[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 88 (Friday, May 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26243-26247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11121]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-821-807]


Initiation of Anticircumvention Inquiry on Antidumping Duty Order 
on Ferrovanadium and Nitrided Vanadium From the Russian Federation

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request from AMG Vanadium, Inc. (AMG 
Vanadium), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is initiating an 
anticircumvention inquiry to determine whether imports of vanadium 
pentoxide from the Russian Federation (Russia) that is converted into 
ferrovanadium in the United States are circumventing the antidumping 
duty order on ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium (ferrovanadium) from 
Russia. See Notice of Antidumping Order: Ferrovanadium and Nitrided 
Vanadium From the Russian Federation, 60 FR 35550 (July 10, 1995).

DATES: Effective Date: May 6, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Goldberger or Rebecca Trainor, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4136 or (202) 482-4007, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 25, 2011, AMG Vanadium submitted a request that the 
Department initiate an anticircumvention inquiry (AMG Request), 
pursuant to section 781(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act), and 19 CFR 351.225(c) and (g), to determine whether imports of 
vanadium pentoxide from Russia that is processed into ferrovanadium in 
the United States are circumventing the antidumping duty order on 
ferrovanadium from Russia. Specifically, AMG Vanadium alleges that the 
Evraz Group \1\ is importing vanadium pentoxide, an intermediate 
product used in the production of ferrovanadium, from its Russian 
affiliate OAO Vanady-Tula. The imported vanadium pentoxide is then 
toll-converted into ferrovanadium in the United States by an 
unaffiliated processor (which never takes title), prior to sale in the 
United States. AMG Vanadium alleges that this trade pattern is 
circumventing the antidumping duty order within the meaning of section 
781(a) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Evraz Group includes OAO Vanady-Tula, East Metals S.A., 
and East Metals N.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AMG Vanadium further claims that: (1) The ferrovanadium sold in the 
United States is of the same class or kind of merchandise as the 
ferrovanadium that is subject to the order; (2) the ferrovanadium is 
completed or assembled in the United States from parts or components 
produced in Russia; (3) the process of converting vanadium pentoxide to 
ferrovanadium in the United States is minor or insignificant; and (4) 
the value of the Russian vanadium pentoxide constitutes a significant 
portion of the value of the finished ferrovanadium sold in the United 
States. Accordingly, AMG Vanadium requests that the Department include 
within the scope of the ferrovanadium order vanadium pentoxide 
manufactured in Russia, regardless of form, that is produced, exported, 
or imported by the Evraz Group or any of its affiliates.
    In response to the Department's March 9, 2011, request, on March 
16, 2011, AMG Vanadium provided additional information pertinent to its 
anticircumvention inquiry request (March 16 Submission).
    On March 25, 2011, the Evraz Group filed comments opposing AMG 
Vanadium's circumvention allegation on the grounds that the Department 
is legally precluded from including vanadium pentoxide in the scope of 
the order. The Evraz Group included in its submission calculations 
performed using a cost-based methodology, as an alternative to the 
value-based methodology used by AMG Vanadium, arguing that AMG 
Vandium's approach leads to misleading results. Between April 1 and 22, 
2011, AMG Vanadium and the Evraz Group submitted additional comments 
with respect to whether the Department should initiate this 
anticircumvention inquiry. The Department met with representatives of 
AMG Vanadium and the Evraz Group on March 3, and April 5, 2011, 
respectively, to discuss the request.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the antidumping duty order are 
ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium, regardless of grade, chemistry, 
form or size, unless expressly excluded from the scope of this order. 
Ferrovanadium

[[Page 26244]]

includes alloys containing ferrovanadium as the predominant element by 
weight (i.e., more weight than any other element, except iron in some 
instances) and at least 4 percent by weight of iron. Nitrided vanadium 
includes compounds containing vanadium as the predominant element, by 
weight, and at least 5 percent, by weight, of nitrogen. Excluded from 
the scope of the order are vanadium additives other than ferrovanadium 
and nitrided vanadium, such as vanadium-aluminum master alloys, 
vanadium chemicals, vanadium waste and scrap, vanadium-bearing raw 
materials, such as slag, boiler residues, fly ash, and vanadium oxides.
    The products subject to this order are currently classifiable under 
subheadings 2850.00.20, 7202.92.00, 7202.99.50.40, 8112.40.30.00, and 
8112.40.60.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, our written description of the scope is 
dispositive.

Scope of the Anticircumvention Inquiry

    The product subject to this anticircumvention inquiry is vanadium 
pentoxide (V2O5) from Russia, which is usually in 
a granular form and may contain other substances, including silica 
(SiO2), manganese, and sulfur, and which is converted into 
ferrovanadium in the United States. Such merchandise is classifiable 
under subheading 2825.30.0010 of the HTSUS.
    As noted above, interested parties have filed comments concerning 
the initiation of this anticircumvention inquiry. Although vanadium 
pentoxide is excluded from the scope of the order, AMG Vanadium argues 
that the Department's regulations and legal precedent allow for the 
Department to consider expressly-excluded merchandise in an 
anticircumvention proceeding. AMG Vanadium cites Steel Wire Rope from 
Mexico; Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of Antidumping 
Duty Order, 60 FR 10831 (February 28, 1995) and several cases decided 
by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the Court),\2\ in 
support of its contention that anticircumvention determinations are 
distinguished from conventional scope determinations, in that the 
criteria the Department considers in making an anticircumvention 
determination do not include whether the imported merchandise was 
initially excluded from the scope of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, e.g., Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 219 F.3d 
1348 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (Nippon Steel); and Target Corp. v. United 
States, 609 F.3d 1352 (July 23, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Evraz Group argues that including vanadium pentoxide within the 
scope of the antidumping duty order would be inconsistent with the 
International Trade Commission's (ITC) injury investigation, and the 
legal precedent in Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1365, 
1370 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (Wheatland Tube). Specifically, the Evraz Group 
argues that the ITC expressly excluded vanadium pentoxide from the 
scope of the injury investigation at the request of the domestic 
industry. In Wheatland Tube, the Evraz Group asserts, the Court ruled 
that the domestic industry cannot seek to broaden the scope after 
having made representations to the ITC that the product at issue was 
not a like product for purposes of the injury determination; and that 
although the Department may interpret and clarify the scope of the 
antidumping duty orders, it may not change or interpret them contrary 
to their terms.
    The Department addressed this issue in the Initiation of 
Anticircumvention Inquiry on Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders 
on Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products from the United 
Kingdom and Germany, 62 FR 34213 (June 25, 1997) (Lead and Bismuth). In 
that case, the Department concluded that the theory that parts 
expressly excluded from the scope of an antidumping order cannot be 
subject to an anticircumvention inquiry is contrary to, and would 
undermine, the core principles of the anticircumvention statute. Citing 
the legislative history, we observed that Congress intended to allow 
anticircumvention inquiries into parts or components that meet the 
criteria of section 781(a), as ``{t{time} he underlying rationale of 
the anticircumvention statute is that, where the criteria of section 
781(a) are met, the parts and components subject to the finding of 
circumvention are, in all meaningful respects, being imported as the 
subject merchandise, not as parts or components per se. The processing 
in the United States is of such a minor or insignificant nature as to 
be irrelevant.'' \3\ Thus, ``{t{time} he application of the U.S. 
finishing or assembly provision will not require new injury findings as 
to each part or component. The anticircumvention provision is intended 
to cover efforts to circumvent an order by importing disassembled or 
unfinished merchandise for assembly in the United States. Hence, the 
ITC would generally advise as to whether the parts or components taken 
as a whole fall within the injury determination.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 603 
(1988) and Lead and Bismuth, 62 FR 34213, 34215.
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is consistent with the Federal Circuit's opinions reviewing 
the Department's anticircumvention inquiries. Although Wheatland Tube 
and Nippon Steel dealt with the minor alteration provision (section 
781(c) of the Act), rather than the provision for merchandise completed 
in the United States (section 781(a) of the Act) at issue here, the 
Court's analysis is instructive. In Wheatland Tube, the Court held that 
``the line and dual-certified pipe accused of circumventing the 
Standard Pipe Orders is the same pipe that the orders expressly 
exclude.'' Wheatland Tube, 161 F. 3d at 1369. In contrast, in Nippon 
Steel, the Court held that ``Commerce was performing a function 
Congress has given to it--to determine whether an antidumping duty 
order has been circumvented by making minor alterations in the form of 
the product otherwise subject to that order.'' Nippon Steel, 219 F. 3d 
at 1354. The Court's analysis allowed that a circumvention inquiry is 
proper where, but for an act meant to circumvent the order, the product 
would be covered (contrast the carbon steel in Nippon Steel with the 
line pipe in Wheatland Tube). Here, the covered product is 
ferrovanadium and the alleged act meant to circumvent the order on 
ferrovanadium from Russia is further processing in the United States. 
For these reasons, we determine that the Evraz Group's arguments do not 
provide a legal basis for rejecting AMG Vanadium's application for an 
anticircumvention inquiry pursuant to section 781(a) of the Act.

Initiation of Anticircumvention Proceeding

Applicable Statute

    Section 781(a) of the Act provides that the Department may find 
circumvention of an antidumping duty order when merchandise of the same 
class or kind subject to the order is completed or assembled in the 
United States. In conducting anticircumvention inquiries under section 
781(a)(1) of the Act, the Department relies upon the following 
criteria: (A) Merchandise sold in the United States is of the same 
class or kind as any other merchandise that is the subject of an 
antidumping duty order produced in a foreign country that is subject to 
an antidumping duty order; (B) such merchandise sold in the United 
States is completed or assembled in the United States from parts or 
components

[[Page 26245]]

produced in the foreign country with respect to which the antidumping 
duty order applies; (C) the process of assembly or completion in the 
United States is minor or insignificant; and (D) the value of the parts 
or components referred to in (B) is a significant portion of the total 
value of the merchandise. As discussed below, AMG Vanadium presented 
evidence with respect to these criteria.

A. Merchandise of the Same Class or Kind

    AMG Vanadium states that the merchandise sold in the United States 
is ferrovanadium. As this merchandise is covered by the scope of the 
antidumping duty order, the merchandise is of the same class or kind as 
the merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order.

B. Completion of Merchandise in the United States

    AMG Vanadium alleges that vanadium pentoxide produced in Russia is 
imported into the United States and further processed into 
ferrovanadium. According to AMG Vanadium, the Russian vanadium 
pentoxide is converted into ferrovanadium by Bear Metallurgical Company 
(Bear), a toll processor unaffiliated with the Evraz Group. AMG 
Vanadium believes that Evraz Group member, East Metals NA, retains 
title to the merchandise during the toll conversion. See AMG Request at 
pages 5-7, and March 16 Response at pages 6-10.

C. Minor or Insignificant Process

    AMG Vanadium asserts that the process of converting vanadium 
pentoxide into ferrovanadium is a limited and minor process as compared 
to the production process for vanadium pentoxide. See AMG Request at 
pages 7-10, and Exhibits 13-15 for a detailed discussion of the two 
production processes.
    AMG Vanadium argues that an analysis of the relevant statutory 
factors of section 781(a)(2) of the Act supports its conclusion that 
the processing in the United States is ``minor or insignificant.'' 
These factors include: (1) The level of investment in the United 
States; (2) the level of research and development in the United States; 
(3) the nature of the production process in the United States; (4) the 
extent of production facilities in the United States; and (5) whether 
the value of the processing performed in the United States represents a 
small proportion of the value of the merchandise sold in the United 
States.
    AMG Vanadium argues that the processing in the United States is 
``minor and insignificant'' as the term is defined in section 781(a)(2) 
of the Act when compared to the complex and capital-intensive process 
involved in producing vanadium pentoxide. AMG Vanadium's analysis of 
the statutory factors to determine whether the process is minor or 
insignificant in accordance with section 782(a)(2) of the Act follows 
below.
(1) Level of Investment
    AMG Vanadium asserts that the processing of vanadium pentoxide into 
ferrovanadium, as discussed in the AMG Request,\5\ is neither complex 
nor capital-intensive and does not require extensive production 
facilities. Accordingly, AMG Vanadium contends that the level of 
investment for ferrovanadium conversion from vanadium pentoxide is low 
relative to the level of investment associated with vanadium pentoxide 
production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See AMG Request at 7-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Level of Research and Development
    AMG Vanadium states that the process for converting vanadium 
pentoxide into ferrovanadium as performed by the toll-processor Bear is 
unchanged since the initiation of the underlying antidumping duty 
investigation in 1994. Accordingly, AMG Vanadium believes the level of 
research and development in the United States for converting vanadium 
pentoxide into ferrovanadium is low.
(3) Nature of the Production Process in the United States
    The production processes for both vanadium pentoxide and 
ferrovanadium are detailed in the AMG Request, as referenced above. AMG 
Vanadium maintains that the process of converting vanadium pentoxide 
into ferrovanadium is limited and minor as compared to the process of 
manufacturing vanadium pentoxide.
(4) Extent of Production Facilities in the United States
    AMG Vanadium asserts that, consistent with its description of the 
production process, the conversion of vanadium pentoxide requires 
minimal capital equipment. At Exhibit 16 of the AMG Request, AMG 
Vanadium provided overhead photos comparing the extensive size of the 
Evraz Group's vanadium pentoxide production facility with the 
considerably smaller ``footprint'' of Bear's toll-processing facility 
in order to support its contention that the facilities necessary for 
processing vanadium pentoxide into ferrovanadium are significantly 
smaller than those necessary for vanadium pentoxide production.
(5) Value of Processing in the United States Compared to Value of the 
Merchandise Sold in the United States
    To support its contention that the value of the processing 
performed in the United States is a small portion of the total value of 
the merchandise sold in the United States, AMG Vanadium calculated the 
difference between the value of ferrovanadium sold in the United 
States, and the value of the vanadium pentoxide consumed to produce the 
ferrovanadium. For this calculation, AMG Vanadium based the value of 
ferrovanadium on the monthly average of the U.S. market prices for 
ferrovanadium with 80 percent vanadium content, as published in the 
metals industry publication Ryan's Notes. Similarly, AMG Vanadium based 
the value of vanadium pentoxide on the monthly average of the U.S. 
market prices for vanadium pentoxide published in Ryan's Notes, and 
then calculated the total value of vanadium pentoxide required to 
produce one unit of ferrovanadium with 80 percent vanadium content. In 
its calculations, AMG Vanadium added an amount to the vanadium 
pentoxide price to represent the estimated cost of freight from the 
U.S. port to the processing facility. AMG Vanadium calculated a ratio 
of the differences between the two sets of prices to average 
ferrovanadium prices, and found that the average annual value for 
processing vanadium pentoxide into ferrovanadium ranged from 6.5 to 
approximately 7 percent of the value of finished ferrovanadium during 
2009, and approximately 15 to 15.8 percent in 2010. See AMG Request at 
pages 12-14 and Exhibits 17 and 18, and March 16 Response at pages 13-
18 and Exhibit 10.

D. Value of Merchandise Produced in the Foreign Country Is a 
Significant Portion of the Value of the Merchandise Sold in the United 
States

    As stated above, AMG Vanadium contends that the value of the 
processing performed in the United States represents a minor portion of 
the value of the completed merchandise. Therefore, that analysis 
necessarily implies that the value of the Russian-origin vanadium 
pentoxide consumed to produce ferrovanadium is a significant portion of 
the total value of the merchandise sold in the United States. AMG 
Vanadium estimates the value of the Russian vanadium pentoxide consumed 
to produce ferrovanadium to be 84 percent or greater of the value of 
the ferrovanadium sold in the United States (i.e., the difference 
between the

[[Page 26246]]

total value of the ferrovanadium sold in the United States and the 
value of the U.S. conversion described above). See AMG Request at page 
14.

E. Factors To Consider in Determining Whether Action Is Necessary

    Section 781(a)(3) of the Act identifies additional factors that the 
Department shall consider in the Department's decision to include parts 
or components in an antidumping duty order as part of an 
anticircumvention investigation. These factors are discussed below.

Pattern of Trade, Including Sourcing Patterns

    AMG Vanadium explains in the AMG Request that, following the 
imposition of the antidumping duty order in 1995, imports of 
ferrovanadium from Russia ceased in total by 1997. Since 2005, however, 
imports of vanadium pentoxide from Russia have increased from 27 MT in 
2005, to 450 MT in 2006, to 2,680 MT in 2010. At the same time, AMG 
Vanadium states that the average unit value of the vanadium pentoxide 
imports, according to U.S. import statistics, has decreased by half. 
AMG Vanadium concludes that this information demonstrates that the 
pattern of trade has shifted from imports of ferrovanadium from Russia 
to an increasing flow of vanadium pentoxide from Russia that is 
converted into ferrovanadium in the United States.

Affiliation

    Under section 781(a)(3)(B) of the Act, the Department shall take 
into account whether the manufacturer or exporter of the parts or 
components is affiliated with the person who assembles or completes the 
merchandise sold in the United States from the parts or components 
produced in the foreign country when making a decision in an 
anticircumvention case. As described above and in the AMG Request, AMG 
Vanadium states that the Evraz Group, through its affiliates, produces 
vanadium pentoxide in Russia, ships and imports it into the United 
States, has it converted into ferrovanadium by an unaffiliated company 
while maintaining title to the product, and sells the completed 
ferrovanadium to customers in the United States. Accordingly, AMG 
Vanadium maintains that the manufacturer, exporter, and U.S. importer 
of the Russian vanadium pentoxide, as well as the party overseeing the 
conversion process and ultimate sale of the ferrovanadium, are all 
under the common ownership and control of a single entity, the Evraz 
Group.

Subsequent Import Volume

    Under section 781(a)(3)(C) of the Act, the Department shall take 
into account whether imports into the United States of the parts or 
components produced in the foreign country have increased after the 
initiation of the investigation, which resulted in the issuance of the 
order, when making a decision in an anticircumvention case. As 
described above, AMG Vanadium reports that imports of vanadium 
pentoxide from Russia have risen from zero from 1995 to 2004, to 
approximately 2,680 MT in 2010.

Analysis

    Based on our analysis of the AMG Request and the March 16 Response, 
the Department determines that a formal anticircumvention inquiry is 
warranted. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(e), if the Department 
finds that the issue of whether a product is included within the scope 
of an order cannot be determined based solely upon the request and the 
descriptions of the merchandise, the Department will notify by mail all 
parties on the Department's scope service list of the initiation of a 
scope inquiry, including an anticircumvention inquiry. In addition, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(f)(1), a notice of the initiation of an 
anticircumvention inquiry issued under 19 CFR 351.225(e) will include a 
description of the product that is the subject of the anticircumvention 
inquiry--in this case, vanadium pentoxide from Russia that is converted 
into ferrovanadium in the United States--and an explanation of the 
reasons for the Department's decision to initiate an anticircumvention 
inquiry, as provided below.
    With regard to whether the merchandise sold in the United States is 
of the same class or kind as the merchandise covered by the antidumping 
duty order, AMG Vanadium presented information indicating that the 
merchandise sold in the United States, ferrovanadium, is of the same 
class or kind as ferrovanadium from Russia, which is subject to the 
antidumping duty order.
    With regard to completion of merchandise in the United States, AMG 
Vanadium has also presented information to support its contention that 
ferrovanadium sold in the United States is produced from vanadium 
pentoxide imported into the United States from Russia which is further 
processed in the United States.
    With regard to whether the conversion of ferrovanadium in the 
United States from vanadium pentoxide imported from Russia is a ``minor 
or insignificant process,'' AMG Vanadium addressed the relevant 
statutory factors used to determine whether the processing of vanadium 
pentoxide is minor or insignificant with the best information available 
to it at the time of its anticircumvention inquiry request. AMG 
Vanadium relied on publicly-available information for this purpose. As 
AMG noted in the March 16 Response at pages 10-12, it does not have 
access to the Evraz Group's cost or price data regarding vanadium 
pentoxide and ferrovanadium prices, and therefore relied on the Ryan's 
Notes price comparisons to demonstrate that, quantitatively, the value 
of the vanadium pentoxide conversion in the United States is minor or 
insignificant.
    Based on our analysis of the information in AMG Vanadium's 
submissions, we find that AMG Vanadium provided sufficient evidence for 
each of the criteria enumerated in the statute to initiate an 
anticircumvention inquiry. As AMG Vanadium acknowledged, the price 
information derived from Ryan's Notes is based on price observations 
for domestic and imported products and, thus, is not limited to the 
Russian-sourced vanadium pentoxide or U.S.-converted ferrovanadium at 
issue. However, AMG Vanadium explained that the Ryan's Notes prices are 
widely used in price negotiations in the industry and fairly represent 
the value of ferrovanadium and vanadium pentoxide in the United States, 
regardless of source, and are the best information available to AMG 
Vanadium regarding the value of the imported input and the finished 
product. See March 16 Response at pages 10-15.
    AMG Vanadium also acknowledged certain inconsistent fluctuations in 
the pricing spread between vanadium pentoxide and ferrovanadium 
according to the Ryan's Notes prices listed for certain months in 
Exhibit 18 of the AMG Request. AMG Vanadium asserted that these short-
term fluctuations do not adversely affect the reliability of using the 
difference between the published Ryan's Notes market prices for 
ferrovanadium and vanadium pentoxide over a longer period of time to 
determine the value of the U.S. processing. We note that the 
inconsistent price fluctuations occurred in 2009, when vanadium 
pentoxide imports from Russia were much lower than during 2010 (see 
Exhibit 2 of the ACI Request). According to AMG Request Exhibit 18 and 
March 16 Response Exhibit 10, the price spread between vanadium 
pentoxide and

[[Page 26247]]

ferrovanadium was more stable during 2010, and provides reasonable 
support for AMG Vanadium's contention that the value of processing 
vanadium pentoxide into ferrovanadium may be considered minor or 
insignificant for purposes of initiating this anticircumvention 
inquiry. At the same time, we acknowledge the Evraz Group's comments 
regarding the use of this pricing information and an alternative, cost-
based comparison methodology for determining whether the value of 
processing vanadium pentoxide into ferrovanadium in the United States 
is minor or insignificant. We will consider this issue further during 
our anticircumvention inquiry.
    With respect to the value of the merchandise produced in Russia, 
AMG Vanadium relied on the information and arguments in the ``minor or 
insignificant process'' portion of its anticircumvention request to 
indicate that the value of the Russian vanadium pentoxide is 
significant relative to the total value of finished ferrovanadium sold 
in the United States. We find that this information adequately meets 
the requirements of this factor, as discussed above.
    Finally, AMG Vanadium argued that the Department should also 
consider the pattern of trade, affiliation, and subsequent import 
volume as factors in determining whether to initiate the 
anticircumvention inquiry. The import volume data submitted by AMG 
Vanadium indicates that vanadium pentoxide imports from Russia have 
increased significantly in recent years, while imports of ferrovanadium 
from Russia ceased within a few years after imposition of the 
antidumping duty order. In addition, AMG Vanadium provided information 
suggesting that the Evraz Group, through its various affiliates, is 
managing the importation of vanadium pentoxide from Russia, the 
processing of this vanadium pentoxide into ferrovanadium in the United 
States, and the sale of the ferrovanadium in the United States, which 
together reflect an intention to shift to the United States completion 
of merchandise subject to the order on ferrovanadium from Russia.
    Accordingly, we are initiating an anticircumvention inquiry 
concerning the antidumping duty order on ferrovanadium from Russia, 
pursuant to section 781(a) of the Act. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.225(l)(2), if the Department issues a preliminary affirmative 
determination, we will then instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
to suspend liquidation and require a cash deposit of estimated duties, 
at the applicable rate, for each unliquidated entry of the merchandise 
at issue, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or 
after the date of initiation of the inquiry.
    The Department is focusing its analysis of the significance of the 
ferrovanadium production process in the United States based on the 
entries of vanadium pentoxide produced in Russia by OAO Vanady-Tula 
that are imported by or consigned to any company in the Evraz Group, as 
discussed in the AMG Request and about which sufficient information to 
initiate an anticircumvention inquiry has been provided. If the 
Department receives a request from an interested party regarding 
potential circumvention by other companies involved in processing 
Russian vanadium pentoxide into ferrovanadium in the United States 
within sufficient time, we will consider conducting the inquiries 
concurrently.
    The Department will, following consultation with interested 
parties, establish a schedule for questionnaires and comments on the 
issues. The Department intends to issue its final determination within 
300 days of the date of publication of this initiation consistent with 
section 781(f) of the Act.
    This notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(f).

    Dated: May 2, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-11121 Filed 5-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P