Silicomanganese From India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela: Final Results of the Expedited Second Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 9034-9035 [2013-02822]

Download as PDF 9034 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2013 / Notices Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) initiated the second sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on silicomanganese from India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela. The Department finds that revocation of these antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the rates identified in the ‘‘Final Results of Reviews’’ section of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Carey, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–3964. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: to the notice of initiation from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). In the sunset review of the antidumping order on silicomanganese from India, we received one response from a respondent interested party, Nava Bharat Ventures Limited (‘‘Nava Bharat’’) 1 on November 7, 2012, and found that Nava Bharat provided an inadequate response because it did not export subject merchandise to the United States over the five calendar years preceding the initiation of this review.2 The Department received no responses from other respondent interested parties. On the basis of notices of intent to participate and adequate substantive responses filed on behalf of domestic interested parties, and the inadequate response from the only respondent interested party to have filed a submission, Nava Bharat, the Department has conducted expedited sunset reviews of these orders pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C). As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the rates indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of Reviews’’ section of this notice. Background Scope of the Orders The antidumping duty orders on silicomanganese from India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela were published on May 23, 2002. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Orders: Silicomanganese from India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela, 67 FR 36149 (May 23, 2002). On October 1, 2012, the Department initiated the second sunset reviews of these orders, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 77 FR 59897 (October 1, 2012) (‘‘notice of initiation’’). The Department received a notice of intent to participate from the following domestic parties: Eramet Marietta, Inc. and Felman Production, LLC (collectively, ‘‘domestic interested parties’’), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). Each of these companies is a manufacturer of a domestic-like product in the United States and, accordingly, is a domestic interested party pursuant to section 771(9)(C) of the Act. On October 31, 2012, the Department received adequate substantive responses For purposes of these orders, the products covered are all forms, sizes and compositions of silicomanganese, except low-carbon silicomanganese, including silicomanganese briquettes, fines and slag. Silicomanganese is a ferroalloy composed principally of manganese, silicon and iron, and normally contains much smaller proportions of minor elements, such as carbon, phosphorous and sulfur. Silicomanganese is sometimes referred to as ferrosilicon manganese. Silicomanganese is used primarily in steel production as a source of both silicon and manganese. Silicomanganese generally contains by weight not less than 4 percent iron, more than 30 percent manganese, more than 8 percent silicon and not more than 3 percent phosphorous. Silicomanganese is properly classifiable DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–533–823; A–834–807; A–307–820] Silicomanganese From India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela: Final Results of the Expedited Second Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. AGENCY: mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES DATES: Effective Date: February 7, 2013. SUMMARY: On October 1, 2012, the VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:45 Feb 06, 2013 Jkt 229001 1 On October 19, 2012, Nava Bharat requested an extension of time to file its substantive response. The Department granted an extension until November 7, 2012. 2 See Memorandum from Sunset Team to Barbara E. Tillman, Director, Office of AD/CVD Operations 6 regarding ‘‘Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Silicomanganese from India: Adequacy Determination,’’ dated November 23, 2012. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 under subheading 7202.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Some silicomanganese may also be classified under HTSUS subheading 7202.99.5040. The low-carbon silicomanganese excluded from this scope is a ferroalloy with the following chemical specifications: Minimum 55 percent manganese, minimum 27 percent silicon, minimum 4 percent iron, maximum 0.10 percent phosphorus, maximum 0.10 percent carbon and maximum 0.05 percent sulfur. Lowcarbon silicomanganese is used in the manufacture of stainless steel and special carbon steel grades, such as motor lamination grade steel, requiring a very low carbon content. It is sometimes referred to as ferromanganese-silicon. Low-carbon silicomanganese is classifiable under HTSUS subheading 7202.99.5040. This scope covers all silicomanganese, regardless of its tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope remains dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in these reviews are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (‘‘Decision Memorandum’’) from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated January 31, 2013, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins of dumping likely to prevail if the orders were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file electronically via Import Administration’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 in room 7046 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The signed Decision Memorandum and electronic versions of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM 07FEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2013 / Notices Final Results of Reviews Pursuant to sections 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on silicomanganese from India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the margins of dumping likely to prevail if the order were revoked are as follows: Exporters/producers Rate (percent) India Nava Bharat Ventures, Ltd. ............................. Universal Ferro and Allied Chemicals, Ltd. ... All Others Rate .............. Kazakhstan Alloy 2000, S.A. ............. Kazakhstan-Wide Rate .. Venezuela ´ Hornos Electricos de Venezuela, S.A. ......... All Others Rate .............. 15.32 20.53 17.74 247.88 247.88 24.62 24.62 This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing the final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: January 31, 2013. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 2013–02822 Filed 2–6–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES National Telecommunications and Information Administration Renewal and Revision of a Previously Approved Information Collection; Comment Request; State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program ACTION: Notice. The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:21 Feb 06, 2013 Jkt 229001 respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on continuing and revising this information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before April 8, 2013. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at JJessup@doc.gov). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Anne Neville, Director, State Broadband Initiative, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Room 4898, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230 (or via email to aneville@ntia.doc.gov). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract This request is for an extension and revision of a currently approved information collection. In 2009 and 2010, under the Broadband Data Improvement Act and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, NTIA awarded grants to states, or their designees, to gather and verify statespecific broadband data, including the the maximum advertised speed, technology type and spectrum (if applicable) for each broadband provider offering service in each census block, or, in census blocks greater than two square miles, each road segment (See 74 FR 32545, July 8, 2009 and 74 FR 46573, Sept. 10, 2009). Additionally, grants included funding to collect the maximum advertised speed and technology type to which various classes of Community Anchor Institutions (CAIs) subscribe. Recipients are funded to conduct this activity until approximately December 31, 2014. The recipients gather and verify data twice per year, submitting the information to NTIA each October 1 and April 1. States use the data to populate state broadband maps, and NTIA uses the data to populate the National Broadband Map. The data is also freely available for stakeholders to use, via Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) and in various file formats. Numerous public and private stakeholders currently use the data to PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 9035 inform funding, policy and commercial decisions. Consumers and businesses use the data to identify where broadband is available, the advertised speeds and other information. Despite the importance of broadband to the U.S. economy, information about broadband availability was not widely available until NTIA and the states developed this dataset. The data collected will continue to provide critical information for grant-making, regulatory and policy-making efforts, and to improve the quality of state-level broadband information. NTIA proposes to revise the currently approved reporting requirements to include with each submission of data several ‘‘best practices’’ documents including a document describing each recipient’s methodology for collecting and verifying data, a document that summarizes any major changes or corrections to data from the previous submission and a short text file (also known as a ‘‘readme’’ file) that summarizes basic, technical information for the dataset. Recipients began providing this information to NTIA as a best practice because it provided more transparency into their process and supported the efficient review of data. Note that at this time, NTIA is not proposing to revise the broadband availability or CAI adoption data that each recipient collects, though it may consider changes at a future date. II. Method of Collection Awardees will continue to submit all reports via the Internet. III. Data OMB Control Number: 0660–0032. Form Number: None. Type of Review: Regular submission (revision and extension of a currently approved collection). Affected Public: States, territories and the District of Columbia or their designees. Subrespondents include facilities-based providers of broadband connections, incumbent and competitive local exchange carriers, facilities-based mobile telephony service providers and wireless Internet service providers. Estimated Number of Total Respondents: 56 respondents; 2,000 subrespondents. Estimated Time per Response: 3,123 hours for respondents; 50 hours for subrespondents. Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 549,776. Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Public: $0. E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM 07FEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 26 (Thursday, February 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9034-9035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02822]



[[Page 9034]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-823; A-834-807; A-307-820]


Silicomanganese From India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela: Final 
Results of the Expedited Second Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty 
Orders

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.


DATES: Effective Date: February 7, 2013.
SUMMARY: On October 1, 2012, the Department of Commerce 
(``Department'') initiated the second sunset reviews of the antidumping 
duty orders on silicomanganese from India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela. 
The Department finds that revocation of these antidumping duty orders 
would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the 
rates identified in the ``Final Results of Reviews'' section of this 
notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Carey, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3964.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The antidumping duty orders on silicomanganese from India, 
Kazakhstan, and Venezuela were published on May 23, 2002. See Notice of 
Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and 
Antidumping Duty Orders: Silicomanganese from India, Kazakhstan, and 
Venezuela, 67 FR 36149 (May 23, 2002).
    On October 1, 2012, the Department initiated the second sunset 
reviews of these orders, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). See Initiation of Five-Year 
(``Sunset'') Review, 77 FR 59897 (October 1, 2012) (``notice of 
initiation''). The Department received a notice of intent to 
participate from the following domestic parties: Eramet Marietta, Inc. 
and Felman Production, LLC (collectively, ``domestic interested 
parties''), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 
Each of these companies is a manufacturer of a domestic-like product in 
the United States and, accordingly, is a domestic interested party 
pursuant to section 771(9)(C) of the Act.
    On October 31, 2012, the Department received adequate substantive 
responses to the notice of initiation from the domestic interested 
parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 
351.218(d)(3)(i). In the sunset review of the antidumping order on 
silicomanganese from India, we received one response from a respondent 
interested party, Nava Bharat Ventures Limited (``Nava Bharat'') \1\ on 
November 7, 2012, and found that Nava Bharat provided an inadequate 
response because it did not export subject merchandise to the United 
States over the five calendar years preceding the initiation of this 
review.\2\ The Department received no responses from other respondent 
interested parties. On the basis of notices of intent to participate 
and adequate substantive responses filed on behalf of domestic 
interested parties, and the inadequate response from the only 
respondent interested party to have filed a submission, Nava Bharat, 
the Department has conducted expedited sunset reviews of these orders 
pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C). As a result of these sunset reviews, the 
Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders is 
likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the rates 
indicated in the ``Final Results of Reviews'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On October 19, 2012, Nava Bharat requested an extension of 
time to file its substantive response. The Department granted an 
extension until November 7, 2012.
    \2\ See Memorandum from Sunset Team to Barbara E. Tillman, 
Director, Office of AD/CVD Operations 6 regarding ``Sunset Review of 
the Antidumping Duty Order on Silicomanganese from India: Adequacy 
Determination,'' dated November 23, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Orders

    For purposes of these orders, the products covered are all forms, 
sizes and compositions of silicomanganese, except low-carbon 
silicomanganese, including silicomanganese briquettes, fines and slag. 
Silicomanganese is a ferroalloy composed principally of manganese, 
silicon and iron, and normally contains much smaller proportions of 
minor elements, such as carbon, phosphorous and sulfur. Silicomanganese 
is sometimes referred to as ferrosilicon manganese. Silicomanganese is 
used primarily in steel production as a source of both silicon and 
manganese. Silicomanganese generally contains by weight not less than 4 
percent iron, more than 30 percent manganese, more than 8 percent 
silicon and not more than 3 percent phosphorous. Silicomanganese is 
properly classifiable under subheading 7202.30.0000 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Some silicomanganese 
may also be classified under HTSUS subheading 7202.99.5040.
    The low-carbon silicomanganese excluded from this scope is a 
ferroalloy with the following chemical specifications: Minimum 55 
percent manganese, minimum 27 percent silicon, minimum 4 percent iron, 
maximum 0.10 percent phosphorus, maximum 0.10 percent carbon and 
maximum 0.05 percent sulfur. Low-carbon silicomanganese is used in the 
manufacture of stainless steel and special carbon steel grades, such as 
motor lamination grade steel, requiring a very low carbon content. It 
is sometimes referred to as ferromanganese-silicon. Low-carbon 
silicomanganese is classifiable under HTSUS subheading 7202.99.5040.
    This scope covers all silicomanganese, regardless of its tariff 
classification. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope 
remains dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in these reviews are addressed in the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum (``Decision Memorandum'') from Christian Marsh, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, dated January 31, 2013, which is hereby adopted by this 
notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the 
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude 
of the margins of dumping likely to prevail if the orders were revoked. 
Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these 
reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public 
memorandum, which is on file electronically via Import Administration'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 in room 7046 of the main Commerce building. In 
addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed 
directly on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The signed 
Decision Memorandum and electronic versions of the Decision Memorandum 
are identical in content.

[[Page 9035]]

Final Results of Reviews

    Pursuant to sections 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine 
that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on silicomanganese from 
India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the 
margins of dumping likely to prevail if the order were revoked are as 
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Exporters/producers                    Rate (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
India
    Nava Bharat Ventures, Ltd...........................           15.32
    Universal Ferro and Allied Chemicals, Ltd...........           20.53
    All Others Rate.....................................           17.74
Kazakhstan
    Alloy 2000, S.A.....................................          247.88
    Kazakhstan-Wide Rate................................          247.88
Venezuela
    Hornos El[eacute]ctricos de Venezuela, S.A..........           24.62
    All Others Rate.....................................           24.62
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 
notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or 
conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure 
to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which 
is subject to sanction.
    We are issuing and publishing the final results and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.


     Dated: January 31, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-02822 Filed 2-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P