Silicomanganese From Australia: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation, 13829-13833 [2015-06142]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices Notification to Interested Parties remand in its entirety on February 25, 2015, and entered judgment.10 This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Timken Notice In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with a Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s February 25, 2015, judgment affirming the Final Second Remand constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with AFBs 16. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Dated: March 11, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Amended Final Results AGENCY: Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is amending AFBs 16 with respect to Nachi’s and NTN’s weighted-average dumping margins as redetermined in the Final First Remand. The revised weightedaverage dumping margin for the period May 1, 2004, to April 30, 2005, for Nachi is 13.91 percent. The revised weighted-average dumping margin for the period May 1, 2004, to April 30, 2005, for NTN is 8.02 percent. Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision. In the event the Court’s ruling is not appealed, or if appealed and upheld by the Federal Circuit, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries of the subject merchandise from NTN or Nachi using the revised assessment rates calculated by the Department in the Final First Remand. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Cash Deposit Requirements Because we revoked the antidumping duty order on ball bearings and parts thereof from Japan effective September 15, 2011, no cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties on future entries of subject merchandise will be required.11 10 See JTEKT Corp. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 06–00250, slip op. 15–18 (CIT February 25, 2015). 11 See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Sunset Reviews and Revocation of Antidumping Duty Orders, 79 FR 16771 (March 26, 2014). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 [FR Doc. 2015–06137 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–602–808] Silicomanganese From Australia: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: Effective Date: March 17, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok at (202) 482–4162 or Thomas Martin at (202) 482–3936, Office IV, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petition On February 19, 2015, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received an antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) petition concerning imports of silicomanganese from Australia filed in proper form on behalf of Felman Production, LLC (‘‘Petitioner’’).1 Petitioner is a domestic producer of silicomanganese.2 On February 20, 2015, the Department requested additional information and clarification with respect to the industry support section of the Petition.3 Petitioner filed a response to this request on February 23, 2015.4 On February 24, 2015, the Department requested additional information and clarification on certain portions of the Petition.5 Petitioner filed a response to 1 See Petitioner’s submission entitled ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Silicomanganese from Australia,’’ dated February 19, 2015 (‘‘Petition’’). 2 See Petition, at 2–3. 3 See Letter from the Department to Petitioner entitled ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Silicomanganese from Australia: Supplemental Question Regarding Industry Support,’’ dated February 20, 2015. 4 See Industry Support Supplement to the Petition, dated February 23, 2015 (‘‘First Petition Supplement’’). 5 See Letter from the Department to Petitioner entitled ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 13829 this request on February 27, 2015.6 On March 3 and 4, 2015, Department personnel spoke with Petitioner’s counsel via telephone, requesting additional information and clarification.7 Petitioner filed a response to these requests on March 5, 2015.8 In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), Petitioner alleges that silicomanganese from Australia is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioner supporting its allegations. The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that Petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigation that Petitioner is requesting.9 Period of Investigation Because the Petition was filed on February 19, 2015, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1) the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014. Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is silicomanganese from Australia. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see ‘‘Scope of the Investigation’’ in Appendix I of this notice. Comments on Scope of the Investigation During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, Petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would be an accurate reflection Antidumping Duties on Imports of Silicomanganese from Australia: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated February 24, 2015. 6 See Supplement to the Petition, dated February 27, 2015 (‘‘Second Petition Supplement’’). 7 See Memorandum from Thomas Martin to the File entitled ‘‘Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Silicomanganese from Australia: Telephone Conference with Petitioner’s Counsel,’’ dated March 3, 2015; Memorandum from Thomas Martin to the File entitled ‘‘Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Silicomanganese from Australia: Telephone Conference with Petitioner’s Counsel,’’ dated March 4, 2015. 8 See Supplement to the Petition, dated March 5, 2015 (‘‘Third Petition Supplement’’). 9 See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the Petition’’ section below. E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1 13830 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.10 As discussed in the preamble to the Department’s regulations,11 we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope). The period for scope comments is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information should be limited to public information. All such comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (‘‘ET’’) on March 31, 2015, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed no later than 10 calendar days after the initial comments deadline, which in this instance, is April 10, 2015. The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the record of this investigation. Filing Requirements mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (‘‘ACCESS’’).12 An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance’s APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue 10 See Second Petition Supplement at 1–3; Third Petition Supplement at 2. 11 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 12 On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and Compliance changed the name of Import Administration’s AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (‘‘IA ACCESS’’) to AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (‘‘ACCESS’’). The Web site location has changed from http://iaaccess.trade.gov to http:// access.trade.gov. The Final Rule changing the references to the Regulations can be found at 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 NW, Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines. Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaire The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of silicomanganese to be reported in response to the Department’s AD questionnaire. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant cost of production accurately, as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria. Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics; and (2) productcomparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as productcomparison criteria. We base productcomparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe silicomanganese, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last. In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaire, all comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on March 31, 2015, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on April 10, 2015. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of this investigation. Determination of Industry Support for the Petition Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(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 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 732(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, the Department 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, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The 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 the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,13 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department’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.14 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). 13 See section 771(10) of the Act. 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)). 14 See E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that silicomanganese constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.15 In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of the Investigation,’’ in Appendix I of this notice. Petitioner provided its own 2014 production data for the domestic like product.16 In addition, Petitioner provided the 2014 domestic like product production data of Eramet Marietta, Inc., which was identified as the only other producer of silicomanganese in the United States.17 To establish industry support, Petitioner compared its own production data to data for the total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.18 Our review of the data provided in the Petition, supplemental submissions, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioner has established industry support.19 First, the Petition 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, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).20 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the 15 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Silicomanganese from Australia (‘‘Initiation Checklist’’) at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping Petition Covering Silicomanganese from Australia (‘‘Attachment II’’). This checklist is dated concurrently with this notice and can be accessed electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. 16 See Petition, at 4 (fn. 4). 17 See First Petition Supplement, at 2 and Exhibit 1; see also Petition, at 3. 18 See First Petition Supplement, at 2. For further discussion, see Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 19 See Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 20 See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 13831 total production of the domestic like product.21 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition 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 Petition.22 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigation that it is requesting the Department to initiate.23 Allegation of Sales at Less Than Fair Value The following is a description of the allegation of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate an investigation of imports of silicomanganese from Australia. The sources of data relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the initiation checklist. Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation Normal Value Petitioner alleged that the sales of silicomanganese in Australia were made at prices substantially below the fullyloaded cost of production (‘‘COP’’). Accordingly, Petitioner based NV on the constructed value (‘‘CV’’) of the imported merchandise.28 Petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (‘‘NV’’). In addition, Petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.24 Petitioner contends that the industry’s injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price depression or suppression; lost sales and revenue; a plant shutdown and the inability to restart a third furnace for production; reduced employment levels; and decline in financial performance.25 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.26 21 See Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 22 Id. 23 Id. 24 See Petition, at 23–24; see also Second Petition Supplement, at 5. 25 See Petition, at 1–2, 16–40 and Exhibits 5 and 20–28; see also Second Petition Supplement, at 1, 5 and Exhibit A. 26 See Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping Duty Petition Covering Silicomanganese from Australia. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Export Price Petitioner based export price (‘‘EP’’) on the POI average unit value (‘‘AUV’’) of silicomanganese imports from Australia under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheading 7202.30.0000 (which covers the subject merchandise), calculated using U.S. import statistics obtained from the ITC’s Dataweb. The AUV represents FOB Australia port terms. To be conservative, Petitioner made no adjustments to EP for foreign inland freight or other expenses at the port of exportation.27 Sales-Below-Cost Allegation Petitioner provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of silicomanganese in the Australian market were made at prices below the COP, within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department conduct a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation.29 The Statement of Administrative Action (‘‘SAA’’), submitted to Congress in connection with the interpretation and application of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, states that an allegation of sales below COP need not be specific to individual exporters or producers.30 The SAA states that ‘‘Commerce will consider allegations of below-cost sales in the aggregate for a foreign country, just as Commerce currently considers allegations of sales at less than fair value on a country-wide basis for purposes of initiating an antidumping investigation.’’ 31 Further, section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires that the Department have 27 See Petition, at 14 and Exhibit 5. Petition, at 14–16. 29 See Petition, at 15. 30 See SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103–316 at 833 (1994). 31 Id. 28 See E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1 13832 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices ‘‘reasonable grounds to believe or suspect’’ that below-cost sales have occurred before initiating such an investigation. Reasonable grounds exist when an interested party provides specific factual information on costs and prices, observed or constructed, indicating that sales in the foreign market in question are at below-cost prices.32 As explained in the ‘‘Cost of Production’’ section below, we find reasonable grounds exist that indicate sales in Australia were made at belowcost prices. Cost of Production Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost of manufacturing (‘‘COM’’); selling, general and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) expenses; financial expenses; and packing expenses. Petitioner calculated COM based on its experience adjusted for known differences between the United States and Australia during the proposed POI.33 Petitioner used 2014 global market prices for manganese ore as published in the Metal Bulletin,34 Bureau of Labor Statistics wage data,35 and electricity rates from an Australian electricity supplier36 to account for cost differences between the United States and Australia in the manufacture of silicomanganese. Petitioner calculated the cost of other materials based on its own experience.37 Petitioner relied on the 2013 financial statements of Grange Resources Limited, an Australian producer of comparable merchandise (i.e., magnetite pellets), to determine the SG&A and profit ratios, which is consistent with the Department’s practice. Petitioner calculated the factory overhead ratio based on its own production experience.38 Petitioner obtained a price quote from Tasmanian Electro Metallurgical Company for silicomanganese, meeting ASTM A–483 grade B specifications, for sale in the Australian market. Based upon a comparison of the net price of the foreign like product in the home market to the COP of the product, we find reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market were made below the COP, within the mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 32 Id. 33 See Initiation Checklist. Petition, at Exhibit 11 and Second Petition Supplement, at 8. 35 See Petition, at Exhibit 14 and Second Petition Supplement, at 9. 36 See Petition, at Exhibits 16 and 17. 37 See Petition, at Exhibit 10 and Second Petition Supplement, at Exhibit D. 38 See Second Petition Supplement, at 10 and Exhibit G. 34 See VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act.39 Accordingly, the Department is initiating a country-wide cost investigation relating to sales of silicomanganese in Australia. Normal Value Based on Constructed Value Because home market sales prices fell below COP, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, Petitioner based NV on CV.40 Petitioner calculated CV using the same COM, SG&A, and financial expense used to calculate the COP, as discussed above. Petitioner relied on Grange Resources Limited’s FY 2013 financial statements to determine the profit rate used in the calculation of CV.41 Fair Value Comparisons Based on the data provided by Petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of silicomanganese from Australia are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of export price to CV in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act, the estimated AD margin is 77.97 percent.42 Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation Based upon the examination of the Petition on silicomanganese from Australia, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an AD investigation to determine whether imports of silicomanganese from Australia are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation. Respondent Selection The Petition names only one company as a producer/exporter of silicomanganese in Australia: Tasmanian Electro Metallurgical Company, and Petitioner provided information from an independent thirdparty source as support of this claim.43 Furthermore, we currently know of no additional producers/exporters of subject merchandise from Australia. Accordingly, the Department intends to examine all known producers/exporters in this investigation (i.e., the company named above). We invite interested 39 See Second Petition Supplement, at 11. Initiation Checklist. 41 See Petition, at Exhibits 18 and 19. 42 See Initiation Checklist. 43 See Second Petition Supplement, at Exhibit B. 40 See PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 parties to comment on this issue. Parties wishing to comment must do so within five 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 by the Department’s electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. ET by the deadline noted above. Distribution of Copies of the Petition In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petition have been provided to the government of Australia. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each exporter named in the Petition, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). ITC Notification We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act. Preliminary Determination by the ITC The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of silicomanganese from Australia are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.44 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated; 45 otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. Submission of Factual Information On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two regulations related to AD and countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors 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 the Department; and (v) 44 See section 733(a) of the Act. 45 Id. E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES evidence other than factual information described in (i)–(iv). The final rule requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 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. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. These modifications are effective for all proceeding segments initiated on or after May 10, 2013, and thus are applicable to this investigation. Interested parties should review the final rule, available at http:// enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/ 1304frn/2013-08227.txt prior to submitting factual information in this investigation. Revised Extension of Time Limits Regulation On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in AD and CVD proceedings.46 The modification clarifies that parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under 19 CFR part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Examples include but are not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2) filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction information filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning U.S. Customs and Border Protection data; and (5) quantity and value questionnaires. Under certain circumstances, the Department may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be 46 See Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, the Department will inform parties in a letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This modification also requires that an extension request be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013, and thus are applicable to this investigation. Interested parties should review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, available at http://www.gpo.gov/ fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/201322853.htm, prior to submitting requests to extend time limits in this investigation. Certification Requirements Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.47 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule.48 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised certification requirements. Notification to Interested Parties Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders (‘‘APO’’) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of 47 See section 782(b) of the Act. 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 http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_ info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf. 48 See PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 13833 appearance as discussed in 19 CFR 351.103(d)). This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c). Dated: March 11, 2015. Christian Marsh Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation The scope of this investigation covers 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, phosphorus, and sulfur. Silicomanganese is sometimes referred to as ferrosilicon 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 0.2 percent phosphorus. Silicomanganese is properly classifiable under subheading 7202.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Low-carbon silicomanganese is excluded from the scope of this investigation. It is sometimes referred to as ferromanganesesilicon. The low-carbon silicomanganese excluded from this investigation is a ferroalloy with the following chemical specifications by weight: 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 classifiable under HTSUS subheading 7202.30.0000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope is dispositive. [FR Doc. 2015–06142 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–822] Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012–2013 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On November 7, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain helical spring lock washers (HSLW) AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 51 (Tuesday, March 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13829-13833]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06142]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-602-808]


Silicomanganese From Australia: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-
Value Investigation

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: March 17, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok at (202) 482-4162 or Thomas 
Martin at (202) 482-3936, Office IV, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and 
Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petition

    On February 19, 2015, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
received an antidumping duty (``AD'') petition concerning imports of 
silicomanganese from Australia filed in proper form on behalf of Felman 
Production, LLC (``Petitioner'').\1\ Petitioner is a domestic producer 
of silicomanganese.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Petitioner's submission entitled ``Petition for the 
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Silicomanganese from 
Australia,'' dated February 19, 2015 (``Petition'').
    \2\ See Petition, at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 20, 2015, the Department requested additional 
information and clarification with respect to the industry support 
section of the Petition.\3\ Petitioner filed a response to this request 
on February 23, 2015.\4\ On February 24, 2015, the Department requested 
additional information and clarification on certain portions of the 
Petition.\5\ Petitioner filed a response to this request on February 
27, 2015.\6\ On March 3 and 4, 2015, Department personnel spoke with 
Petitioner's counsel via telephone, requesting additional information 
and clarification.\7\ Petitioner filed a response to these requests on 
March 5, 2015.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Letter from the Department to Petitioner entitled 
``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of 
Silicomanganese from Australia: Supplemental Question Regarding 
Industry Support,'' dated February 20, 2015.
    \4\ See Industry Support Supplement to the Petition, dated 
February 23, 2015 (``First Petition Supplement'').
    \5\ See Letter from the Department to Petitioner entitled 
``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of 
Silicomanganese from Australia: Supplemental Questions,'' dated 
February 24, 2015.
    \6\ See Supplement to the Petition, dated February 27, 2015 
(``Second Petition Supplement'').
    \7\ See Memorandum from Thomas Martin to the File entitled 
``Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Silicomanganese from 
Australia: Telephone Conference with Petitioner's Counsel,'' dated 
March 3, 2015; Memorandum from Thomas Martin to the File entitled 
``Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Silicomanganese from 
Australia: Telephone Conference with Petitioner's Counsel,'' dated 
March 4, 2015.
    \8\ See Supplement to the Petition, dated March 5, 2015 (``Third 
Petition Supplement'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''), Petitioner alleges that silicomanganese from 
Australia is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at 
less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act and 
that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material 
injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with 
section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by 
information reasonably available to Petitioner supporting its 
allegations.
    The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf 
of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party as 
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that 
Petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the 
initiation of the AD investigation that Petitioner is requesting.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the 
Petition'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    Because the Petition was filed on February 19, 2015, pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.204(b)(1) the period of investigation (``POI'') is January 1, 
2014 through December 31, 2014.

Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is silicomanganese from 
Australia. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, 
see ``Scope of the Investigation'' in Appendix I of this notice.

Comments on Scope of the Investigation

    During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions 
to, and received responses from, Petitioner pertaining to the proposed 
scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would be an 
accurate reflection

[[Page 13830]]

of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Second Petition Supplement at 1-3; Third Petition 
Supplement at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,\11\ 
we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues 
regarding product coverage (scope). The period for scope comments is 
intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider 
all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the 
preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual 
information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information 
should be limited to public information. All such comments must be 
filed by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (``ET'') on March 31, 2015, which is 20 
calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal 
comments, which may include factual information, must be filed no later 
than 10 calendar days after the initial comments deadline, which in 
this instance, is April 10, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department requests that any factual information the parties 
consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during 
this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that 
additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the 
investigation may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and 
request permission to submit the additional information. All such 
comments must be filed on the record of this investigation.

Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically 
using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Centralized Electronic Service System (``ACCESS'').\12\ An 
electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its 
entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents excepted from the 
electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in 
paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 
1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt 
by the applicable deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and Compliance changed 
the name of Import Administration's AD and CVD Centralized 
Electronic Service System (``IA ACCESS'') to AD and CVD Centralized 
Electronic Service System (``ACCESS''). The Web site location has 
changed from http://iaaccess.trade.gov to http://access.trade.gov. 
The Final Rule changing the references to the Regulations can be 
found at 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaire

    The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding 
the appropriate physical characteristics of silicomanganese to be 
reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaire. This 
information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics 
of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant cost of 
production accurately, as well as to develop appropriate product-
comparison criteria.
    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that 
they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of 
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to 
which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product 
characteristics; and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it 
is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as 
product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on 
meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, 
although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by 
manufacturers to describe silicomanganese, it may be that only a select 
few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful 
physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment 
on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in 
matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most 
important physical characteristics first and the least important 
characteristics last.
    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in 
developing and issuing the AD questionnaire, all comments must be filed 
by 5:00 p.m. ET on March 31, 2015, which is 20 calendar days from the 
signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 
5:00 p.m. ET on April 10, 2015. All comments and submissions to the 
Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained 
above, on the record of this investigation.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(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 732(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, the Department 
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, or those producers 
whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major 
proportion of the total domestic production of the product. Thus, to 
determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the 
statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who 
produce the domestic like product. The 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 the 
Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition 
regarding the domestic like product,\13\ they do so for different 
purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In 
addition, the Department'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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \14\ 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).

[[Page 13831]]

    With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer 
a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of 
the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted 
on the record, we have determined that silicomanganese constitutes a 
single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in 
terms of that domestic like product.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in 
this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 
Silicomanganese from Australia (``Initiation Checklist'') at 
Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping 
Petition Covering Silicomanganese from Australia (``Attachment 
II''). This checklist is dated concurrently with this notice and can 
be accessed electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via 
ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of 
the main Department of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section 
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product 
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigation,'' in Appendix I of this 
notice. Petitioner provided its own 2014 production data for the 
domestic like product.\16\ In addition, Petitioner provided the 2014 
domestic like product production data of Eramet Marietta, Inc., which 
was identified as the only other producer of silicomanganese in the 
United States.\17\ To establish industry support, Petitioner compared 
its own production data to data for the total production of the 
domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Petition, at 4 (fn. 4).
    \17\ See First Petition Supplement, at 2 and Exhibit 1; see also 
Petition, at 3.
    \18\ See First Petition Supplement, at 2. For further 
discussion, see Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the data provided in the Petition, supplemental 
submissions, and other information readily available to the Department 
indicates that Petitioner has established industry support.\19\ First, 
the Petition 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, the Department is not required to 
take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., 
polling).\20\ Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the 
statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) 
of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the 
Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the 
domestic like product.\21\ Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) 
have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 
732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) 
who support the Petition 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 Petition.\22\ 
Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) 
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \20\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \21\ See Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf 
of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined 
in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient 
industry support with respect to the AD investigation that it is 
requesting the Department to initiate.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic 
like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with 
material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise 
sold at less than normal value (``NV''). In addition, Petitioner 
alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold 
provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Petition, at 23-24; see also Second Petition 
Supplement, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price depression 
or suppression; lost sales and revenue; a plant shutdown and the 
inability to restart a third furnace for production; reduced employment 
levels; and decline in financial performance.\25\ We have assessed the 
allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat 
of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these 
allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the 
statutory requirements for initiation.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Petition, at 1-2, 16-40 and Exhibits 5 and 20-28; see 
also Second Petition Supplement, at 1, 5 and Exhibit A.
    \26\ See Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of 
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the 
Antidumping Duty Petition Covering Silicomanganese from Australia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegation of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegation of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate an investigation of imports of silicomanganese from Australia. 
The sources of data relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in 
greater detail in the initiation checklist.

Export Price

    Petitioner based export price (``EP'') on the POI average unit 
value (``AUV'') of silicomanganese imports from Australia under 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') subheading 
7202.30.0000 (which covers the subject merchandise), calculated using 
U.S. import statistics obtained from the ITC's Dataweb. The AUV 
represents FOB Australia port terms. To be conservative, Petitioner 
made no adjustments to EP for foreign inland freight or other expenses 
at the port of exportation.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Petition, at 14 and Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    Petitioner alleged that the sales of silicomanganese in Australia 
were made at prices substantially below the fully-loaded cost of 
production (``COP''). Accordingly, Petitioner based NV on the 
constructed value (``CV'') of the imported merchandise.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Petition, at 14-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sales-Below-Cost Allegation

    Petitioner provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that sales of silicomanganese in the Australian 
market were made at prices below the COP, within the meaning of section 
773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department conduct a country-
wide sales-below-cost investigation.\29\ The Statement of 
Administrative Action (``SAA''), submitted to Congress in connection 
with the interpretation and application of the Uruguay Round Agreements 
Act, states that an allegation of sales below COP need not be specific 
to individual exporters or producers.\30\ The SAA states that 
``Commerce will consider allegations of below-cost sales in the 
aggregate for a foreign country, just as Commerce currently considers 
allegations of sales at less than fair value on a country-wide basis 
for purposes of initiating an antidumping investigation.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Petition, at 15.
    \30\ See SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 at 833 (1994).
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires that the 
Department have

[[Page 13832]]

``reasonable grounds to believe or suspect'' that below-cost sales have 
occurred before initiating such an investigation. Reasonable grounds 
exist when an interested party provides specific factual information on 
costs and prices, observed or constructed, indicating that sales in the 
foreign market in question are at below-cost prices.\32\ As explained 
in the ``Cost of Production'' section below, we find reasonable grounds 
exist that indicate sales in Australia were made at below-cost prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost of Production

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost 
of manufacturing (``COM''); selling, general and administrative 
(``SG&A'') expenses; financial expenses; and packing expenses. 
Petitioner calculated COM based on its experience adjusted for known 
differences between the United States and Australia during the proposed 
POI.\33\ Petitioner used 2014 global market prices for manganese ore as 
published in the Metal Bulletin,\34\ Bureau of Labor Statistics wage 
data,\35\ and electricity rates from an Australian electricity 
supplier\36\ to account for cost differences between the United States 
and Australia in the manufacture of silicomanganese. Petitioner 
calculated the cost of other materials based on its own experience.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Initiation Checklist.
    \34\ See Petition, at Exhibit 11 and Second Petition Supplement, 
at 8.
    \35\ See Petition, at Exhibit 14 and Second Petition Supplement, 
at 9.
    \36\ See Petition, at Exhibits 16 and 17.
    \37\ See Petition, at Exhibit 10 and Second Petition Supplement, 
at Exhibit D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner relied on the 2013 financial statements of Grange 
Resources Limited, an Australian producer of comparable merchandise 
(i.e., magnetite pellets), to determine the SG&A and profit ratios, 
which is consistent with the Department's practice. Petitioner 
calculated the factory overhead ratio based on its own production 
experience.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Second Petition Supplement, at 10 and Exhibit G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner obtained a price quote from Tasmanian Electro 
Metallurgical Company for silicomanganese, meeting ASTM A-483 grade B 
specifications, for sale in the Australian market. Based upon a 
comparison of the net price of the foreign like product in the home 
market to the COP of the product, we find reasonable grounds to believe 
or suspect that sales of the foreign like product in the comparison 
market were made below the COP, within the meaning of section 
773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act.\39\ Accordingly, the Department is 
initiating a country-wide cost investigation relating to sales of 
silicomanganese in Australia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Second Petition Supplement, at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    Because home market sales prices fell below COP, pursuant to 
sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, Petitioner based NV 
on CV.\40\ Petitioner calculated CV using the same COM, SG&A, and 
financial expense used to calculate the COP, as discussed above. 
Petitioner relied on Grange Resources Limited's FY 2013 financial 
statements to determine the profit rate used in the calculation of 
CV.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Initiation Checklist.
    \41\ See Petition, at Exhibits 18 and 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by Petitioner, there is reason to 
believe that imports of silicomanganese from Australia are being, or 
are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. 
Based on comparisons of export price to CV in accordance with section 
773(a) of the Act, the estimated AD margin is 77.97 percent.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation

    Based upon the examination of the Petition on silicomanganese from 
Australia, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 
732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an AD investigation to 
determine whether imports of silicomanganese from Australia are being, 
or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. 
In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary 
determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

Respondent Selection

    The Petition names only one company as a producer/exporter of 
silicomanganese in Australia: Tasmanian Electro Metallurgical Company, 
and Petitioner provided information from an independent third-party 
source as support of this claim.\43\ Furthermore, we currently know of 
no additional producers/exporters of subject merchandise from 
Australia. Accordingly, the Department intends to examine all known 
producers/exporters in this investigation (i.e., the company named 
above). We invite interested parties to comment on this issue. Parties 
wishing to comment must do so within five 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 by the Department's electronic 
records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. ET by the deadline noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Second Petition Supplement, at Exhibit B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petition have been 
provided to the government of Australia. To the extent practicable, we 
will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to 
each exporter named in the Petition, as provided under 19 CFR 
351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date 
on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of silicomanganese from Australia are 
materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. 
industry.\44\ A negative ITC determination will result in the 
investigation being terminated; \45\ otherwise, the investigation will 
proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See section 733(a) of the Act.
    \45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submission of Factual Information

    On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual 
Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: 
Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two 
regulations related to AD and countervailing duty (``CVD'') 
proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 
351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual 
information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule identifies five categories 
of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized 
as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) 
evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available 
information to value factors 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 the Department; and (v)

[[Page 13833]]

evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). The 
final rule requires any party, when submitting factual information, to 
specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information 
is being submitted 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. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather 
than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits 
based on the type of factual information being submitted. These 
modifications are effective for all proceeding segments initiated on or 
after May 10, 2013, and thus are applicable to this investigation. 
Interested parties should review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt prior to 
submitting factual information in this investigation.

Revised Extension of Time Limits Regulation

    On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation 
concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in AD and CVD 
proceedings.\46\ The modification clarifies that parties may request an 
extension of time limits before a time limit established under 19 CFR 
part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In 
general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is 
filed after the time limit established under Part 351 expires. For 
submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an 
extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 
10:00 a.m. on the due date. Examples include but are not limited to: 
(1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) 
factual information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to 
measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2) filed 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and 
correction information filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) 
comments concerning the selection of a surrogate country and surrogate 
values and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection data; and (5) quantity and value questionnaires. Under 
certain circumstances, the Department 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, the Department will inform parties in a letter or memorandum 
setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which 
extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This 
modification also requires that an extension request be made in a 
separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under 
which the Department will grant untimely-filed requests for the 
extension of time limits. These modifications are effective for all 
segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013, and thus are 
applicable to this investigation. Interested parties should review 
Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting 
requests to extend time limits in this investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 
(September 20, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding 
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\47\ 
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are 
in effect for company/government officials, as well as their 
representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions 
filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD 
proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the 
formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final 
Rule.\48\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the 
submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised 
certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \48\ 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 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
administrative protective orders (``APO'') in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO 
Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to 
participate in this investigation should ensure that they meet the 
requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of 
appearance as discussed in 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

    Dated: March 11, 2015.
Christian Marsh
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations.

Appendix I

Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of this investigation covers 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, phosphorus, and sulfur. 
Silicomanganese is sometimes referred to as ferrosilicon 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 0.2 percent phosphorus. Silicomanganese is 
properly classifiable under subheading 7202.30.0000 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'').
    Low-carbon silicomanganese is excluded from the scope of this 
investigation. It is sometimes referred to as ferromanganese-
silicon. The low-carbon silicomanganese excluded from this 
investigation is a ferroalloy with the following chemical 
specifications by weight: 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 classifiable under HTSUS 
subheading 7202.30.0000.
    The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes. The written description of the scope is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2015-06142 Filed 3-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P