; lost sales and revenues; and adversely impacted 
production, capacity utilization, and financial performance.\18\ 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.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id., at 9-28 and Exhibits I-6 through I-25.
    \19\ See the PRC AD Initiation Checklist, Germany Initiation 
Checklist, Japan Initiation Checklist, Korea AD Initiation 
Checklist, Sweden Initiation Checklist, and Taiwan AD 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate AD investigations of imports of NOES from the PRC, Germany, 
Japan, Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan. The sources of data for the 
deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed 
in greater detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.

Export Price

    For the PRC, Japan and Korea, Petitioner based U.S. price on price 
quotes obtained by an independent researcher for subject merchandise 
produced in the subject country by producer(s) of NOES in that country 
and sold or offered for export sale to the United States by producer(s) 
and/or traders of NOES.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See the PRC AD Initiation Checklist, Japan Initiation 
Checklist, and Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Germany, Taiwan, and Sweden, and as additional indicators of 
export prices for Japan, Petitioner based U.S. prices on the free-on-
board (FOB) foreign port prices of entries of merchandise under 
consideration obtained from U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) 
Automated Manifest System, which Petitioner then linked to publicly 
available data maintained by the U.S. Census Bureau via the ITC's 
Dataweb.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Germany Initiation Checklist, Japan Initiation 
Checklist, Sweden Initiation Checklist, and Taiwan AD Initiation 
Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, for Japan, Korea, Germany, Taiwan, and Sweden, 
Petitioner also based U.S. prices on FOB foreign port average unit 
value data for products classified under the appropriate Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) numbers for the 
merchandise under consideration imported from these respective 
countries into the United States during the POI, derived from official 
U.S. import statistics, also obtained via Dataweb.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Germany Initiation Checklist, Japan Initiation 
Checklist, Korea AD Initiation Checklist, Sweden Initiation 
Checklist, and Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the PRC, Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan, Petitioner 
made deductions for movement and other expenses consistent with the 
sales and delivery terms.\23\ For the PRC, Petitioner additionally 
adjusted the quoted U.S. prices for a portion of value-added tax

[[Page 69044]]

that was not refunded/rebated.\24\ For Japan, Petitioner additionally 
adjusted the quoted U.S. prices for mark-ups from trading 
companies.\25\ Petitioner made no other adjustments to U.S. price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See the PRC AD Initiation Checklist, Germany Initiation 
Checklist, Japan Initiation Checklist, Korea AD Initiation 
Checklist, Sweden Initiation Checklist, and Taiwan AD Initiation 
Checklist.
    \24\ See the PRC AD Initiation Checklist.
    \25\ See Japan Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    For Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Sweden, Petitioner based NV on price 
quotes provided by an independent researcher for the foreign like 
product produced in the subject country by producer(s) of NOES in that 
country and sold or offered for sale in the subject country by 
producer(s) and/or traders of NOES.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Japan Initiation Checklist, Korea AD Initiation 
Checklist, Sweden Initiation Checklist, and Taiwan AD Initiation 
Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Germany, Petitioner was unable to obtain home-market or third-
country prices; accordingly, Petitioner based NV on constructed value 
(CV).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Germany Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Sweden, Petitioner made deductions for movement expenses 
consistent with the terms of delivery.\28\ For Japan, Petitioner 
adjusted the quoted prices for taxes and mark-ups from trading 
companies.\29\ For Korea and Taiwan, Petitioner treated quoted prices 
as the ex-factory prices.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Japan Initiation Checklist and Sweden Initiation 
Checklist.
    \29\ See Japan Initiation Checklist.
    \30\ See Korea AD Initiation Checklist and Taiwan AD Initiation 
Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the PRC, Petitioner states that the Department has 
long treated the PRC as a non-market economy (NME) country.\31\ In 
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of 
NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The 
presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the 
Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the 
initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, the NV of the product is 
appropriately based on factors of production (FOPs) valued in a 
surrogate market economy country in accordance with section 773(c) of 
the Act. In the course of this investigation, all parties, including 
the public, will have the opportunity to provide relevant information 
related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and the granting of 
separate rates to individual exporters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Volume II of the Petition at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner claims that Thailand is an appropriate surrogate country 
because it is a market economy country that is at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the PRC, it is a significant producer 
of the merchandise under consideration, and the data for valuing FOPs 
are both available and reliable.\32\ Petitioner used the 2012-2013 
financial statements of an Indian vertically integrated steel producer 
Tata Steel Limited (Tata) to calculate surrogate financial ratios. 
Petitioner justified its selection of the Tata financial statements as 
follows: \33\ (1) Petitioner has been unable to locate any publicly 
available financial statements for a vertically integrated steel 
producer in Thailand with operations comparable to the PRC producer. 
Like the PRC producer, Tata is a vertically integrated steel producer 
and, thus, its operations and experiences are an appropriate surrogate; 
(2) Tata's operations earned a profit in 2012-2013. The Thai steel 
companies that Petitioner identified were not profitable; (3) 
Petitioner has been unable to locate publicly available, 
contemporaneous financial statements for any company in other potential 
surrogate countries that is a vertically-integrated producer of 
comparable merchandise and that shows a profit; \34\ (4) Tata has 
issued unconsolidated financial statements that reflect almost 
exclusively its returns on steel manufacturing operations; and (5) 
Tata's unconsolidated financial statements are prepared at a level of 
detail that permit recognition of energy costs to prevent double 
counting with other factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Id., at 2.
    \33\ Id., at 6.
    \34\ See Supplement to the China Petition, dated October 28, 
2013 (China Supplement), at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner also explained that, in Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel 
from the People's Republic of China, the Czech Republic, Germany, 
Japan, the Republic of Korea, Poland, and the Russian Federation: 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations 78 FR 65283 (October 31, 
2013), the Department initiated a less-than-fair-value investigation of 
grain-oriented electrical steel from the PRC based on the use of Indian 
financial statements. Based on information provided by Petitioner, we 
believe it is appropriate to use Thailand as a surrogate country for 
initiation purposes. We also believe that, for initiation purposes, it 
is appropriate to use the Indian financial statements as the surrogate 
source for financial ratios. Interested parties will have the 
opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection 
and will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available 
information to value FOPs within 40 days before the scheduled date of 
the preliminary determination.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i) (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factors of Production

    Petitioner based the FOPs usage for materials, labor and energy on 
the consumption rates of its own production of NOES in the United 
States.

Valuation of Raw Materials

    Petitioner valued the FOPs for various raw material inputs used to 
produce subject merchandise based on Thai data from the Global Trade 
Atlas (GTA) statistics for the POI for the PRC under applicable HTSUS 
codes.\36\ Petitioner added to this value the average Thai brokerage 
and inland freight charges reported for importing goods into Thailand, 
as published by the World Bank in Doing Business 2013: Thailand.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 4 and Exhibits II-8, II-
9, and II-13.
    \37\ Id., at 5 and Exhibits II-7 and II-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner made a deduction for the value of scrap recovered during 
the production process based on the average import value of other 
ferrous waste and scrap using HTSUS subheading 7204.49 as published by 
GTA for the period from January 2013 through June 2013.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Id., at 4-5 and Exhibit II-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner excluded all import values from countries previously 
determined by the Department to maintain broadly available, non-
industry-specific export subsidies and from countries previously 
determined by the Department to be NME countries. In addition, in 
accordance with the Department's practice, the average import value 
excludes imports that were labeled as originating from an unidentified 
country.

Valuation of Labor

    Petitioner calculated labor using a 2006 industry-specific wage 
rate for Thailand, which was published in 2007 by the Thailand National 
Statistics Office. Petitioner adjusted this wage rate for inflation 
using the Thai Consumer Price Index as published by the International 
Monetary Fund.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Id. at 5 and Exhibit II-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Energy

    Petitioner valued electricity based on the data from the 
Metropolitan Electricity Authority.\40\ Petitioner used the GTA 
statistics for Thai imports of natural gas and universal conversion 
factors to calculate the volume-based surrogate value for natural 
gas.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See ``Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From The People's 
Republic of China: Petitioner's Response To The Department's 
Questions Regarding The Petition,'' dated October 28, 2013, at 4 and 
Exhibits S-2 and S-5.
    \41\ Id.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 69045]]

Valuation of Factory Overhead, Selling, General and Administrative 
Expenses, and Profit

    Petitioner calculated surrogate financial ratios (i.e., factory 
overhead, selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and 
profit) using the audited financial statements of Tata Steel Limited, 
an Indian producer of comparable merchandise, for the fiscal year 
ending March 31, 2013.\42\ According to Petitioner, Tata Steel Limited 
is a vertically-integrated Indian producer of a wide variety of steel 
products. Petitioner asserts that the use of these financial statements 
is appropriate because there was limited access to other publicly-
available financial statements of a vertically-integrated steel company 
which manufactured comparable merchandise and which was also 
profitable.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 6 and Exhibit II-12.
    \43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sales Below Cost Allegations

    For Japan, Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan, Petitioner provided 
information demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that 
sales of NOES in the respective home markets were made at prices below 
the fully-absorbed COP, within the meaning of section 773(b) of the 
Act, and requested that the Department conduct country-wide sales-
below-cost investigations. The Statement of Administrative Action 
(SAA), submitted to the Congress in connection with the interpretation 
and application of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, states that an 
allegation of sales below COP need not be specific to individual 
exporters or producers.\44\ The SAA states that ``Commerce will 
consider allegations of below-cost sales in the aggregate for a foreign 
country, just as Commerce currently considers allegations of sales at 
less than fair value on a country-wide basis for purposes of initiating 
an antidumping investigation.'' \45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, Vol. 1 (1994), at 833, 
reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3773.
    \45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the SAA provides that section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Act 
retains the requirement that the Department have ``reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect'' that below-cost sales have occurred before 
initiating such an investigation. Reasonable grounds exist when an 
interested party provides specific factual information on costs and 
prices, observed or constructed, indicating that sales in the foreign 
market in question are at below-cost prices.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost of Production

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost 
of manufacturing (COM); SG&A expenses; financial expenses; and packing 
expenses. Petitioner calculated COM (except for depreciation) based on 
Petitioner's experience adjusted for known differences between the 
industry in the United States and the industries of the respective 
country (i.e., Japan, Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan), during the proposed 
POI.\47\ Using publicly-available data to account for price 
differences, Petitioner multiplied their usage quantities by the 
submitted value of the inputs used to manufacture NOES in each country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See Japan Initiation Checklist; Korea AD Initiation 
Checklist; Sweden Initiation Checklist; and Taiwan AD Initiation 
Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine depreciation, SG&A, and financial expense rates, 
Petitioner relied on financial statements of producers of comparable 
merchandise operating in the respective foreign country.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based upon a comparison of the prices of the foreign like product 
in the home market to the calculated COP of the most comparable 
product, we find reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of 
the foreign like products were made at prices that are below the COP, 
within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, 
the Department is initiating country-wide cost investigations on sales 
of NOES from Japan, Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan.

Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    For Japan, Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan, because they alleged sales 
below cost, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the 
Act, Petitioner additionally calculated NV based on constructed value 
(CV). Petitioner calculated CV using the same average COM, SG&A, 
financial expense, and packing figures used to compute the COPs. 
Petitioner relied on the same financial statements used as the basis 
for the depreciation and SG&A expense rates to calculate the profit 
rates.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Germany, Petitioner based NV on CV, as neither a home market 
nor a third country price was reasonably available. Pursuant to section 
773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the COM; SG&A expenses; financial 
expenses; packing expenses; and profit. Petitioner calculated COM 
(except for depreciation) based on Petitioner's experience adjusted for 
known differences between the German and U.S. industries during the 
proposed POI, multiplied by the value of the inputs used to manufacture 
NOES in Germany using publicly available data.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See Germany Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine depreciation, SG&A, and financial expense rates, 
Petitioner relied on the financial statements of a German producer of 
comparable merchandise.\51\ Petitioner relied on the same financial 
statements used as the basis for the depreciation and SG&A expense 
rates to calculate the profit rate.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Id.
    \52\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by Petitioner, there is reason to 
believe that imports of NOES from the PRC, Germany, Japan, Korea, 
Sweden, and Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United 
States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of export price 
(EP) to NV in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act, the estimated 
dumping margins for NOES from: (1) Germany range from 73.74 percent to 
98.84 percent; \53\ (2) Japan range from 88.63 percent to 204.79 
percent; \54\ (3) Korea range from 16.00 percent to 68.82 percent; \55\ 
(4) Sweden range from 62.17 percent to 126.72 percent; \56\ and (5) 
Taiwan range from 52.23 percent to 101.51 percent.\57\ Based on 
comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, 
the estimated dumping margins for NOES from the PRC range from 244.54 
percent to 407.52 percent.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Id.
    \54\ See Japan Initiation Checklist.
    \55\ See Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
    \56\ See Sweden Initiation Checklist.
    \57\ See Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist.
    \58\ See the PRC AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations

    Based upon the examination of the AD Petitions on NOES from the 
PRC, Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan, we find that the 
Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, 
we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of 
NOES from the PRC, Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan are being, 
or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. 
In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary 
determinations no

[[Page 69046]]

later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

Respondent Selection

    Petitioner named three companies as producers/exporters of NOES 
from Germany, five from Japan, three from Korea, one from Sweden, and 
two from Taiwan.\59\ Following standard practice in AD investigations 
involving market-economy countries, the Department will, where 
appropriate, select respondents based on CBP data for U.S. imports of 
NOES. For Germany, Korea and Japan, we intend to release CBP data under 
Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to 
information protected by APO within five-business days of publication 
of this Federal Register. For Sweden and Taiwan, the Department intends 
to examine all known producers/exporters identified in the Petitions in 
these investigations.\60\ The Department invites comments regarding 
respondent selection within seven days of publication of this Federal 
Register notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See the Petitions at Volume I, Exhibit I-4.
    \60\ The Petitions name Surahammars Bruks AB as a producer/
exporter of NOES in Sweden, and China Steel Corporation and Leicong 
Industrial Company, Ltd., as producers/exporters of NOES in Taiwan. 
See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the PRC, Petitioner has identified 25 potential 
respondents. In accordance with our standard practice for respondent 
selection in cases involving NME countries, we intend to issue quantity 
and value questionnaires to each potential respondent and base 
respondent selection on the responses received. In addition, the 
Department will post the quantity and value questionnaire along with 
the filing instructions on the Enforcement and Compliance Web site at 
http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp. Exporters and producers of 
NOES from the PRC that do not receive quantity and value questionnaires 
via mail may still submit a quantity and value response and can obtain 
a copy from the Enforcement and Compliance Web site. The quantity and 
value questionnaire must be submitted by all PRC exporters/producers no 
later than November 26, 2013. All quantity and value questionnaires 
must be filed electronically using IA ACCESS.

Separate Rates

    In order to obtain separate rate status in an NME investigation, 
exporters and producers must submit a separate rate application.\61\ 
The specific requirements for submitting the separate rate application 
in the PRC investigation are outlined in detail in the application 
itself, which will be available on the Department's Web site at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp on the date of publication of this 
initiation notice in the Federal Register. The separate rate 
application will be due 60 days after publication of this initiation 
notice. For exporters and producers who submit a separate rate 
application and have been selected as mandatory respondents, these 
exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for consideration 
for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the 
questionnaire as mandatory respondents. The Department requires that 
the PRC respondents submit a response to both the quantity and value 
questionnaire and the separate rate application by their respective 
deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate rate status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and 
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf (Policy Bulletin 
05.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Combination Rates

    The Department will calculate combination rates for certain 
respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME 
investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin 
states:

    {w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate 
rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will 
now assign in its NME Investigation will be specific to those 
producers that supplied the exporter during the period of 
investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the 
exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise 
to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both 
to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated 
separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms 
receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. 
This practice is referred to as the application of ``combination 
rates'' because such rates apply to specific combinations of 
exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned 
to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the 
firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter 
during the period of investigation.\62\

    \62\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been 
provided to the governments of the PRC, Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden, 
and Taiwan via IA ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to 
provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter 
named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

Meeting With the Government of Korea

    Pursuant to a request by the Government of Korea, on November 5, 
2013, Department officials met with Korean Government officials to 
discuss that government's inquiry regarding the status of the 
Department's consideration of the Petition and industry support, as 
provided under section 732(b)(3)(B) of the Act.

ITC Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine no later than December 2, 
2013, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of NOES 
from the PRC, Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan are materially 
injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry. 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

[[Page 69047]]

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. 
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 
concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in AD and CVD 
proceedings.\63\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 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.\64\ 
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are 
in effect for company/government officials, as well as their 
representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions 
filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD 
proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the 
formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final 
Rule.\65\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the 
submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \65\ See Certification of Factual Information To Import 
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also 
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 these investigations 
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. 2013-27304 Filed 11-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P