61602 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices 

1See Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from Taiwan: 

Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination and 

Alignment of Final Determination With Final 

Antidumping Determination, 79 FR 16290 (March 

25, 2014) (Preliminary Determination). 

2Public versions of all business proprietary 

documents and all public documents are on file 

electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). Access to 

IA ACCESS is available to registered users at 

http://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Central Records 

Unit (CRU), Room 7046 of the main Department of 

Commerce building. 

3See 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, 78 FR 69041 

(November 18, 2013) (AD Initiation Notice); 

concurrent antidumping duty (AD) investigation. 

4See Letter from Petitioner to the Department, 

‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duties against Non-Oriented 

Electrical Steel from China, Germany, Japan, Korea, 

Sweden, Taiwan/Petition Amendment to Clarify the 

Proposed Scope Definition,’’ dated November 22, 

2013 (‘‘Petitioner’s Proposed Scope Changes’’); and 

Letter from Petitioner, ‘‘Non-Oriented Electrical 

Steel from China, Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden, 

Taiwan: Petitioner’s Comments on the Scope of 

Investigations,’’ dated November 26, 2013. 

5On January 23, 2014, POSCO and Daewoo 

International Corporation (DWI) filed a joint 

response in the concurrent LTFV investigation of 

NOES from Korea. The Department preliminarily 

found these two companies to be a single entity in 

the AD investigation. See the memorandum from 

Senior Advisor, Gary Taverman, to Acting Assistant 

Secretary, Ronald K. Lorentzen entitled ‘‘Decision 

Memorandum for the Preliminary Affirmative 

Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value 

Investigation of Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from 

the Republic of Korea’’ dated May 15, 2014. 

6See Letter from POSCO/DWI to the Department, 

‘‘Scope Clarification Requests,’’ dated January 28, 

2014. 7See Letter from Petitioner to the Department, 

‘‘Re: Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from China, 

Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden and Taiwan/

Petitioner’s Response to POSCO’s Scope 

Clarification Requests,’’ dated February 4, 2014. 

8See Letter from POSCO/DWI to the Department, 

‘‘Scope Clarification Requests,’’ dated January 28, 

2014, at 3. 

9 Id., at 3–4. 

initial determination by the individual 

concerned appear in 15 CFR part 4, 

Appendix B. 

RECORD SOURCE CATGEGORIES: 

The correspondent, referral source, 

Department employees involved in 

processing the correspondence, and 

other individuals, as required to prepare 

an appropriate response and to interact 

with correspondent/Department contact. 

EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: 

None. 

Dated: October 7, 2014. 

Brenda Dolan, 

Department of Commerce, Freedom of 

Information and Privacy Act Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24323 Filed 10–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–17–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–583–852] 

Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From 

Taiwan: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) determines that 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

non-oriented electrical steel from 

Taiwan. For information on the 

estimated subsidy rates, see the 

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of 

this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 14, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia Tran or Christopher Hargett, 

Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 

CC116, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: 202–482–1503 or 202–482– 

4161, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The petitioner in this investigation is 

AK Steel Corporation (Petitioner). This 

investigation covers 22 government 

programs. The mandatory respondents 

in this investigation are China Steel 

Corporation (CSC) and its cross-owned 

affiliates Dragon Steel Corporation 

(DSC), HiMag Magnetic Corporation 

(HIMAG) and China Steel Global 

Trading Corporation (CSGT) 

(collectively, CSC Companies) and 

Leicong Industrial Company, Ltd. 

(Leicong). 

The events that occurred since the 

Department published the Preliminary 

Determination on March 25, 2014,1 are 

discussed in the Memorandum to Paul 

Piquado, Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Issues 

and Decision Memorandum for the 

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination in the Countervailing 

Duty Investigation of Non-Oriented 

Electrical Steel from Taiwan’’ (Decision 

Memorandum), which is hereby 

adopted by this notice.2

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation for which 

we are measuring subsidies is January 1, 

2012, through December 31, 2012. 

Scope Comments 

In the AD Initiation Notice,3 the 

Department invited interested parties to 

‘‘to raise issues regarding product 

coverage.’’ On November 22, and 26, 

2013, Petitioner requested that the 

Department clarify the scope by 

lowering the minimum silicon content 

from 1.25 percent to 1.00 percent, 

removing altogether the maximum 

silicon content, and including language 

regarding surface oxide coating.4 On 

January 28, 2014, POSCO/DWI,5 a 

respondent in the companion less than 

fair value (LTFV) investigation of NOES 

from the Republic of Korea, filed scope 

comments with the Department in 

which it requested that the Department 

clarify whether laminations and cores, 

downstream products fabricated from 

NOES, and certain NOES specifications 

with silicon content less than the 

percentage identified in the scope of 

NOES investigations contained in the 

AD Initiation Notice, are covered by this 

and the companion investigations.6 On 

February 4, 2014, Petitioner responded 

to POSCO/DWI’s comments, stating (1) 

that laminations and cores are out of the 

scope of the investigations to the extent 

that exclusion only covers products that 

are suitable for use (without further 

processing) as a drop-in part of a core; 

and (2) that the Department should 

promptly implement the changes to the 

scope of the investigations relating to 

silicon content described in Petitioner’s 

Proposed Scope Changes, and clarify for 

POSCO/DWI the data that it should 

report to the Department.7

After analyzing the scope comments 

regarding silicon content and surface 

oxide coatings, the Department decided 

to lower the minimum silicon content 

identified in the scope from 1.25 

percent to 1.00 percent and to include 

language regarding surface oxide coating 

in the scope. However, the Department 

decided not to eliminate the maximum 

silicon content in the scope. For a 

complete discussion of these decisions 

see the memorandum to Christian 

Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations from Robert Bolling, 

Program Manager for AD/CVD 

Operations, Office IV, regarding ‘‘Scope 

Modification Requests,’’ dated April 10, 

2014, and hereby incorporated by 

reference into this memorandum. The 

scope language below reflects these 

decisions. 

With respect to the issue involving 

laminations and cores, POSCO/DWI 

described laminations as products that 

are cut from NOES into their finished 

shape by a punch and die or, when in 

smaller quantities, by laser or wire 

erosion.8 The laminations are 

subsequently assembled together to 

form laminated transformer cores or 

electric motor stator and rotor parts.9

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices 61603 

10POSCO refers to the production process for 

NOES described in the petitions and in the 

International Trade Commission’s preliminary 

determination that POSCO understands to mean 

that the NOES production process ends with 

slitting. Id., at 4. 11See Letter from POSCO/DWI to the 

Department, ‘‘Scope Clarification Requests,’’ dated 

January 28, 2014, at 3–4. 

12 Id., at 4–5. 

13 Id., at 5. 

14See Letter from Petitioner to the Department, 

‘‘Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from China, 

Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden and Taiwan/

Petitioner’s Response to POSCO’s Scope 

Clarification Requests,’’ dated February 4, 2014, at 

2. 

15See id. Referring to POSCO/DWI’s Scope 

Comments, Petitioner interprets POSCO/DWI’s 

statement, that POSCO/DWI uses the terms 

laminations and cores interchangeably in the 

normal course of business, to mean that laminations 

are a substitute for cores. 

16 Id. 

17 Id. 

18See Letter from Petitioner to the Department, 

‘‘Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from The People’s 

Republic of China, Germany, Japan, The Republic 

of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan: Scope Clarification 

Language,’’ dated May 12, 2014. 

19For a full description of the scope of this 

investigation, see the memorandum from Gary 

Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations 

to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination in the 

Countervailing Duty Investigation of Non-Oriented 

Electrical Steel from Taiwan’’ (Issues and Decision 

Memorandum), dated concurrently with this notice. 

POSCO/DWI commented that it 

understands that laminations and cores 

manufactured from NOES are products 

not subject to these investigations 

because NOES is manufactured in sheet 

or strip form, either in coils or in 

straight lengths, and any subsequent 

processing is not simply an extension of 

the NOES production process, but, 

instead, processing performed by the 

end user or by a fabricator that sells to 

the end user.10 POSCO/DWI commented 

that NOES is consumed exclusively in 

the production of laminated cores for 

transformers as well as stators and 

rotors for motors, and generators.11

Depending on the design requirements 

of an end user, the standard lamination 

products are cut ‘‘E,’’ ‘‘I,’’ or ‘‘U,’’ or 

varying combinations thereof, while 

highly complex lamination products are 

customized with numerous sides, 

curved edges, or numerous punched 

holes.12 POSCO/DWI commented that 

the process of converting NOES coil or 

strip into laminations or cores 

constitutes a substantial transformation 

into products with end uses and 

customer expectations different from 

those for NOES.13

In its reply to POSCO/DWI’s scope 

clarification request, Petitioner stated 

that it agrees with POSCO/DWI that 

laminations and cores are outside the 

intended scope of the NOES 

investigations.14 Petitioner commented 

that to the extent the term 

‘‘laminations’’ is used as a substitute for 

the term laminated ‘‘cores,’’ Petitioner 

likewise agrees that laminations that are 

ready for assembly into cores are 

excluded from the intended scope of the 

NOES investigations.15 Petitioner noted 

that it does not agree with POSCO/DWI 

that the production process for NOES 

necessarily ends with slitting; because 

the scope definition covers NOES 

‘‘whether or not in coils,’’ simply 

cutting to length or cutting blanks from 

a coil (whether slit or not) does not take 

such products out of the scope.16

Petitioner stated that it agrees 

nevertheless with POSCO/DWI that 

laminations cut from NOES to their 

finished shape and are otherwise 

suitable for use, without further 

processing, as a drop-in part of the core, 

are outside the intended scope of the 

NOES investigations.17

On the basis of Petitioner’s statements 

that it is not seeking relief from 

laminations and cores made from NOES, 

we modified the scope to reflect this 

exclusion.18

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise subject to this 

investigation consists of 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’’ 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 Oersteds) along (i.e., 

parallel to) the rolling direction of the 

sheet (i.e., B800 value). NOES contains 

by weight more than 1.00 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 has a surface oxide 

coating, to which an insulation coating 

may be applied. 

The subject merchandise is provided 

for in subheadings 7225.19.0000, 

7226.19.1000, and 7226.19.9000 of the 

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.19

Analysis of Subsidy Programs and 

Comments Received 

The subsidy programs under 

investigation and the issues raised in 

the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by 

parties in this investigation are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, dated concurrently with 

this notice. A list of subsidy programs 

and the issues that parties raised, and to 

which we responded in the Decision 

Memorandum, is attached to this notice 

as Appendix I. 

The Issues and Decision and Scope 

Memoranda are public documents and 

are on file electronically via 

Enforcement and Compliance’s 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Centralized Electronic Service System 

(IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to 

registered users at http://

iaaccess.trade.gov, and is available to all 

parties in the Central Records Unit, 

room 7046 of the main Department of 

Commerce building. In addition, 

complete versions of the Issues and 

Decision and Scope Memoranda can be 

accessed directly at http://enforcement.

trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed 

and the electronic versions of these 

memoranda are identical in content. 

Use of Facts Otherwise Available, 

Including Adverse Inferences 

For purposes of this final 

determination, we continue to apply 

adverse facts available (AFA) to Leicong 

in accordance with sections 776(a) and 

(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act). A full discussion of our 

decision to rely on AFA is presented in 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum 

under the section ‘‘Use of Facts 

Otherwise Available and Adverse 

Inferences.’’ 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated 

a rate for each respondent. Section 

705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that for 

companies not individually 

investigated, we will determine an ‘‘all 

others’’ rate equal to the weighted 

average countervailable subsidy rates 

established for exporters and producers 

individually investigated, excluding any 

zero and de minimis countervailable 

subsidy rates, and any rates determined 

entirely under section 776 of the Act. If 

the rates established for all exporters 

and producers individually investigated 

are zero, de minimis, or determined 

entirely under facts available, the 

Department may use any reasonable 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

61604 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices 

20See section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act. 21Other than entries produced and/or exported 

by the CSC Companies for which we calculated a 

de minimis rate in the Preliminary Determination. 

22 Id. 

method to establish an all-others rate.20

Leicong’s rate was determined entirely 

under facts available with an adverse 

inference. The CSC Companies’ rate is 

de minimis. Thus, in accordance with 

section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, we 

are applying as the all others rate the 

average of the rate calculated for 

Leicong and the rate calculated for the 

CSC Companies. 

We determine the total estimated net 

countervailable subsidy rates to be: 

Producer/exporter Subsidy rate 

(percent) 

China Steel Corporation (CSC) and its cross-owned affiliates Dragon Steel Corporation (DSC), HiMag Magnetic Corporation (HIMAG) and China Steel Global Trading Corporation (CSGT)(collectively, CSC Companies.).0.48 (de minimis). 

Leicong Industrial Company, Ltd (Leicong) ................................................................................................................................. 17.12. 

All Others ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 8.80. 

As a result of our Preliminary 

Determination and pursuant to section 

703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 

suspend liquidation of all entries of 

subject merchandise from Taiwan 21

which were entered or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

March 25, 2014, the date of the 

publication of the Preliminary 

Determination in the Federal Register. 

In accordance with section 703(d) of the 

Act, we later issued instructions to CBP 

to discontinue the suspension of 

liquidation for countervailing duty 

(CVD) purposes for subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

on or after July 23, 2014, but to continue 

the suspension of liquidation of all 

entries 22 from March 25, 2014, through 

July 22, 2014. 

If the U.S. International Trade 

Commission (ITC) issues a final 

affirmative injury determination, we 

will issue a CVD order and reinstate the 

suspension of liquidation under section 

706(a) of the Act and will require a cash 

deposit of estimated CVDs for such 

entries of merchandise in the amounts 

indicated above, other than those 

produced and exported by the CSC 

Companies because the CSC Companies’ 

rate is de minimis. If the ITC determines 

that material injury, or threat of material 

injury, does not exist, this proceeding 

will be terminated and all estimated 

duties deposited or securities posted as 

a result of the suspension of liquidation 

will be refunded or canceled. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 705(d) of 

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our 

determination. In addition, we are 

making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and non-proprietary 

information related to this investigation. 

We will allow the ITC access to all 

privileged and business proprietary 

information in our files, provided the 

ITC confirms that it will not disclose 

such information, either publicly or 

under an administrative protective order 

(APO), without the written consent of 

the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

In the event that the ITC issues a final 

negative injury determination, this 

notice will serve as the only reminder 

to parties subject to an APO of their 

responsibility concerning the 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of the return/

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation that is subject to 

sanction. 

This determination is published 

pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: October 6, 2014. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

Appendix I 

List of Subsidy Programs and Issues in the 

Decision Memorandum 

A. Programs Determined To Be 

Countervailable 

1. Tariff Exemption for Imported 

Equipment 

2. Income Tax Credit for Upgraded 

Equipment 

3. Shareholder’s Investment Tax Credit for 

Participation in Infrastructure Projects 

4. Shareholder’s Investment Tax Credit for 

Investment in Newly Emerging, 

Important and Strategic Industries 

5. Conventional Industry Technology 

Development 

6. Self-Evaluation Service 

7. Building and Land Value Tax Deduction 

for Supplying to Major Infrastructure 

Projects 

8. Major Infrastructure Projects—Land 

Lease Program 

B. Program Determined To Be Not 

Countervailable 

1. Income Tax Credit for Research and 

Development Expenses 

2. Partial Payment for Electricity Bill of 

Strong-Motion Observation Station 

C. Programs Determined To Not Confer a 

Benefit During the POI 

1. Industrial Technology Development 

Program 

2. Strengthen the Ability of Emerging 

Development Program 

3. Subsidy for Certain Photovoltaic Power 

Stations 

4. Payment for Trade Remedy Proceedings 

5. Five-Year Income Tax Exemption 

Incentive for New Investments 

6. Verification of Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Inventory 

D. Programs Determined To Be Not Used 

1. Income Tax Credits for Investment in 

Designated Regions 

2. Income Tax Credits for Participating in 

Infrastructure Projects 

3. Grants for Developing an International 

Image and Brand 

4. Subsidies for Companies that Invest in 

Industrial Parks 

E. Programs for Which More Information is 

Necessary 

1. Sustainable Employment Program 

F. Comments From Interested Parties 

Comment 1: Whether the CSC Companies 

Were Disproportionate Users of Certain 

Programs 

Comment 2: Whether the Industrial 

Technology Development Program and 

the Ability of Emerging Development 

Program are Separate Programs 

Comment 3: Whether Certain Programs Are 

De Facto Specific by Virtue of Limited 

Use 

Comment 4: Whether Benefits Under the 

Grants for Photovoltaic Power Stations 

(SCPPS) Program Are Tied to NonSubject Subject Merchandise 

Comment 5: Whether the Department 

Should Apply Total AFA to Leicong 

Comment 6: Whether the Department 

Should not Include Certain Programs in 

Leicong’s Total AFA Rate 

Comment 7: Whether Subsidies Under the 

Companies that Invest in Industrial Parks 

and Major Infrastructure Projects—Land 

Lease Programs Are Separate Programs 

Comment 8: Whether the Department 

Should Use Benefit and Sales Data from 

the TA to Calculate a Rate for Leicong 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices 61605 

1See Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the 

Republic of Korea: Preliminary Negative 

Countervailing Duty Determination, Preliminary 

Negative Critical Circumstances Determination, and 

Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty 

Determination With Final Antidumping Duty 

Determination, 79 FR 16295 (March 25, 2014) 

(Preliminary Determination). 

2See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant 

Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘PostPreliminary Analysis in the Countervailing Duty 

Investigation: Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from 

the Republic of Korea (Korea)’’ (May 8, 2014). 

3Public versions of all business proprietary 

documents and all public documents are on file 

electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). Access to 

IA ACCESS is available to registered users at 

http://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Department’s 

Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main 

Department of Commerce building. 

4See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

‘‘Programs Determined to be Countervailable.’’ 

with Regard to the Conventional 

Industry Technology Development 

Program and the Self Evaluation Service 

Program 

Comment 9: Whether the Verification of 

Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory 

Program is Countervailable with Regard 

Leicong 

Comment 10: Corroboration of the AFA 

Rate Applied to Leicong 

Comment 11: Calculation of the All-Others 

Rate 

[FR Doc. 2014–24375 Filed 10–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–580–873] 

Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the 

Republic of Korea: Final Negative 

Countervailing Duty Determination and 

Final Negative Critical Circumstances 

Determination 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) determines that de 

minimis countervailable subsidies are 

being provided to producers/exporters 

of non-oriented electrical steel (NOES) 

from the Republic of Korea (Korea). The 

period of investigation is January 1, 

2012, through December 31, 2012. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 14, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joshua Morris or Thomas Schauer, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1779 and (202) 

482–0410, respectively. 

Background 

The petitioner in this investigation is 

AK Steel Corporation (Petitioner). This 

investigation covers 29 government 

programs. In addition to the 

Government of Korea (GOK), the 

respondents in this investigation are 

POSCO and Daewoo International 

Corporation (DWI). 

Case History 

The following events have occurred 

since the Department published the 

Preliminary Determination on March 25, 

2014.1

On May 8, 2014, the Department 

issued a post-preliminary analysis 

memorandum.2 The Department 

conducted verification of the GOK, 

POSCO, and DWI’s questionnaire 

responses from May 13, through May 

23, 2014, and issued verification reports 

on June 24, 2014. The GOK submitted 

a case brief on July 8, 2014. No other 

party submitted a case or rebuttal brief. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise subject to this 

investigation consists of 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. For a complete 

description of the scope of the 

investigation, see Appendix I to this 

notice. 

Analysis of Subsidy Programs and 

Comments Received 

The subsidy programs under 

investigation and the issues raised in 

the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in 

this investigation are discussed in the 

Memorandum to Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance, ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final 

Determination in the Countervailing 

Duty Investigation of Non-Oriented 

Electrical Steel from the Republic of 

Korea’’ (Issues and Decision 

Memorandum),3 which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. A list of subsidy 

programs and the issues that parties 

have raised, and to which we responded 

in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, is attached to this notice 

as Appendix II. The Issues and Decision 

Memorandum is a public document and 

is on file electronically via IA ACCESS. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum can 

be accessed directly on the Internet at 

http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/

index.html. The signed Issues and 

Decision Memorandum and the 

electronic version of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Critical Circumstances 

On February 25, 2014, Petitioner 

alleged that critical circumstances exist 

with respect to imports of NOES from 

Korea. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.206(c)(2)(i), we issued a negative 

preliminary critical circumstances 

determination not later than the date of 

the preliminary determination. For this 

is final determination, since we do not 

find that POSCO benefitted from any 

subsidies inconsistent with the World 

Trade Organization Agreement on 

Subsidies and Countervailing 

Measures,4 we have not analyzed 

whether there were massive imports of 

the subject merchandise over a 

relatively short period. Accordingly, 

pursuant section 705(a)(2) of the Act, we 

do not find that critical circumstances 

exist with regard to imports of NOES 

from Korea. 

Final Determination 

As discussed in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, we attributed 

the benefit from subsidies to DWI to the 

combined sales of DWI and POSCO (less 

inter-company sales). In accordance 

with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we 

calculated a de minimis rate for POSCO/ 

DWI. 

We determine the total estimated net 

countervailable subsidy rates to be: 

Company Subsidy rate 

POSCO and Daewoo 

International Corporation.

0.65 percent (ad 

valorem). 

Consistent with section 705(c)(1)(B) of 

the Act, the Department has not 

calculated an all-others rate because it 

has not reached an affirmative final 

determination. Because the estimated 

subsidy margins for the examined 

companies are de minimis, we are not 

directing U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection to suspend liquidation of 

entries of NOES from Korea. 

United States International Trade 

Commission (USITC) Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we notified the USITC of our 

final determination. As our final 

determination is negative, this 

proceeding is terminated. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES