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

61606 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices 

1See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 79 

FR 6163 (February 3, 2014). 

2See Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From 

China; Institution of a Five-Year Review; 79 FR 

6225 (February 3, 2014). 

3See Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 

Expedited Second Sunset Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order, 79 FR 26207 (May 7, 

2014). 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to an 

administrative protective order (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 issued and 

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 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise subject to this 

investigation consists of non-oriented 

electrical steel (NOES), which includes coldrolled, flat-rolled, alloy steel products, 

whether or not in coils, regardless of width, 

having an actual thickness of 0.20 mm or 

more, in which the core loss is substantially 

equal in any direction of magnetization in the 

plane of the material. The term ‘‘substantially 

equal’’ 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. 

NOES is subject to this investigation 

whether it is fully processed (i.e., fully 

annealed to develop final magnetic 

properties) or semi-processed (i.e., finished 

to final thickness and physical form but not 

fully annealed to develop final magnetic 

properties). Fully processed NOES is 

typically made to the requirements of ASTM 

specification A 677, Japanese Industrial 

Standards (JIS) specification C 2552, and/or 

International Electrotechnical Commission 

(IEC) specification 60404–8–4. Semiprocessed NOES is typically made to the 

requirements of ASTM specification A 683. 

However, the scope of this investigation is 

not limited to merchandise meeting the 

ASTM, JIS, and IEC specifications noted 

immediately above. 

NOES is sometimes referred to as coldrolled non-oriented (CRNO), non-grain 

oriented (NGO), non-oriented (NO), or coldrolled non-grain oriented (CRNGO) electrical 

steel. These terms are interchangeable. 

Excluded from the scope of this 

investigation are flat-rolled products not in 

coils that, prior to importation into the 

United States, have been cut to a shape and 

undergone all punching, coating, or other 

operations necessary for classification in 

Chapter 85 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) as a 

part (i.e., lamination) for use in a device such 

as a motor, generator, or transformer. 

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. 

Appendix II 

List of Comments and Issues in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Scope of the Investigation 

IV. Subsidies Valuation Analysis of Programs 

V. Analysis of Programs 

VI. Analysis of Comments 

Comment 1 Minor Corrections at the 

Verification of the Government of Korea 

Comment 2 Regional Specificity and the 

Restriction of Special Taxation Act 

(RSTA) Article 26 

Comment 3 The Use of Corporate Tax 

Returns in De Facto Specificity Analysis 

for RSTA Tax Deduction Programs 

Comment 4 Analyzing the Number of 

Recipients of Certain RSTA Tax 

Programs Based on Average Life Span of 

Purchased Assets 

Comment 5 Analyzing RSTA Articles 

10(1)(1), 10(1)(2), and 10(1)(3) as One 

Program 

Comment 6 The Number of RSTA Tax 

Incentives Recipients and ‘‘Limited’’ 

Comment 7 The Korea Export-Import 

Bank as an ‘‘Authority’’ 

Comment 8 Support for Acquisitions of 

Foreign Mines Program and De Jure 

Specificity 

Comment 9 Loans from the Korean 

Resources Corporation and the Korea 

National Oil Corporation and De Jure 

Specificity 

Comment 10 The Financial Contribution 

of DWI’s Debt Workout 

Comment 11 DWI’s Debt to the Korea 

Export Insurance Corporation 

VII. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2014–24379 Filed 10–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–882] 

Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Continuation of Antidumping Duty 

Order 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: As a result of the 

determinations by the Department of 

Commerce (Department) and the 

International Trade Commission (ITC) 

that revocation of the antidumping duty 

(AD) order on refined brown aluminum 

oxide (RBAO) from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC) would likely 

lead to a continuation or recurrence of 

dumping and material injury to an 

industry in the United States, the 

Department is publishing this notice of 

continuation of the AD order. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 14, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Terre Keaton Stefanova, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office II, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1280. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 3, 2014, the Department 

initiated 1 and the ITC instituted 2 fiveyear (‘‘sunset’’) reviews of the AD order 

on RBAO from the PRC pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act). As a result of its 

review, the Department determined that 

revocation of the AD order on RBAO 

from the PRC would likely lead to a 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and, therefore, notified the ITC of the 

magnitude of the margins likely to 

prevail should the order be revoked.3

On October 6, 2014, the ITC published 

its determination, pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the 

AD order on RBAO from the PRC would 

likely lead to a continuation or 

recurrence of material injury to an 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES