Notice2024-08675
Ferrosilicon From Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and the Russian Federation: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 24, 2024
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentInternational Trade Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31133-31137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-08675]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-351-861, C-834-813, C-557-829, C-821-839]
Ferrosilicon From Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and the Russian
Federation: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Applicable April 17, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Palmer or Laurel Smalley (Brazil),
Lana Nigro (Kazakhstan), John McGowan or Suresh Maniam (Malaysia), and
Mark Hoadley (the Russian Federation (Russia)), AD/CVD Operations,
Offices VIII, VII, and I, Enforcement and Compliance, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-9068, (202) 482-
3456, (202) 482-1779, (202) 482-0461, (202) 482-1603, and (202) 482-
3148, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petitions
On March 28, 2024, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce)
received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of
ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Russia filed in
proper form on behalf of CC Metals and Alloys, LLC and Ferroglobe USA,
Inc. (the petitioners).\1\ The CVD petitions were accompanied by
antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of ferrosilicon from
Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Russia.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Petitions for the Imposition of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties,'' dated March 28, 2024 (the
Petitions).
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between April 1 and 2, 2024, Commerce requested supplemental
information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions.\3\ Between
April 3 and 8, 2024, the petitioners filed timely responses to these
requests for additional information.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Commerce's Letters, ``Petition for the Imposition of
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Ferrosilicon from Brazil:
Supplemental Questions,'' dated April 1, 2024; ``Petition for the
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Ferrosilicon from
Kazakhstan: Supplemental Questions Regarding Volume V,'' dated April
2, 2024; ``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on
Imports of Ferrosilicon from Malaysia: Supplemental Questions,''
dated April 1, 2024; ``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing
Duties on Imports of Ferrosilicon from the Russian Federation:
Supplemental Questions regarding Volume IX,'' dated April 1, 2024;
and ``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties on Imports of Ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia,
and the Russian Federation: Supplemental Questions,'' dated April 1,
2024.
\4\ See Petitioners' Letters, ``Petitioners' Response to
Supplemental Questions--General Issues,'' dated April 3, 2024
(General Issues Supplement); ``Ferrosilicon from Brazil: Response to
Supplemental Questionnaire for Volume III of the Petition,'' dated
April 5, 2024; ``Ferrosilicon from Kazakhstan: Response to
Supplemental Questionnaire for Volume V of the Petition,'' dated
April 8, 2024; ``Ferrosilicon from Malaysia: Response to
Supplemental Questions for Volume VII of the Petition,'' dated April
3, 2024; and ``Ferrosilicon from the Russian Federation: Response to
Supplemental Questions Regarding Volume IX of the Petition,'' dated
April 5, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that the Government of Brazil
(GOB), the Government of Kazakhstan (GOK), the Government of Malaysia
(GOM), and the Government of Russia (GOR) (collectively, Governments)
are providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections
701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of ferrosilicon from Brazil,
Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Russia, and that such imports are materially
injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry
producing ferrosilicon in the United States. Consistent with section
702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs
on which we are initiating CVD investigations, the Petitions were
accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners
supporting their allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf
of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties
as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that
the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect
to the initiation of the requested CVD investigations.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See section on ``Determination of Industry Support for the
Petitions,'' infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Periods of Investigation
Because the Petitions were filed on March 28, 2024, the periods of
investigation (POI) for Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Russia are
January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise covered by these investigations is ferrosilicon
from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Russia. For a full description
of the scope of these investigations, see the appendix to this notice.
[[Page 31134]]
Comments on the Scope of the Investigations
As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are
setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding
product coverage (i.e., scope).\7\ Commerce will consider all comments
received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with
interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary
determinations. If scope comments include factual information, all such
factual information should be limited to public information.\8\ To
facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that
scope comments be submitted by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on May 7,
2024, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this
notice.\9\ Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual
information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 17, 2024, which is 10
calendar days from the initial comment deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule,
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997) (Preamble).
\8\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ``factual
information'').
\9\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce requests that any factual information that parties
consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted
during that time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that
additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the
investigations may be relevant, the party must contact Commerce and
request permission to submit the additional information. All scope
comments must be filed simultaneously on the records of the concurrent
AD and CVD investigations.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via
Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception
applies.\10\ An electronically filed document must be received
successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and
Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046
(November 20, 2014), for details of Commerce's electronic filing
requirements, effective August 5, 2011. Information on using ACCESS
can be found at <a href="https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx">https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx</a> and a handbook
can be found at <a href="https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook_on_Electronic_Filing_Procedures.pdf">https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook_on_Electronic_Filing_Procedures.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consultations
Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce
notified the Governments of the receipt of the Petitions and provided
an opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petitions.\11\
Commerce held consultations with the GOB on April 10, 2024,\12\ the GOK
on April 17, 2024,\13\ the GOM on April 16, 2024,\14\ and the GOR on
April 9, 2024.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Commerce's Letters, ``Countervailing Duty Petition on
Ferrosilicon from Brazil: Invitation for Consultations to Discuss
the Countervailing Duty Petition,'' dated April 1, 2024;
``Invitation for Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty
Petition on Ferrosilicon from Kazakhstan,'' dated March 29, 2024;
``Countervailing Duty Petition on Ferrosilicon from Malaysia:
Invitation for Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty
Petition,'' dated March 28, 2024; and ``Invitation for Consultations
to Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition on Ferrosilicon from the
Russian Federation,'' dated March 28, 2024.
\12\ See Memorandum, ``Consultations with Officials from the
Government of Brazil,'' dated April 11, 2024.
\13\ See Memorandum, ``Consultations with Officials from the
Government of Kazakhstan,'' dated April 17, 2024.
\14\ See Memorandum, ``Consultations with the Government of
Malaysia,'' dated April 16, 2024.
\15\ See Memorandum, ``Consultations with the Government of
Russia Regarding the Countervailing Duty Petition on Ferrosilicon
from the Russian Federation,'' dated April 9, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce 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 Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The U.S. 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 Commerce and the
ITC apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like
product,\16\ they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a
separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce'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.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\17\ 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
petition).
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope
of the investigations.\18\ Based on our analysis of the information
submitted on the record, we have determined that ferrosilicon, as
described in the domestic like product definition set forth in the
Petitions, constitutes a single domestic like product, and we have
analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Petitions at Volume I (pages 15-18 and Exhibits I-1 and
I-9).
\19\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as
applied to these cases and information regarding industry support,
see CVD Investigation Initiation Checklists: Ferrosilicon from
Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and the Russian Federation, dated
concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Country-
Specific CVD Initiation Checklists), at Attachment II, Analysis of
Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Petitions Covering Ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia,
and the Russian Federation (Attachment II). These checklists are on
file electronically via ACCESS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data
contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in the
[[Page 31135]]
appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners
provided their own production of the domestic like product in 2023.\20\
The petitioners stated that there are no other known producers of
ferrosilicon in the United States and provided information to support
their claim; therefore, the Petitions are supported by 100 percent of
the U.S. industry.\21\ We relied on data provided by the petitioners
for purposes of measuring industry support.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Petitions at Volume I (page 3 and Exhibit I-4); see
also General Issues Supplement at 5.
\21\ See Petitions at Volume I (pages 2-3 and Exhibit I-3); see
also General Issues Supplement at 4 and Attachment 2.
\22\ See Petitions at Volume I (pages 2-3 and Exhibits I-3 and
I-4); see also General Issues Supplement at 4-5 and Attachment 2.
For further discussion, see Attachment II of the Country-Specific
CVD Initiation Checklists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the General
Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce
indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for
the Petitions.\23\ 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,
Commerce is not required to take further action to evaluate industry
support (e.g., polling).\24\ Second, the domestic producers (or
workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under
section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product.\25\ Finally, the
domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for
industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the
domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for
more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or
opposition to, the Petitions.\26\ Accordingly, Commerce determines that
the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the
meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Petitions at Volume I (pages 2-3 and Exhibits I-3 and
I-4); see also General Issues Supplement at 4-5 and Attachment 2.
For further discussion, see Attachment II of the Country-Specific
CVD Initiation Checklists.
\24\ See Attachment II of the Country-Specific CVD Initiation
Checklists; see also section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act.
\25\ See Attachment II of the Country-Specific CVD Initiation
Checklists.
\26\ Id.
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury Test
Because Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Russia are ``Subsidies
Agreement Countries'' within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act,
section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations.
Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject
merchandise from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and/or Russia materially
injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
The petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are
benefiting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are
causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry
producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioners
allege that subject imports from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and
Russia exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section
771(24)(A) of the Act.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Petitions at Volume I (page 20 and Exhibit I-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by the significant and increasing volume of subject
imports; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; low
capacity utilization rates; lost sales and revenues; and adverse effect
on financial performance.\29\ We assessed the allegations and
supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material
injury, causation, cumulation, as well as negligibility, and we have
determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate
evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Petitions at Volume I (pages 20-47 and Exhibits I-1, I-
2, I-4, and I-8 through I-44).
\30\ See Country-Specific CVD Initiation Checklists at
Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Petitions Covering Ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia,
and the Russian Federation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of CVD Investigations
Based upon the examination of the Petitions and supplemental
responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 702 of
the Act. Therefore, we are initiating CVD investigations to determine
whether imports of ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and
Russia benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOB,
GOK, GOM, and the GOR, respectively. In accordance with section
703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we
will make our preliminary determinations no later than 65 days after
the date of these initiations.
Brazil
Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 19 of the
programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the basis
for our decision to initiate on each program, see the Brazil CVD
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for
this investigation is available on ACCESS.
Kazakhstan
Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all 21 of the
programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the basis
for our decision to initiate on each program, see the Kazakhstan CVD
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for
this investigation is available on ACCESS.
Malaysia
Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all 13
programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the basis
for our decision to initiate on each program, see the Malaysia CVD
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for
this investigation is available on ACCESS.
Russia
Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all 23 of the
programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the basis
for our decision to initiate on each program, see the Russia CVD
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for
this investigation is available on ACCESS.
Respondent Selection
In the Petitions, the petitioners identify 11 companies in Brazil,
five companies in Kazakhstan, two companies in Malaysia, and 11
companies in Russia as producers and/or exporters of ferrosilicon.\31\
With respect to Malaysia, the GOM provided comments in which it stated
that there are four producers of ferrosilicon in
[[Page 31136]]
Malaysia.\32\ Commerce intends to follow its standard practice in CVD
investigations and calculate company-specific subsidy rates in these
investigations. In the event that Commerce determines that the number
of companies is large and it cannot individually examine each company
based on Commerce's resources, where appropriate, Commerce intends to
select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
data for U.S. imports of ferrosilicon during the POI under the
appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States subheadings
listed within the ``Scope of the Investigations'' in the appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Petitions at Volume I (page 10 and Exhibit I-6).
\32\ See Memorandum, ``Countervailing Duty Petition on
Ferrosilicon from Malaysia: Government of Malaysia Statements for
the Consultations,'' dated April 16, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 11, 2024, Commerce released the CBP data for imports of
ferrosilicon from Russia and, on April 12, 2024, from Brazil,
Kazakhstan, and Malaysia under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to
all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated
that interested parties wishing to comment regarding the CBP data and/
or respondent selection must do so within three business days of the
publication date of the notice of initiation of these
investigations.\33\ Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS.
An electronically filed document must be received successfully, in its
entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the date noted above.
Commerce will not accept rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or
respondent selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Memoranda, ``Countervailing Duty Petition on
Ferrosilicon from Brazil: Release of Data from U.S. Customs and
Border Protection,'' dated April 12, 2024; ``Countervailing Duty
Petition on Ferrosilicon from Kazakhstan: Release of Data from U.S.
Customs and Border Protection,'' dated April 12, 2024;
``Countervailing Duty Petition on Imports of Ferrosilicon from
Malaysia: Release of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Entry
Data,'' dated April 12, 2024; and ``Ferrosilicon from the Russian
Federation: Release of Data from U.S. Customs and Border
Protection,'' dated April 10, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such
applications may be found on Commerce's website at <a href="https://www.trade.gov/administrative-protective-orders">https://www.trade.gov/administrative-protective-orders</a>.
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petitions has been
provided to the GOB, GOK, GOM, and GOR via 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).
ITC Notification
Commerce will notify the ITC of its initiation, as required by
section 702(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date
on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable
indication that imports of ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan,
Malaysia, and/or Russia are materially injuring, or threatening
material injury to, a U.S. industry.\34\ A negative ITC determination
for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with
respect to that country.\35\ Otherwise, these CVD investigations will
proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.
\35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of Factual Information
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i)
evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence
submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available
information to value factors of production 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 Commerce; and (v) evidence other
than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of
Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual
information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)
the information is being submitted \36\ and, if the information is
submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on
the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information
already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut,
clarify, or correct.\37\ Time limits for the submission of factual
information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific
time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted.
Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting
factual information in these investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
\37\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extensions of Time Limits
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the
expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as
otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will
be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time
limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by
Commerce.\38\ For submissions that are due from multiple parties
simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it
is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain
circumstances, Commerce 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, we
will inform parties in a letter or memorandum of the deadline
(including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed
to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a
separate, standalone submission; under limited circumstances we will
grant untimely filed requests for the extension of time limits, where
we determine, based on 19 CFR 351.302, that extraordinary circumstances
exist. Parties should review Commerce's regulations concerning the
extension of time limits and the Time Limits Final Rule prior to
submitting factual information in these investigations.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See 19 CFR 351.302.
\39\ See 19 CFR 351.301; see also Extension of Time Limits;
Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013) (Time Limits Final
Rule), available at <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm">https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\40\
Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR
351.303(g).\41\ Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\41\ 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
<a href="https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf">https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate
in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements
of 19 CFR 351.103(d) (e.g., by filing the required letters of
appearance). Note that
[[Page 31137]]
Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the
service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f).\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See Administrative Protective Order, Service, and Other
Procedures in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 88 FR
67069 (September 29, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and
777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
Dated: April 17, 2024.
Ryan Majerus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the
non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix
Scope of the Investigations
The scope of these investigations covers all forms and sizes of
ferrosilicon, regardless of grade, including ferrosilicon
briquettes. Ferrosilicon is a ferroalloy containing by weight four
percent or more iron, more than eight percent but not more than 96
percent silicon, three percent or less phosphorus, 30 percent or
less manganese, less than three percent magnesium, and 10 percent or
less any other element. The merchandise covered also includes
product described as slag, if the product meets these
specifications.
Subject merchandise includes material matching the above
description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise processed
in a third country, including by performing any grinding or any
other finishing, packaging, or processing that would not otherwise
remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigations if
performed in the country of manufacture of the ferrosilicon.
Ferrosilicon is currently classifiable under subheadings
7202.21.1000, 7202.21.5000, 7202.21.7500, 7202.21.9000,
7202.29.0010, and 7202.29.0050 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States (HTSUS). While the HTSUS numbers are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the
scope remains dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2024-08675 Filed 4-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 24, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.