Notice2025-09028
Silicon Metal From Australia, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Norway, and Thailand: 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
May 21, 2025
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentInternational Trade Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 97 (Wednesday, May 21, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 97 (Wednesday, May 21, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21746-21750]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-09028]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-602-814, C-553-002, C-403-807, C-549-856]
Silicon Metal From Australia, the Lao People's Democratic
Republic, Norway, and Thailand: Initiation of Countervailing Duty
Investigations
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Applicable May 14, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kyle Clahane at (202) 482-5449
(Australia), Shane Subler at (202) 482-6241 (the Lao People's
Democratic Republic (Laos)), Mary Kolberg at (202) 482-1785 (Norway),
and George McMahon at (202) 482-1167 (Thailand), AD/CVD Operations,
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC
20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petitions
On April 24, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce)
received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of
silicon metal from Australia, Laos, Norway, and Thailand filed in
proper form on behalf of Ferroglobe USA, Inc. and Mississippi Silicon
LLC (the petitioners), domestic producers of silicon metal.\1\ The CVD
Petitions were accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) petitions
concerning imports of silicon metal from Angola, Australia, Laos, and
Norway.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Petitions for the Imposition of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties,'' dated April 24, 2025
(Petitions).
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between April 28 and May 5, 2025, Commerce requested supplemental
information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions in
supplemental questionnaires.\3\ Between April 30 and May 6, 2025, the
petitioners filed timely responses to these requests for additional
information.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Commerce's Letters, ``Supplemental Questions,'' dated
April 30, 2025 (First General Issues Questionnaire) and ``Country-
Specific CVD Supplemental Questionnaires: Australia CVD
Supplemental, Laos CVD Supplemental, Norway CVD Supplemental, and
Thailand CVD Supplemental,'' dated May 1, 2025, April 29, 2025,
April 28, 2025, and April 29, 2025, respectively; see also
``Supplemental Questions,'' dated May 5, 2025 (Second General Issues
Questionnaire).
\4\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Petitioners' Response to
Supplemental Questions--General Issues,'' dated May 1, 2025 (First
General Issues Supplement); see also ``Country-Specific CVD
Supplemental Responses: Australia CVD Supplement, Laos CVD
Supplement, and Norway CVD Supplement, and Thailand CVD
Supplement,'' dated May 6, 2025, May 2, 2025, April 30, 2025, and
May 2, 2025, respectively; and ``Petitioners' Response to Second
General Issues Questionnaire,'' dated May 6, 2025 (Second General
Issues Supplement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that the Government of
Australia (GOA), Government of Laos (GOL), Government of Norway (GON),
and Government of Thailand (GOT) (collectively, Governments) are
providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701
and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of silicon metal in Australia,
Laos, Norway, and Thailand, and that such imports are materially
injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry
producing silicon metal 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
[[Page 21747]]
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 April 24, 2025, the period of
investigation for the Australia, Laos, Norway, and Thailand CVD
investigations is January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Investigations
The product covered by these investigations is silicon metal from
Australia, Laos, Norway, and Thailand. For a full description of the
scope of these investigations, see the appendix to this notice.
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\
Commerce requests that interested parties provide at the beginning of
their scope comments a public executive summary for each comment or
issue raised in their submission. Commerce further requests that
interested parties limit their public executive summary of each comment
or issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. Commerce
intends to use the public executive summaries as the basis of the
comment summaries included in the analysis of scope comments. To
facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that
scope comments be submitted by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on June 3,
2025, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice.
Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, and
should also be limited to public information, must be filed by 5:00
p.m. ET on June 13, 2025, 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce requests that any factual information that parties
consider relevant to the scope of these 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.\9\ An electronically filed document must be received
successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 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 GOA, GOL, GON, and GOT of the receipt of the Petitions and
provided an opportunity for consultations with respect to the
Petitions.\10\ Commerce held consultations with the GOA on May 13,
2025,\11\ the GON on May 12, 2025,\12\ and the GOT on May 8, 2025.\13\
The GOL did not request consultations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Commerce's Letters, ``Invitation for Consultations to
Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition,'' dated April 28, 2025.
\11\ See Memorandum, ``Consultations with the Government of
Australia,'' dated May 13, 2025; see also GOA's Letter, ``GOA's
Submission,'' dated May 13, 2025.
\12\ See Memorandum, ``Consultations with the Government of
Norway,'' dated May 12, 2025; see also GON's Letter, ``GON's
Submission,'' dated May 12, 2025.
\13\ See Memorandum, ``Consultations with the Government of
Thailand,'' dated May 8, 2025; see also GOT's Letter, ``Invitation
for Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition,''
dated May 8, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,\14\ 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.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\15\ 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 Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United
States, 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
[[Page 21748]]
definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the
investigations.\16\ Based on our analysis of the information submitted
on the record, we have determined that silicon metal, as defined in the
scope, constitutes a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed
industry support in terms of that domestic like product.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Petitions at Volume I (pages 16-19 and Exhibits I-1,
and I-9 through I-20).
\17\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as
applied to these cases and information regarding industry support,
see Checklists, ``Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation
Checklists: Silicon Metal from Australia, the Lao People's
Democratic Republic, Norway, and Thailand,'' 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 Silicon Metal from Angola, Australia, Laos, Norway, and
Thailand (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 appendix to
this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided
their own production of the domestic like product in 2024.\18\ The
petitioners identified themselves as the only two producers of silicon
metal in the United States; therefore, the Petitions are supported by
100 percent of the U.S. industry.\19\ We relied on data provided by the
petitioners for purposes of measuring industry support.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Id.
\19\ Id.
\20\ For further discussion, see Attachment II of the Country-
Specific CVD Initiation Checklists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the First General
Issues Supplement, Second General Issues Supplement, and other
information readily available to Commerce indicates that the
petitioners have established industry support for the Petitions.\21\
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 in order to evaluate industry support (e.g.,
polling).\22\ 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.\23\ 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.\24\ 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.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Id.
\22\ Id.; see also section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act.
\23\ See Attachment II of the Country-Specific CVD Initiation
Checklists.
\24\ Id.
\25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury Test
Because Australia, Laos, Norway, and Thailand 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 Australia, Laos, Norway, and/or Thailand 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 Australia, Laos, and Norway exceed the
negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the
Act.\26\ Further, in the instance of a CVD petition, section 771(24)(B)
of the Act provides that imports of subject merchandise from developing
and least developed countries must exceed the negligibility threshold
of four percent. The petitioner also demonstrates that imports from
Laos, which has been designated as a least developed country under
section 771(36)(B) of the Act, exceed the negligibility threshold of
four percent.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ For further information regarding negligibility and the
injury allegation, see Country-Specific CVD Initiation Checklists at
Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation for the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing
Duty Petitions Covering Silicon Metal from Angola, Australia, the
Lao People's Democratic Republic, Norway, and Thailand (Attachment
III).
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to Thailand, while the allegedly subsidized imports do
not exceed the statutory requirements for negligibility,\28\ the
petitioners allege and provide supporting evidence that there is the
potential that imports from Thailand will imminently exceed the
negligibility threshold and, therefore, are not negligible for purposes
of a threat determination.\29\ The petitioners' arguments regarding the
potential for imports to imminently exceed the negligibility threshold
are consistent with the statutory criteria for ``negligibility in
threat analysis'' under section 771(24)(A)(iv) of the Act, which
provides that imports shall not be treated as negligible if there is a
potential that subject imports from a country will imminently exceed
the statutory requirements for negligibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Id.
\29\ Id.; see also section 771(24)(A)(iv) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by the significant increase in the volume of subject
imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression and/or
suppression; lost sales and revenues; and adverse impact on financial
performance.\30\ 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.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Attachment III of the Country-Specific CVD Initiation
Checklists.
\31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 silicon metal from Australia, Laos, Norway, and
Thailand benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOA,
GOL, GON, and GOT, 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 this
initiation.
Australia
Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on nine of the
nine programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the
basis for our
[[Page 21749]]
decision to initiate on each program, see the Australia CVD Initiation
Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this
investigation is available on ACCESS.
Laos
Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 12 of the 14
programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the basis
for our decision to initiate on each program, see the Laos CVD
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for
this investigation is available on ACCESS.
Norway
Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 11 of the 11
programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the basis
for our decision to initiate on each program, see the Norway CVD
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for
this investigation is available on ACCESS.
Thailand
Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 16 of the 16
programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the basis
for our decision to initiate on each program, see the Thailand CVD
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for
this investigation is available on ACCESS.
Respondent Selection
Australia, Laos, and Thailand
In the Petitions, the petitioners identified one company in
Australia (i.e., Simcoa Operations (Silicon Metal Company of
Australia)), one company in Laos (i.e., Lao Silicon Co., Ltd.), and two
companies in Thailand (i.e., G.S. Energy Co., Ltd. and Sica New
Materials (Thailand) Co., Ltd.) as producers and/or exporters of
silicon metal and provided independent third-party information as
support.\32\ We currently know of no additional producers/exporters of
silicon metal from Australia, Laos, or Thailand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Petitions at Volume I (page 10-11 and Exhibit 6); see
also First General Issues Supplement at 3-4 and Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, Commerce intends to individually examine all known
producers/exporters in the investigations from Australia, Laos, and
Thailand (i.e., the companies mentioned above). We invite interested
parties to comment on this issue. Such comments may include factual
information within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21). Parties
wishing to comment must do so within three business days of the
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Comments must be
filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document
must be received successfully in its entirety via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m.
ET on the specified deadline. Because we intend to examine all known
producers/exporters in Australia, Laos, and Thailand, if no comments
are received, or if comments received further support the existence of
only these producers/exporters, we do not intend to conduct respondent
selection and will proceed to issuing the initial CVD questionnaires to
the companies identified. However, if comments are received which
create a need for a respondent selection process, we intend to finalize
our decision regarding respondent selection for Australia, Laos, and
Thailand within 20 days of publication of this notice.
Norway
In the Petitions, the petitioners identified three companies in
Norway as producers and/or exporters of silicon metal.\33\ Commerce
intends to follow its standard practice in CVD investigations and
calculate company-specific subsidy rates in the investigations.
Following standard practice in CVD investigations, in the event
Commerce determines that the number of companies is large, and it
cannot individually examine each company based upon Commerce's
resources, where appropriate, Commerce intends to select mandatory
respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for
imports under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS) subheading(s) listed in the ``Scope of the
Investigations,'' in the appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Petitions at Volume I (page 10-11 and Exhibit 6); see
also First General Issues Supplement at 4-5 and Attachments 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 12, 2025, Commerce released CBP data on imports of silicon
metal from Norway under administrative protective order (APO) to all
parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that
interested parties wishing to comment on 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.\34\ Comments must
be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document
must be received successfully in its entirety via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m.
ET on the specified deadline. Commerce will not accept rebuttal
comments regarding the CBP data or respondent selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Country-Specific Memoranda, ``Release of U.S. Customs
and Border Protection Entry Data,'' dated May 12, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 GOA, GOL, GON, and GOT 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 Determinations 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 silicon metal from Australia, Laos, Norway,
and/or Thailand are materially injuring, or threatening material injury
to, a U.S. industry.\35\ A negative ITC determination for either
country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect
to that country.\36\ Otherwise, these CVD investigations will proceed
according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.
\36\ 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
[[Page 21750]]
subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
\37\ 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.\38\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
\38\ 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.\39\ 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.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See 19 CFR 351.302.
\40\ 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.\41\
Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR
351.303(g).\42\ Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\42\ 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 Commerce has amended certain of its requirements
pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f).\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ 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: May 14, 2025.
Christopher Abbott,
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
silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal
contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon,
and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor
grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon
by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded
from the scope of these investigations.
Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings
2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While the HTSUS numbers
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written
description of the scope remains dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2025-09028 Filed 5-20-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on May 21, 2025.
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.