Ferrosilicon From Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and the Russian Federation: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 31133-31137 [2024-08675]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 2024 / Notices
FTZ 123 was approved by the FTZ
Board on August 16, 1985 (Board Order
311, 50 FR 34729, August 27, 1985) and
expanded on April 10, 2007 (Board
Order 1509, 72 FR 19879–19880, April
20, 2007) and on October 23, 2009
(Board Order 1649, 74 FR 57629,
November 9, 2009).
The current zone includes the
following sites: Site 3 (760 acres)—Great
Western Industrial Park, Eastman Park
Drive and County Rd 23, Windsor; Site
4 (79 acres)—Denver International
Airport, Denver; and, Site 7 (12 acres)—
Aspen Distribution Inc., 19503 E. 34th
Drive, Aurora.
The grantee’s proposed service area
under the ASF would be Adams,
Arapahoe, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas,
Elbert, and Morgan Counties and a
portion of Larimer and Weld Counties,
Colorado, as described in the
application. If approved, the grantee
would be able to serve sites throughout
the service area based on companies’
needs for FTZ designation. The
application indicates that the proposed
service area is within and adjacent to
the Denver Customs and Border
Protection port of entry.
The applicant is requesting authority
to reorganize its existing zone to include
Sites 3 and 4 as ‘‘magnet’’ sites and Site
7 as a ‘‘usage-driven’’ site. The
application would have no impact on
FTZ 123’s previously authorized
subzones.
In accordance with the FTZ Board’s
regulations, Qahira El-Amin of the FTZ
Staff is designated examiner to evaluate
and analyze the facts and information
presented in the application and case
record and to report findings and
recommendations to the FTZ Board.
Public comment is invited from
interested parties. Submissions shall be
addressed to the FTZ Board’s Executive
Secretary and sent to: ftz@trade.gov. The
closing period for their receipt is June
24, 2024. Rebuttal comments in
response to material submitted during
the foregoing period may be submitted
during the subsequent 15-day period to
July 8, 2024.
A copy of the application will be
available for public inspection in the
‘‘Online FTZ Information Section’’
section of the FTZ Board’s website,
which is accessible via www.trade.gov/
ftz. For further information, contact
Qahira El-Amin at Qahira.El-Amin@
trade.gov.
Dated: April 19, 2024.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024–08752 Filed 4–23–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Apr 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
31133
8, 2024, the petitioners filed timely
responses to these requests for
International Trade Administration
additional information.4
In accordance with section 702(b)(1)
[C–351–861, C–834–813, C–557–829, C–821–
839]
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), the petitioners allege that the
Ferrosilicon From Brazil, Kazakhstan,
Government of Brazil (GOB), the
Malaysia, and the Russian Federation:
Government of Kazakhstan (GOK), the
Initiation of Countervailing Duty
Government of Malaysia (GOM), and the
Investigations
Government of Russia (GOR)
(collectively, Governments) are
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance,
providing countervailable subsidies,
International Trade Administration,
within the meaning of sections 701 and
Department of Commerce.
771(5) of the Act, to producers of
DATES: Applicable April 17, 2024.
ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob
Malaysia, and Russia, and that such
Palmer or Laurel Smalley (Brazil), Lana
imports are materially injuring, or
Nigro (Kazakhstan), John McGowan or
threatening material injury to, the
Suresh Maniam (Malaysia), and Mark
domestic industry producing
Hoadley (the Russian Federation
ferrosilicon in the United States.
(Russia)), AD/CVD Operations, Offices
Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the
VIII, VII, and I, Enforcement and
Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those
Compliance, International Trade
alleged programs on which we are
Administration, U.S. Department of
initiating CVD investigations, the
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
Petitions were accompanied by
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: information reasonably available to the
(202) 482–9068, (202) 482–3456, (202)
petitioners supporting their allegations.
482–1779, (202) 482–0461, (202) 482–
Commerce finds that the petitioners
1603, and (202) 482–3148, respectively.
filed the Petitions on behalf of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
domestic industry because the
petitioners are interested parties as
The Petitions
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act.
On March 28, 2024, the U.S.
Commerce also finds that the petitioners
Department of Commerce (Commerce)
demonstrated sufficient industry
received countervailing duty (CVD)
support with respect to the initiation of
petitions concerning imports of
the requested CVD investigations.5
ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan,
Periods of Investigation
Malaysia, and Russia filed in proper
form on behalf of CC Metals and Alloys,
Because the Petitions were filed on
LLC and Ferroglobe USA, Inc. (the
March
28, 2024, the periods of
1
petitioners). The CVD petitions were
accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) investigation (POI) for Brazil,
Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Russia are
petitions concerning imports of
January 1, 2023, through December 31,
ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan,
2023.6
2
Malaysia, and Russia.
Between April 1 and 2, 2024,
Scope of the Investigations
Commerce requested supplemental
The merchandise covered by these
information pertaining to certain aspects
investigations is ferrosilicon from
of the Petitions.3 Between April 3 and
Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and
1 See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Petitions for the
Russia. For a full description of the
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
scope of these investigations, see the
Duties,’’ dated March 28, 2024 (the Petitions).
appendix to this notice.
2
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Id.
3 See
Commerce’s Letters, ‘‘Petition for the
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of
Ferrosilicon from Brazil: Supplemental Questions,’’
dated April 1, 2024; ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Ferrosilicon
from Kazakhstan: Supplemental Questions
Regarding Volume V,’’ dated April 2, 2024;
‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing
Duties on Imports of Ferrosilicon from Malaysia:
Supplemental Questions,’’ dated April 1, 2024;
‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing
Duties on Imports of Ferrosilicon from the Russian
Federation: Supplemental Questions regarding
Volume IX,’’ dated April 1, 2024; and ‘‘Petitions for
the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties on Imports of Ferrosilicon from Brazil,
Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and the Russian Federation:
Supplemental Questions,’’ dated April 1, 2024.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4 See Petitioners’ Letters, ‘‘Petitioners’ Response
to Supplemental Questions—General Issues,’’ dated
April 3, 2024 (General Issues Supplement);
‘‘Ferrosilicon from Brazil: Response to
Supplemental Questionnaire for Volume III of the
Petition,’’ dated April 5, 2024; ‘‘Ferrosilicon from
Kazakhstan: Response to Supplemental
Questionnaire for Volume V of the Petition,’’ dated
April 8, 2024; ‘‘Ferrosilicon from Malaysia:
Response to Supplemental Questions for Volume
VII of the Petition,’’ dated April 3, 2024; and
‘‘Ferrosilicon from the Russian Federation:
Response to Supplemental Questions Regarding
Volume IX of the Petition,’’ dated April 5, 2024.
5 See section on ‘‘Determination of Industry
Support for the Petitions,’’ infra.
6 See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
31134
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 2024 / Notices
Comments on the Scope of the
Investigations
As discussed in the Preamble to
Commerce’s regulations, we are setting
aside a period for interested parties to
raise issues regarding product coverage
(i.e., scope).7 Commerce will consider
all comments received from interested
parties and, if necessary, will consult
with interested parties prior to the
issuance of the preliminary
determinations. If scope comments
include factual information, all such
factual information should be limited to
public information.8 To facilitate
preparation of its questionnaires,
Commerce requests that scope
comments be submitted by 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Time (ET) on May 7, 2024,
which is 20 calendar days from the
signature date of this notice.9 Any
rebuttal comments, which may include
factual information, must be filed by
5:00 p.m. ET on May 17, 2024, which
is 10 calendar days from the initial
comment deadline.
Commerce requests that any factual
information that parties consider
relevant to the scope of the
investigations be submitted during that
time period. However, if a party
subsequently finds that additional
factual information pertaining to the
scope of the investigations may be
relevant, the party must contact
Commerce and request permission to
submit the additional information. All
scope comments must be filed
simultaneously on the records of the
concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
Filing Requirements
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
All submissions to Commerce must be
filed electronically via Enforcement and
Compliance’s Antidumping Duty and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (ACCESS),
unless an exception applies.10 An
electronically filed document must be
received successfully in its entirety by
the time and date it is due.
7 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties;
Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)
(Preamble).
8 See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ‘‘factual
information’’).
9 See 19 CFR 351.303(b)(1).
10 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures;
Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR
39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and
Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System
Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014), for details
of Commerce’s electronic filing requirements,
effective August 5, 2011. Information on using
ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/
help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://
access.trade.gov/help/Handbook_on_Electronic_
Filing_Procedures.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Apr 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
Consultations
Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i)
and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified
the Governments of the receipt of the
Petitions and provided an opportunity
for consultations with respect to the
Petitions.11 Commerce held
consultations with the GOB on April 10,
2024,12 the GOK on April 17, 2024,13
the GOM on April 16, 2024,14 and the
GOR on April 9, 2024.15
Determination of Industry Support for
the Petitions
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires
that a petition be filed on behalf of the
domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A)
of the Act provides that a petition meets
this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the
petition account for: (i) at least 25
percent of the total production of the
domestic like product; and (ii) more
than 50 percent of the production of the
domestic like product produced by that
portion of the industry expressing
support for, or opposition to, the
petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D)
of the Act provides that, if the petition
does not establish support of domestic
producers or workers accounting for
more than 50 percent of the total
production of the domestic like product,
Commerce shall: (i) poll the industry or
rely on other information in order to
determine if there is support for the
petition, as required by subparagraph
(A); or (ii) determine industry support
using a statistically valid sampling
method to poll the ‘‘industry.’’
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines
the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a
whole of a domestic like product. Thus,
to determine whether a petition has the
requisite industry support, the statute
directs Commerce to look to producers
and workers who produce the domestic
11 See Commerce’s Letters, ‘‘Countervailing Duty
Petition on Ferrosilicon from Brazil: Invitation for
Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty
Petition,’’ dated April 1, 2024; ‘‘Invitation for
Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty
Petition on Ferrosilicon from Kazakhstan,’’ dated
March 29, 2024; ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on
Ferrosilicon from Malaysia: Invitation for
Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty
Petition,’’ dated March 28, 2024; and ‘‘Invitation for
Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty
Petition on Ferrosilicon from the Russian
Federation,’’ dated March 28, 2024.
12 See Memorandum, ‘‘Consultations with
Officials from the Government of Brazil,’’ dated
April 11, 2024.
13 See Memorandum, ‘‘Consultations with
Officials from the Government of Kazakhstan,’’
dated April 17, 2024.
14 See Memorandum, ‘‘Consultations with the
Government of Malaysia,’’ dated April 16, 2024.
15 See Memorandum, ‘‘Consultations with the
Government of Russia Regarding the Countervailing
Duty Petition on Ferrosilicon from the Russian
Federation,’’ dated April 9, 2024.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
like product. The U.S. International
Trade Commission (ITC), which is
responsible for determining whether
‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been
injured, must also determine what
constitutes a domestic like product in
order to define the industry. While both
Commerce and the ITC apply the same
statutory definition regarding the
domestic like product,16 they do so for
different purposes and pursuant to a
separate and distinct authority. In
addition, Commerce’s determination is
subject to limitations of time and
information. Although this may result in
different definitions of the like product,
such differences do not render the
decision of either agency contrary to
law.17
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the
domestic like product as ‘‘a product
which is like, or in the absence of like,
most similar in characteristics and uses
with, the article subject to an
investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the
reference point from which the
domestic like product analysis begins is
‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’
(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to
be investigated, which normally will be
the scope as defined in the petition).
With regard to the domestic like
product, the petitioners do not offer a
definition of the domestic like product
distinct from the scope of the
investigations.18 Based on our analysis
of the information submitted on the
record, we have determined that
ferrosilicon, as described in the
domestic like product definition set
forth in the Petitions, constitutes a
single domestic like product, and we
have analyzed industry support in terms
of that domestic like product.19
In determining whether the
petitioners have standing under section
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered
the industry support data contained in
the Petitions with reference to the
domestic like product as defined in the
‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in the
16 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)).
18 See Petitions at Volume I (pages 15–18 and
Exhibits I–1 and I–9).
19 For a discussion of the domestic like product
analysis as applied to these cases and information
regarding industry support, see CVD Investigation
Initiation Checklists: Ferrosilicon from Brazil,
Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and the Russian Federation,
dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by,
this notice (Country-Specific CVD Initiation
Checklists), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry
Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Petitions Covering Ferrosilicon from Brazil,
Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and the Russian Federation
(Attachment II). These checklists are on file
electronically via ACCESS.
17 See
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 2024 / Notices
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
appendix to this notice. To establish
industry support, the petitioners
provided their own production of the
domestic like product in 2023.20 The
petitioners stated that there are no other
known producers of ferrosilicon in the
United States and provided information
to support their claim; therefore, the
Petitions are supported by 100 percent
of the U.S. industry.21 We relied on data
provided by the petitioners for purposes
of measuring industry support.22
Our review of the data provided in the
Petitions, the General Issues
Supplement, and other information
readily available to Commerce indicates
that the petitioners have established
industry support for the Petitions.23
First, the Petitions established support
from domestic producers (or workers)
accounting for more than 50 percent of
the total production of the domestic like
product and, as such, Commerce is not
required to take further action to
evaluate industry support (e.g.,
polling).24 Second, the domestic
producers (or workers) have met the
statutory criteria for industry support
under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petitions
account for at least 25 percent of the
total production of the domestic like
product.25 Finally, the domestic
producers (or workers) have met the
statutory criteria for industry support
under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petitions
account for more than 50 percent of the
production of the domestic like product
produced by that portion of the industry
expressing support for, or opposition to,
the Petitions.26 Accordingly, Commerce
determines that the Petitions were filed
on behalf of the domestic industry
within the meaning of section 702(b)(1)
of the Act.27
20 See Petitions at Volume I (page 3 and Exhibit
I–4); see also General Issues Supplement at 5.
21 See Petitions at Volume I (pages 2–3 and
Exhibit I–3); see also General Issues Supplement at
4 and Attachment 2.
22 See Petitions at Volume I (pages 2–3 and
Exhibits I–3 and I–4); see also General Issues
Supplement at 4–5 and Attachment 2. For further
discussion, see Attachment II of the CountrySpecific CVD Initiation Checklists.
23 See Petitions at Volume I (pages 2–3 and
Exhibits I–3 and I–4); see also General Issues
Supplement at 4–5 and Attachment 2. For further
discussion, see Attachment II of the CountrySpecific CVD Initiation Checklists.
24 See Attachment II of the Country-Specific CVD
Initiation Checklists; see also section 702(c)(4)(D) of
the Act.
25 See Attachment II of the Country-Specific CVD
Initiation Checklists.
26 Id.
27 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Apr 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
Injury Test
Because Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia,
and Russia are ‘‘Subsidies Agreement
Countries’’ within the meaning of
section 701(b) of the Act, section
701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these
investigations. Accordingly, the ITC
must determine whether imports of the
subject merchandise from Brazil,
Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and/or Russia
materially injure, or threaten material
injury to, a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
The petitioners allege that imports of
the subject merchandise are benefiting
from countervailable subsidies and that
such imports are causing, or threaten to
cause, material injury to the U.S.
industry producing the domestic like
product. In addition, the petitioners
allege that subject imports from Brazil,
Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Russia
exceed the negligibility threshold
provided for under section 771(24)(A) of
the Act.28
The petitioners contend that the
industry’s injured condition is
illustrated by the significant and
increasing volume of subject imports;
underselling and price depression and/
or suppression; low capacity utilization
rates; lost sales and revenues; and
adverse effect on financial
performance.29 We assessed the
allegations and supporting evidence
regarding material injury, threat of
material injury, causation, cumulation,
as well as negligibility, and we have
determined that these allegations are
properly supported by adequate
evidence and meet the statutory
requirements for initiation.30
Initiation of CVD Investigations
Based upon the examination of the
Petitions and supplemental responses,
we find that they meet the requirements
of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we
are initiating CVD investigations to
determine whether imports of
ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan,
Malaysia, and Russia benefit from
countervailable subsidies conferred by
the GOB, GOK, GOM, and the GOR,
respectively. In accordance with section
703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will
28 See Petitions at Volume I (page 20 and Exhibit
I–10).
29 See Petitions at Volume I (pages 20–47 and
Exhibits I–1, I–2, I–4, and I–8 through I–44).
30 See Country-Specific CVD Initiation Checklists
at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and
Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions
Covering Ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan,
Malaysia, and the Russian Federation.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31135
make our preliminary determinations no
later than 65 days after the date of these
initiations.
Brazil
Based on our review of the Petitions,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation on 19 of the programs
alleged by the petitioners. For a full
discussion of the basis for our decision
to initiate on each program, see the
Brazil CVD Initiation Checklist. A
public version of the initiation checklist
for this investigation is available on
ACCESS.
Kazakhstan
Based on our review of the Petitions,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation on all 21 of the programs
alleged by the petitioners. For a full
discussion of the basis for our decision
to initiate on each program, see the
Kazakhstan CVD Initiation Checklist. A
public version of the initiation checklist
for this investigation is available on
ACCESS.
Malaysia
Based on our review of the Petitions,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation on all 13 programs alleged
by the petitioners. For a full discussion
of the basis for our decision to initiate
on each program, see the Malaysia CVD
Initiation Checklist. A public version of
the initiation checklist for this
investigation is available on ACCESS.
Russia
Based on our review of the Petitions,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation on all 23 of the programs
alleged by the petitioners. For a full
discussion of the basis for our decision
to initiate on each program, see the
Russia CVD Initiation Checklist. A
public version of the initiation checklist
for this investigation is available on
ACCESS.
Respondent Selection
In the Petitions, the petitioners
identify 11 companies in Brazil, five
companies in Kazakhstan, two
companies in Malaysia, and 11
companies in Russia as producers and/
or exporters of ferrosilicon.31 With
respect to Malaysia, the GOM provided
comments in which it stated that there
are four producers of ferrosilicon in
31 See Petitions at Volume I (page 10 and Exhibit
I–6).
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
31136
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 2024 / Notices
Malaysia.32 Commerce intends to follow
its standard practice in CVD
investigations and calculate companyspecific subsidy rates in these
investigations. In the event that
Commerce determines that the number
of companies is large and it cannot
individually examine each company
based on Commerce’s resources, where
appropriate, Commerce intends to select
respondents based on U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S.
imports of ferrosilicon during the POI
under the appropriate Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
subheadings listed within the ‘‘Scope of
the Investigations’’ in the appendix.
On April 11, 2024, Commerce
released the CBP data for imports of
ferrosilicon from Russia and, on April
12, 2024, from Brazil, Kazakhstan, and
Malaysia under Administrative
Protective Order (APO) to all parties
with access to information protected by
APO and indicated that interested
parties wishing to comment regarding
the CBP data and/or respondent
selection must do so within three
business days of the publication date of
the notice of initiation of these
investigations.33 Comments must be
filed electronically using ACCESS. An
electronically filed document must be
received successfully, in its entirety, by
ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on
the date noted above. Commerce will
not accept rebuttal comments regarding
the CBP data or respondent selection.
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under APO
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b).
Instructions for filing such applications
may be found on Commerce’s website at
https://www.trade.gov/administrativeprotective-orders.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section
702(b)(4)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), a copy of the public version
of the Petitions has been provided to the
GOB, GOK, GOM, and GOR via
ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we
will attempt to provide a copy of the
public version of the Petitions to each
32 See Memorandum, ‘‘Countervailing Duty
Petition on Ferrosilicon from Malaysia: Government
of Malaysia Statements for the Consultations,’’
dated April 16, 2024.
33 See Memoranda, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition
on Ferrosilicon from Brazil: Release of Data from
U.S. Customs and Border Protection,’’ dated April
12, 2024; ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on
Ferrosilicon from Kazakhstan: Release of Data from
U.S. Customs and Border Protection,’’ dated April
12, 2024; ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Imports
of Ferrosilicon from Malaysia: Release of U.S.
Customs and Border Protection Entry Data,’’ dated
April 12, 2024; and ‘‘Ferrosilicon from the Russian
Federation: Release of Data from U.S. Customs and
Border Protection,’’ dated April 10, 2024.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Apr 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
exporter named in the Petitions, as
provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
Commerce will notify the ITC of its
initiation, as required by section 702(d)
of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine,
within 45 days after the date on which
the Petitions were filed, whether there
is a reasonable indication that imports
of ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan,
Malaysia, and/or Russia are materially
injuring, or threatening material injury
to, a U.S. industry.34 A negative ITC
determination for any country will
result in the investigation being
terminated with respect to that
country.35 Otherwise, these CVD
investigations will proceed according to
statutory and regulatory time limits.
Submission of Factual Information
Factual information is defined in 19
CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) evidence
submitted in response to questionnaires;
(ii) evidence submitted in support of
allegations; (iii) publicly available
information to value factors of
production under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or
to measure the adequacy of
remuneration under 19 CFR
351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on
the record by Commerce; and (v)
evidence other than factual information
described in (i)–(iv). Section 351.301(b)
of Commerce’s regulations requires any
party, when submitting factual
information, to specify under which
subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the
information is being submitted 36 and, if
the information is submitted to rebut,
clarify, or correct factual information
already on the record, to provide an
explanation identifying the information
already on the record that the factual
information seeks to rebut, clarify, or
correct.37 Time limits for the
submission of factual information are
addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which
provides specific time limits based on
the type of factual information being
submitted. Interested parties should
review the regulations prior to
submitting factual information in these
investigations.
Extensions of Time Limits
Parties may request an extension of
time limits before the expiration of a
time limit established under 19 CFR
351.301, or as otherwise specified by
34 See
section 703(a)(1) of the Act.
35 Id.
36 See
37 See
PO 00000
19 CFR 351.301(b).
19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Commerce. In general, an extension
request will be considered untimely if it
is filed after the expiration of the time
limit established under 19 CFR 351.301,
or as otherwise specified by
Commerce.38 For submissions that are
due from multiple parties
simultaneously, an extension request
will be considered untimely if it is filed
after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date.
Under certain circumstances, Commerce
may elect to specify a different time
limit by which extension requests will
be considered untimely for submissions
which are due from multiple parties
simultaneously. In such a case, we will
inform parties in a letter or
memorandum of the deadline (including
a specified time) by which extension
requests must be filed to be considered
timely. An extension request must be
made in a separate, standalone
submission; under limited
circumstances we will grant untimely
filed requests for the extension of time
limits, where we determine, based on 19
CFR 351.302, that extraordinary
circumstances exist. Parties should
review Commerce’s regulations
concerning the extension of time limits
and the Time Limits Final Rule prior to
submitting factual information in these
investigations.39
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual
information in an AD or CVD
proceeding must certify to the accuracy
and completeness of that information.40
Parties must use the certification
formats provided in 19 CFR
351.303(g).41 Commerce intends to
reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with
the applicable certification
requirements.
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under APO
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.
Parties wishing to participate in these
investigations should ensure that they
meet the requirements of 19 CFR
351.103(d) (e.g., by filing the required
letters of appearance). Note that
38 See
19 CFR 351.302.
19 CFR 351.301; see also Extension of Time
Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20,
2013) (Time Limits Final Rule), available at https://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/201322853.htm.
40 See section 782(b) of the Act.
41 See Certification of Factual Information to
Import Administration During Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July
17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also frequently asked
questions regarding the Final Rule, available at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_
info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
39 See
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 2024 / Notices
Commerce has amended certain of its
requirements pertaining to the service of
documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f).42
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of
the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
Dated: April 17, 2024.
Ryan Majerus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and
Negotiations, performing the non-exclusive
functions and duties of the Assistant
Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
482–2285; Peter Farrell (Malaysia) at
(202) 482–2104; and Jacob Saude (the
Russian Federation (Russia)) at (202)
482–0981, AD/CVD Operations,
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petitions
On March 28, 2024, the U.S.
Appendix
Department of Commerce (Commerce)
received antidumping duty (AD)
Scope of the Investigations
The scope of these investigations covers all petitions concerning imports of
ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan,
forms and sizes of ferrosilicon, regardless of
Malaysia, and Russia filed in proper
grade, including ferrosilicon briquettes.
Ferrosilicon is a ferroalloy containing by
form on behalf of CC Metals and Alloys,
weight four percent or more iron, more than
LLC and Ferroglobe USA, Inc. (the
eight percent but not more than 96 percent
petitioners).1 These AD Petitions were
silicon, three percent or less phosphorus, 30
accompanied by countervailing duty
percent or less manganese, less than three
(CVD) petitions concerning imports of
percent magnesium, and 10 percent or less
any other element. The merchandise covered ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan,
2
also includes product described as slag, if the Malaysia, and Russia.
On April 1, 2024, Commerce
product meets these specifications.
requested supplemental information
Subject merchandise includes material
matching the above description that has been pertaining to certain aspects of the
finished, packaged, or otherwise processed in Petitions in supplemental
a third country, including by performing any
questionnaires.3 The petitioners
grinding or any other finishing, packaging, or responded to Commerce’s supplemental
processing that would not otherwise remove
questionnaires on April 3 and 4, 2024.4
the merchandise from the scope of the
In accordance with section 732(b) of
investigations if performed in the country of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
manufacture of the ferrosilicon.
Act), the petitioners allege that imports
Ferrosilicon is currently classifiable under
of ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan,
subheadings 7202.21.1000, 7202.21.5000,
Malaysia, and Russia are being, or are
7202.21.7500, 7202.21.9000, 7202.29.0010,
and 7202.29.0050 of the Harmonized Tariff
likely to be, sold in the United States at
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
less than fair value (LTFV) within the
While the HTSUS numbers are provided for
meaning of section 731 of the Act, and
convenience and customs purposes, the
that imports of such products are
written description of the scope remains
materially injuring, or threatening
dispositive.
material injury to, the ferrosilicon
[FR Doc. 2024–08675 Filed 4–23–24; 8:45 am]
industry in the United States. Consistent
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the
Petitions were accompanied by
information reasonably available to the
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
petitioners supporting their allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioners
International Trade Administration
filed the Petitions on behalf of the
[A–351–860, A–834–812, A–557–828, A–821– domestic industry, because the
838]
petitioners are interested parties, as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act.
Ferrosilicon From Brazil, Kazakhstan,
Commerce also finds that the petitioners
Malaysia, and the Russian Federation:
Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value
1 See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Petitions for the
Investigations
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Applicable April 17, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jaron Moore (Brazil) at (202) 482–3640;
Samantha Kinney (Kazakhstan) at (202)
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
42 See Administrative Protective Order, Service,
and Other Procedures in Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 88 FR 67069
(September 29, 2023).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Apr 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
Duties,’’ dated March 28, 2024 (the Petitions).
2 Id.
3 See Commerce’s Letter, ‘‘Supplemental
Questions,’’ dated April 1, 2024 (General Issues
Questionnaire); see also Country-Specific
Supplemental Questionnaires: Brazil Supplemental,
Kazakhstan Supplemental, Malaysia Supplemental,
and Russia Supplemental, dated April 1, 2024.
4 See Petitioners’ Letters, ‘‘Petitioner’s Responses
to Supplemental Questions—General Issues,’’ dated
April 3, 2024 (General Issues Supplement); see also
Country-Specific AD Supplemental Responses:
Brazil AD Supplement, Kazakhstan AD
Supplement, Malaysia AD Supplement, and Russia
AD Supplement, dated April 4, 2024.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31137
demonstrated sufficient industry
support for the initiation of the
requested LTFV investigations.5
Periods of Investigation
Because the Petitions were filed on
March 28, 2024, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.204(b)(1), the period of
investigation (POI) for the Brazil,
Kazakhstan, and Malaysia LTFV
investigations is January 1, 2023,
through December 31, 2023. Because
Russia is a non-market economy (NME)
country, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.204(b)(1), the POI for the Russia
LTFV investigation is July 1, 2023,
through December 31, 2023.
Scope of the Investigations
The product covered by these
investigations is ferrosilicon from
Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and
Russia. For a full description of the
scope of these investigations, see the
appendix to this notice.
Comments on the Scope of the
Investigations
As discussed in the Preamble to
Commerce’s regulations, we are setting
aside a period for interested parties to
raise issues regarding product coverage
(i.e., scope).6 Commerce will consider
all scope comments received from
interested parties and, if necessary, will
consult with interested parties prior to
the issuance of the preliminary
determinations. If scope comments
include factual information,7 all such
factual information should be limited to
public information. To facilitate
preparation of its questionnaires,
Commerce requests that scope
comments be submitted by 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Time (ET) on May 7, 2024,
which is 20 calendar days from the
signature date of this notice.8 Any
rebuttal comments, which may include
factual information, and should also be
limited to public information, must be
filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 17, 2024,
which is 10 calendar days from the
initial comment deadline.
Commerce requests that any factual
information that parties consider
relevant to the scope of these
investigations be submitted during that
period. However, if a party subsequently
finds that additional factual information
pertaining to the scope of the
investigations may be relevant, the party
5 See section on ‘‘Determination of Industry
Support for the Petitions,’’ infra.
6 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties,
Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)
(Preamble); see also 19 CFR 351.312.
7 See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ‘‘factual
information’’).
8 See 19 CFR 351.303(b)(1).
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31133-31137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-08675]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-351-861, C-834-813, C-557-829, C-821-839]
Ferrosilicon From Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and the Russian
Federation: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Applicable April 17, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Palmer or Laurel Smalley (Brazil),
Lana Nigro (Kazakhstan), John McGowan or Suresh Maniam (Malaysia), and
Mark Hoadley (the Russian Federation (Russia)), AD/CVD Operations,
Offices VIII, VII, and I, Enforcement and Compliance, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-9068, (202) 482-
3456, (202) 482-1779, (202) 482-0461, (202) 482-1603, and (202) 482-
3148, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petitions
On March 28, 2024, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce)
received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of
ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Russia filed in
proper form on behalf of CC Metals and Alloys, LLC and Ferroglobe USA,
Inc. (the petitioners).\1\ The CVD petitions were accompanied by
antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of ferrosilicon from
Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Russia.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Petitions for the Imposition of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties,'' dated March 28, 2024 (the
Petitions).
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between April 1 and 2, 2024, Commerce requested supplemental
information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions.\3\ Between
April 3 and 8, 2024, the petitioners filed timely responses to these
requests for additional information.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Commerce's Letters, ``Petition for the Imposition of
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Ferrosilicon from Brazil:
Supplemental Questions,'' dated April 1, 2024; ``Petition for the
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Ferrosilicon from
Kazakhstan: Supplemental Questions Regarding Volume V,'' dated April
2, 2024; ``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on
Imports of Ferrosilicon from Malaysia: Supplemental Questions,''
dated April 1, 2024; ``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing
Duties on Imports of Ferrosilicon from the Russian Federation:
Supplemental Questions regarding Volume IX,'' dated April 1, 2024;
and ``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties on Imports of Ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia,
and the Russian Federation: Supplemental Questions,'' dated April 1,
2024.
\4\ See Petitioners' Letters, ``Petitioners' Response to
Supplemental Questions--General Issues,'' dated April 3, 2024
(General Issues Supplement); ``Ferrosilicon from Brazil: Response to
Supplemental Questionnaire for Volume III of the Petition,'' dated
April 5, 2024; ``Ferrosilicon from Kazakhstan: Response to
Supplemental Questionnaire for Volume V of the Petition,'' dated
April 8, 2024; ``Ferrosilicon from Malaysia: Response to
Supplemental Questions for Volume VII of the Petition,'' dated April
3, 2024; and ``Ferrosilicon from the Russian Federation: Response to
Supplemental Questions Regarding Volume IX of the Petition,'' dated
April 5, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that the Government of Brazil
(GOB), the Government of Kazakhstan (GOK), the Government of Malaysia
(GOM), and the Government of Russia (GOR) (collectively, Governments)
are providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections
701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of ferrosilicon from Brazil,
Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Russia, and that such imports are materially
injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry
producing ferrosilicon in the United States. Consistent with section
702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs
on which we are initiating CVD investigations, the Petitions were
accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners
supporting their allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf
of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties
as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that
the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect
to the initiation of the requested CVD investigations.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See section on ``Determination of Industry Support for the
Petitions,'' infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Periods of Investigation
Because the Petitions were filed on March 28, 2024, the periods of
investigation (POI) for Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Russia are
January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise covered by these investigations is ferrosilicon
from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Russia. For a full description
of the scope of these investigations, see the appendix to this notice.
[[Page 31134]]
Comments on the Scope of the Investigations
As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are
setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding
product coverage (i.e., scope).\7\ Commerce will consider all comments
received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with
interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary
determinations. If scope comments include factual information, all such
factual information should be limited to public information.\8\ To
facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that
scope comments be submitted by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on May 7,
2024, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this
notice.\9\ Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual
information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 17, 2024, which is 10
calendar days from the initial comment deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule,
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997) (Preamble).
\8\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ``factual
information'').
\9\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce requests that any factual information that parties
consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted
during that time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that
additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the
investigations may be relevant, the party must contact Commerce and
request permission to submit the additional information. All scope
comments must be filed simultaneously on the records of the concurrent
AD and CVD investigations.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via
Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception
applies.\10\ An electronically filed document must be received
successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and
Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046
(November 20, 2014), for details of Commerce's electronic filing
requirements, effective August 5, 2011. Information on using ACCESS
can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook
can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook_on_Electronic_Filing_Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consultations
Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce
notified the Governments of the receipt of the Petitions and provided
an opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petitions.\11\
Commerce held consultations with the GOB on April 10, 2024,\12\ the GOK
on April 17, 2024,\13\ the GOM on April 16, 2024,\14\ and the GOR on
April 9, 2024.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Commerce's Letters, ``Countervailing Duty Petition on
Ferrosilicon from Brazil: Invitation for Consultations to Discuss
the Countervailing Duty Petition,'' dated April 1, 2024;
``Invitation for Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty
Petition on Ferrosilicon from Kazakhstan,'' dated March 29, 2024;
``Countervailing Duty Petition on Ferrosilicon from Malaysia:
Invitation for Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty
Petition,'' dated March 28, 2024; and ``Invitation for Consultations
to Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition on Ferrosilicon from the
Russian Federation,'' dated March 28, 2024.
\12\ See Memorandum, ``Consultations with Officials from the
Government of Brazil,'' dated April 11, 2024.
\13\ See Memorandum, ``Consultations with Officials from the
Government of Kazakhstan,'' dated April 17, 2024.
\14\ See Memorandum, ``Consultations with the Government of
Malaysia,'' dated April 16, 2024.
\15\ See Memorandum, ``Consultations with the Government of
Russia Regarding the Countervailing Duty Petition on Ferrosilicon
from the Russian Federation,'' dated April 9, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i)
poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if
there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or
(ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling
method to poll the ``industry.''
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute
directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC),
which is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry''
has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like
product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the
ITC apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like
product,\16\ they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a
separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce's determination
is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may
result in different definitions of the like product, such differences
do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\17\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT
2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F.
Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the
petition).
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope
of the investigations.\18\ Based on our analysis of the information
submitted on the record, we have determined that ferrosilicon, as
described in the domestic like product definition set forth in the
Petitions, constitutes a single domestic like product, and we have
analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Petitions at Volume I (pages 15-18 and Exhibits I-1 and
I-9).
\19\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as
applied to these cases and information regarding industry support,
see CVD Investigation Initiation Checklists: Ferrosilicon from
Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and the Russian Federation, dated
concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Country-
Specific CVD Initiation Checklists), at Attachment II, Analysis of
Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Petitions Covering Ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia,
and the Russian Federation (Attachment II). These checklists are on
file electronically via ACCESS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data
contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in the
[[Page 31135]]
appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners
provided their own production of the domestic like product in 2023.\20\
The petitioners stated that there are no other known producers of
ferrosilicon in the United States and provided information to support
their claim; therefore, the Petitions are supported by 100 percent of
the U.S. industry.\21\ We relied on data provided by the petitioners
for purposes of measuring industry support.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Petitions at Volume I (page 3 and Exhibit I-4); see
also General Issues Supplement at 5.
\21\ See Petitions at Volume I (pages 2-3 and Exhibit I-3); see
also General Issues Supplement at 4 and Attachment 2.
\22\ See Petitions at Volume I (pages 2-3 and Exhibits I-3 and
I-4); see also General Issues Supplement at 4-5 and Attachment 2.
For further discussion, see Attachment II of the Country-Specific
CVD Initiation Checklists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the General
Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce
indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for
the Petitions.\23\ First, the Petitions established support from
domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product and, as such,
Commerce is not required to take further action to evaluate industry
support (e.g., polling).\24\ Second, the domestic producers (or
workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under
section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product.\25\ Finally, the
domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for
industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the
domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for
more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or
opposition to, the Petitions.\26\ Accordingly, Commerce determines that
the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the
meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Petitions at Volume I (pages 2-3 and Exhibits I-3 and
I-4); see also General Issues Supplement at 4-5 and Attachment 2.
For further discussion, see Attachment II of the Country-Specific
CVD Initiation Checklists.
\24\ See Attachment II of the Country-Specific CVD Initiation
Checklists; see also section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act.
\25\ See Attachment II of the Country-Specific CVD Initiation
Checklists.
\26\ Id.
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury Test
Because Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Russia are ``Subsidies
Agreement Countries'' within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act,
section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations.
Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject
merchandise from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and/or Russia materially
injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
The petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are
benefiting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are
causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry
producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioners
allege that subject imports from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and
Russia exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section
771(24)(A) of the Act.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Petitions at Volume I (page 20 and Exhibit I-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by the significant and increasing volume of subject
imports; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; low
capacity utilization rates; lost sales and revenues; and adverse effect
on financial performance.\29\ We assessed the allegations and
supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material
injury, causation, cumulation, as well as negligibility, and we have
determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate
evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Petitions at Volume I (pages 20-47 and Exhibits I-1, I-
2, I-4, and I-8 through I-44).
\30\ See Country-Specific CVD Initiation Checklists at
Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Petitions Covering Ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia,
and the Russian Federation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of CVD Investigations
Based upon the examination of the Petitions and supplemental
responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 702 of
the Act. Therefore, we are initiating CVD investigations to determine
whether imports of ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and
Russia benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOB,
GOK, GOM, and the GOR, respectively. In accordance with section
703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we
will make our preliminary determinations no later than 65 days after
the date of these initiations.
Brazil
Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 19 of the
programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the basis
for our decision to initiate on each program, see the Brazil CVD
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for
this investigation is available on ACCESS.
Kazakhstan
Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all 21 of the
programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the basis
for our decision to initiate on each program, see the Kazakhstan CVD
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for
this investigation is available on ACCESS.
Malaysia
Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all 13
programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the basis
for our decision to initiate on each program, see the Malaysia CVD
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for
this investigation is available on ACCESS.
Russia
Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all 23 of the
programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the basis
for our decision to initiate on each program, see the Russia CVD
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for
this investigation is available on ACCESS.
Respondent Selection
In the Petitions, the petitioners identify 11 companies in Brazil,
five companies in Kazakhstan, two companies in Malaysia, and 11
companies in Russia as producers and/or exporters of ferrosilicon.\31\
With respect to Malaysia, the GOM provided comments in which it stated
that there are four producers of ferrosilicon in
[[Page 31136]]
Malaysia.\32\ Commerce intends to follow its standard practice in CVD
investigations and calculate company-specific subsidy rates in these
investigations. In the event that Commerce determines that the number
of companies is large and it cannot individually examine each company
based on Commerce's resources, where appropriate, Commerce intends to
select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
data for U.S. imports of ferrosilicon during the POI under the
appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States subheadings
listed within the ``Scope of the Investigations'' in the appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Petitions at Volume I (page 10 and Exhibit I-6).
\32\ See Memorandum, ``Countervailing Duty Petition on
Ferrosilicon from Malaysia: Government of Malaysia Statements for
the Consultations,'' dated April 16, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 11, 2024, Commerce released the CBP data for imports of
ferrosilicon from Russia and, on April 12, 2024, from Brazil,
Kazakhstan, and Malaysia under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to
all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated
that interested parties wishing to comment regarding the CBP data and/
or respondent selection must do so within three business days of the
publication date of the notice of initiation of these
investigations.\33\ Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS.
An electronically filed document must be received successfully, in its
entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the date noted above.
Commerce will not accept rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or
respondent selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Memoranda, ``Countervailing Duty Petition on
Ferrosilicon from Brazil: Release of Data from U.S. Customs and
Border Protection,'' dated April 12, 2024; ``Countervailing Duty
Petition on Ferrosilicon from Kazakhstan: Release of Data from U.S.
Customs and Border Protection,'' dated April 12, 2024;
``Countervailing Duty Petition on Imports of Ferrosilicon from
Malaysia: Release of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Entry
Data,'' dated April 12, 2024; and ``Ferrosilicon from the Russian
Federation: Release of Data from U.S. Customs and Border
Protection,'' dated April 10, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such
applications may be found on Commerce's website at https://www.trade.gov/administrative-protective-orders.
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petitions has been
provided to the GOB, GOK, GOM, and GOR via ACCESS. To the extent
practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of
the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided
under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
Commerce will notify the ITC of its initiation, as required by
section 702(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date
on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable
indication that imports of ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan,
Malaysia, and/or Russia are materially injuring, or threatening
material injury to, a U.S. industry.\34\ A negative ITC determination
for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with
respect to that country.\35\ Otherwise, these CVD investigations will
proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.
\35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of Factual Information
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i)
evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence
submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available
information to value factors of production under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or
to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2);
(iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other
than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of
Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual
information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)
the information is being submitted \36\ and, if the information is
submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on
the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information
already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut,
clarify, or correct.\37\ Time limits for the submission of factual
information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific
time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted.
Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting
factual information in these investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
\37\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extensions of Time Limits
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the
expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as
otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will
be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time
limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by
Commerce.\38\ For submissions that are due from multiple parties
simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it
is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain
circumstances, Commerce may elect to specify a different time limit by
which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions
which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we
will inform parties in a letter or memorandum of the deadline
(including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed
to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a
separate, standalone submission; under limited circumstances we will
grant untimely filed requests for the extension of time limits, where
we determine, based on 19 CFR 351.302, that extraordinary circumstances
exist. Parties should review Commerce's regulations concerning the
extension of time limits and the Time Limits Final Rule prior to
submitting factual information in these investigations.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See 19 CFR 351.302.
\39\ See 19 CFR 351.301; see also Extension of Time Limits;
Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013) (Time Limits Final
Rule), available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\40\
Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR
351.303(g).\41\ Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\41\ See Certification of Factual Information to Import
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate
in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements
of 19 CFR 351.103(d) (e.g., by filing the required letters of
appearance). Note that
[[Page 31137]]
Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the
service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f).\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See Administrative Protective Order, Service, and Other
Procedures in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 88 FR
67069 (September 29, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and
777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
Dated: April 17, 2024.
Ryan Majerus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the
non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix
Scope of the Investigations
The scope of these investigations covers all forms and sizes of
ferrosilicon, regardless of grade, including ferrosilicon
briquettes. Ferrosilicon is a ferroalloy containing by weight four
percent or more iron, more than eight percent but not more than 96
percent silicon, three percent or less phosphorus, 30 percent or
less manganese, less than three percent magnesium, and 10 percent or
less any other element. The merchandise covered also includes
product described as slag, if the product meets these
specifications.
Subject merchandise includes material matching the above
description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise processed
in a third country, including by performing any grinding or any
other finishing, packaging, or processing that would not otherwise
remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigations if
performed in the country of manufacture of the ferrosilicon.
Ferrosilicon is currently classifiable under subheadings
7202.21.1000, 7202.21.5000, 7202.21.7500, 7202.21.9000,
7202.29.0010, and 7202.29.0050 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States (HTSUS). While the HTSUS numbers are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the
scope remains dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2024-08675 Filed 4-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
