[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49471-49475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19736]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-821-820, A-307-824]


Ferrosilicon From the Russian Federation and Venezuela: 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations

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

DATES: Effective Date: August 14, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Bertrand at (202) 482-3207, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Petitions

    On July 19, 2013, the Department of Commerce (the ``Department'') 
received antidumping duty (``AD'') petitions concerning imports of 
ferrosilicon from the Russian Federation (``Russia'') and Venezuela 
filed in proper form on behalf of Globe Specialty Metals, Inc.; CC 
Metals and Alloys, LLC; the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, 
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers 
International Union; and the International Union, United Automobile, 
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (``UAW'') 
(collectively, ``Petitioners'').\1\ On July 22, 2013, Petitioners 
submitted a foreign research report with respect to the Venezuela 
petition.\2\ On July 24, 2013, the Department issued requests for 
additional information and clarification of certain aspects of the 
Petitions. On July 25 and July 26, 2013, Petitioners filed responses 
with respect to general questions about information in the Petitions 
(``General Supplement'') as well as company-specific questions 
(``Supplement to Russia Petition'' and ``Supplement to Venezuela 
Petition''). On August 2, 2013, the Department spoke with the foreign 
market researcher who authored the Foreign Research Report.\3\ On 
August 5, 2013, Petitioners submitted revised scope

[[Page 49472]]

language, which is reflected in the ``Scope of Investigations'' section 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See ``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 
Ferrosilicon from Russia and Venezuela,'' filed on July 19, 2013 
(``Petitions'').
    \2\ See Petitioners' Venezuelan Foreign Research Report, dated 
July 22, 2013 (``Foreign Research Report'').
    \3\ See Memorandum to the File; re: Telephone Conversation with 
Foreign Market Researcher, dated concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners allege, in accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (the ``Act''), that imports of ferrosilicon 
from Russia and Venezuela are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 
United States at less than fair value, within the meaning of section 
731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or 
threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States.
    The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf 
of the domestic industry, in accordance with section 732(b)(1) of the 
Act. The Department also finds that Petitioners are interested parties 
as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and that 
Petitioners have demonstrated sufficient industry support for the AD 
investigations that Petitioners are requesting that the Department 
initiate (see ``Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions'' 
section below).

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') for these investigations is 
July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of Investigations

    The merchandise covered by these investigations is all forms and 
sizes of ferrosilicon, regardless of grade, including ferrosilicon 
briquettes. Ferrosilicon is a ferroalloy containing by weight 4 percent 
or more iron, more than 8 percent but not more than 96 percent silicon, 
3 percent or less phosphorus, 30 percent or less manganese, less than 3 
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.
    Ferrosilicon is currently classified under U.S. Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule (``HTSUS'') subheadings 7202.21.1000, 7202.21.5000, 
7202.21.7500, 7202.21.9000, 7202.29.0010, and 7202.29.0050. Although 
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

Comments on Scope of Investigations

    During our review of the Petitions, we discussed the scope with 
Petitioners to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products 
for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as 
discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations (Antidumping 
Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 
1997)), we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise 
issues regarding product coverage. The period of scope consultations is 
intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider 
all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the 
preliminary determinations. The Department encourages all interested 
parties to submit such comments by close-of-business, August 28, 2013, 
which is twenty calendar days from the signature date of this notice. 
All scope comments must be filed on the records of the Russia and 
Venezuela AD investigations. Comments should be filed electronically 
using Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Centralized Electronic Service System (``IA ACCESS''). An 
electronically filed document must be received successfully in its 
entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS. 
Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be 
filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with the APO/Dockets Unit in Room 
1870 and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the deadline 
noted above.

Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires

    We are requesting comments from interested parties regarding the 
physical characteristics of ferrosilicon that should be reported in 
response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will 
be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject 
merchandise in order to more accurately report the costs of production, 
as well as to develop appropriate product comparison criteria.
    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that 
they believe are relevant to the development of a list identifying key 
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to 
the most relevant characteristics for use as (1) general product 
characteristics and (2) the product comparison criteria. We note that 
it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as 
product comparison criteria. We base product comparison criteria on 
meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, while 
there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by 
manufacturers to describe ferrosilicon, it may be that only a select 
few product characteristics account for commercially meaningful 
physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment 
on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in 
product matching. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most 
important physical characteristics first and the least important 
characteristics last.
    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in 
developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, we must receive comments 
on product characteristics by August 29, 2013. Additionally, rebuttal 
comments must be received by September 9, 2013. All comments must be 
filed on the records of the Russia and Venezuela AD investigations. All 
comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically 
using IA ACCESS, as explained above.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support 
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of 
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of 
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department 
shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to 
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by 
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a 
statistically valid sampling method to poll the ``industry.''
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine 
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute 
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the 
domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (``ITC''), 
which is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' 
has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like 
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and 
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic 
like product (see section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for

[[Page 49473]]

different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. 
In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations 
of time and information. Although this may result in different 
definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the 
decision of either agency contrary to law.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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 
petitions).
    With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer 
a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of 
the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted 
on the record, we have determined that ferrosilicon constitutes a 
single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in 
terms of that domestic like product.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in 
this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 
Ferrosilicon from the Russian Federation (``Russia Initiation 
Checklist'') at Attachment II, and Antidumping Duty Investigation 
Initiation Checklist: Ferrosilicon from Venezuela (``Venezuela 
Initiation Checklist'') at Attachment II. These checklists are dated 
concurrently with, and are hereby adopted by, this notice and are on 
file electronically via IA ACCESS. Access to documents filed via IA 
ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of 
the main Department of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether Petitioners have standing under section 
732(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 Investigations'' section above. To 
establish industry support, Petitioners provided their own production 
of the domestic like product in 2012.\7\ Petitioners state that they 
are the only producers of ferrosilicon in the United States; therefore, 
the Petitions are supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Volume I of Petitions, at 3 and Exhibit I-2.
    \8\ See id., at 3 and Exhibit I-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the data provided in the Petitions and other 
information readily available to the Department indicates that 
Petitioners have established industry support.\9\ 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, the Department is not required to take further 
action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).\10\ 
Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory 
criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act 
because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions 
account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic 
like product.\11\ Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met 
the statutory criteria for industry support under section 
732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) 
who support the 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.\12\ 
Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) 
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Russia Initiation Checklist and Venezuela Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \10\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Russia 
Initiation Checklist and Venezuela Initiation Checklist, at 
Attachment II.
    \11\ See Russia Initiation Checklist and Venezuela Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \12\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf 
of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined 
in section 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and they have demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that 
they are requesting the Department initiate.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic 
like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with 
material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise 
sold at less than normal value (``NV''). In addition, Petitioners 
allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided 
for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Volume I of Petitions, at 33 and Exhibit I-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share; increased market penetration; 
declining production and shipments and reduced capacity utilization; 
underselling and price depression or suppression; increased 
inventories; reduced employment, hours worked, and wages paid; lost 
sales and revenues; and decline in financial performance.\15\ We have 
assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material 
injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have 
determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate 
evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Volume I of Petitions, at 20-47 and Exhibits I-5, I-6 
and I-13 through I-35.
    \16\ See Russia Initiation Checklist and Venezuela Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate these investigations of imports of ferrosilicon from Russia 
and Venezuela. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments 
relating to the U.S. price and NV are also discussed in the country-
specific initiation checklists.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Russia Initiation Checklist and Venezuela Initiation 
Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Export Price

Russia

    Petitioners calculated export price (``EP'') based on the average 
unit value (``AUV'') for Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (``HTSUS'') subheading 7202.21.5000, described as ``ferrosilicon 
of iron or steel,'' (and identified as ``75 percent 
ferrosilicon''),\18\ during the POI.\19\ Petitioners deducted foreign 
inland freight from the AUV and converted the unit of measure of the 
AUV from kilograms of contained silicon to pounds of contained 
silicon.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Volume I of Petitions, at 5, for a description of HTSUS 
7202.21.5000.
    \19\ See Volume II of Petitions, at 2-3 and Exhibit II-2.
    \20\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Venezuela

    Petitioners based U.S. EP on the AUV for HTSUS subheading 
7202.21.5000, described as ``ferrosilicon of iron or steel,'' during 
the POI.\21\ Petitioners converted the unit of measure for the AUV from 
kilograms of contained silicon to pounds of contained silicon.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Volume III of Petitions, at 1-2 and Exhibit II-4.
    \22\ See id, at 1-2 and Exhibit III-2. As explained by 
Petitioners, ``Ferrosilicon is available in `standard' grades and 
`specialty' grades. The standard ferrosilicon grades include 
`regular,' `high purity,' `low aluminum,' and `foundry grade' 
material. References to `regular grade 75 percent ferrosilicon' or 
`regular grade 50 percent ferrosilicon' denote products containing 
the indicated percentages of silicon and recognized maximum 
percentages of minor elements.'' See Volume I of Petitions, at 6. 
Thus, 75 percent ferrosilicon is a grade of product that contains 75 
percent silicon of total elements, as defined within HTSUS 
7202.21.5000. The unit-of-measure referencing units per ``contained 
silicon'' basis simply means the unit of measure is based on the 
percentage of silicon out of total elements in the gross weight of 
the product. The ``contained silicon'' unit of measure is an 
industry standard unit of measure, as noted by Petitioners in Volume 
II of Petitions, at 2 and ns. 4-5.

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

[[Page 49474]]

Normal Value

Russia

    Petitioners provided two home market prices for 75 percent 
ferrosilicon in Russia. The two home market price NVs were based on 
prices at which dealers offered to sell 75 percent ferrosilicon 
produced by CHEMK Industrial Group (``CHEMK'') to Russian purchasers in 
February 2013.\23\ Petitioners provided affidavits for the two written 
offers that specified the gross weight, terms of delivery, and whether 
the price was inclusive of Russian value-added tax (``VAT''). These 
prices were adjusted to exclude VAT, freight from the factory to the 
warehouse, and trading company mark-up, where appropriate.\24\ 
Petitioners converted the adjusted prices to U.S. dollars and the unit 
of measure from gross metric tons to pounds of contained silicon.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Volume II of Petitions, at 3-4.
    \24\ See id., at 3-4 and Exhibit II-3.
    \25\ See id.; see also Supplement to Russia Petition, at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sales-Below-Cost Allegation

    Petitioners also provided information demonstrating reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of ferrosilicon in the Russian 
market were made at prices below the cost of production (``COP'') 
within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act and requested that the 
Department conduct sales-below-cost investigation of CHEMK.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See id., at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to sales-below-cost allegations in the context of 
investigations, the Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act states that an allegation 
of sales below COP need not be specific to individual exporters or 
producers.\27\ The SAA states further that ``Commerce will consider 
allegations of below-cost sales in the aggregate for a foreign country 
. . . on a country-wide basis for purposes of initiating an antidumping 
investigation.'' \28\ Consequently, the Department intends to consider 
Petitioners' allegation on a country-wide basis for purposes of this 
initiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, at 833 (1994).
    \28\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the SAA provides that section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Act 
retains the requirement that the Department have ``reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that below-cost sales have occurred before 
initiating such an investigation.'' \29\ ```Reasonable grounds' will 
exist when an interested party provides specific factual information on 
costs and prices, observed or constructed, indicating that sales in the 
foreign market in question are at below-cost prices.'' \30\ As 
explained in the ``Constructed Value'' section below, we find 
reasonable grounds exist that indicate sales in Russia were made at 
below-cost prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See id.
    \30\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Constructed Value

    Given the evidence of below-cost sales, Petitioners also relied on 
constructed value (``CV'') as the basis for NV.\31\ Pursuant to section 
773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the cost of manufacture (``COM''), 
selling, general, and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses, financial 
expenses, packing expenses, and profit. To calculate the COM for 75 
percent ferrosilicon, Petitioners multiplied the quantity of each of 
the inputs used to manufacture the product, based on the production 
experience of one of the Petitioners, Global Specialty Metals Inc. 
(``GSM''), and adjusted for known differences between the Russia and 
U.S. industries, by the value of those inputs obtained from publicly 
available Russian market data.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Volume II of Petitions, at 4-6 and Exhibits II-4 and 
II-5; see also Supplement to Russia Petition, at 4-6 and Exhibits 2 
through 4.
    \32\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners based manufacturing overhead on GSM's overhead costs to 
produce 75 percent ferrosilicon.\33\ For SG&A, and financial expense 
rates, Petitioners relied on the financial statements of a Russian 
producer of identical merchandise.\34\ Petitioners relied on the same 
financial statements used as the basis for SG&A, and financial expense 
rates to calculate the profit rate.\35\ Based upon a comparison of the 
prices of the foreign like product in the home market to the calculated 
COP of the most comparable product, we find reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product were made 
below the COP within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. 
Accordingly, consistent with the SAA, the Department is initiating a 
country-wide cost investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Volume II of Petitions, at 4.
    \34\ See id.
    \35\ See id., at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Venezuela

    Petitioners provided home market prices accompanied by a market 
research report for 75 percent ferrosilicon sales from FerroAtlantica 
de Venezuela, S.A. to a purchaser in Venezuela. As these prices were 
offered in Venezuelan bolivars on a gross weight, tax-exclusive, ex-
factory basis, Petitioners converted the prices to U.S. dollars and the 
unit of measure from gross kilograms to pounds of contained silicon so 
that U.S price and NV were compared on the same basis.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Volume III of Petitions, at 3 and Exhibits III-3 and 
III-4; Foreign Research Report; Supplement to Venezuela Petition, at 
2-3; and Venezuela Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by Petitioners, the Department finds 
that there is reason to believe that imports of ferrosilicon from 
Russia and Venezuela are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United 
States at less than fair value. Based on a comparison of EP and home 
market prices, and also EP and CV (in accordance with section 773(a) of 
the Act), the estimated dumping margins for ferrosilicon from Russia 
range from 21.85 percent to 60.78 percent.\37\ Based on a comparison of 
EPs and home market prices, in accordance with section 773(a) of the 
Act, the estimated dumping margins for ferrosilicon from Venezuela 
range from 20.07 percent to 60.11 percent.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Supplement to Russia Petition, at Exhibit 4.
    \38\ See Volume III of Petitions, at 3 and Exhibits III-3 and 
III-4; Foreign Research Report; Supplement to Venezuela Petition, at 
2-3; and Venezuela Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

    Based upon the examination of the Petitions on ferrosilicon from 
Russia and Venezuela, the Department finds that the Petitions meet the 
requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD 
investigations to determine whether imports of ferrosilicon from Russia 
and Venezuela are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States 
at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our 
preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of 
these initiations.

[[Page 49475]]

Respondent Selection

    Following standard practice in AD investigations involving ME 
countries, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') data for U.S. imports under the 
HTSUS numbers listed in the ``Scope of Investigations'' section above. 
We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order 
(``APO'') to all parties with access to information protected by APO 
within five days of publication of this Federal Register notice and 
make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of 
publication of this notice. The Department invites comments regarding 
the CBP data and respondent selection within seven days of publication 
of this Federal Register notice. Interested parties must submit 
applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.305. Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the 
Department's Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been 
made available to the Governments of Russia and Venezuela via IA 
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

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

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, no later than September 3, 
2013, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of 
ferrosilicon from Russia and Venezuela are materially injuring, or 
threatening material injury to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC 
determination with respect to any country will result in the 
investigation being terminated for that country; otherwise, these 
investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time 
limits.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See section 733(a)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submission of Factual Information

    On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual 
Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: 
Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013) (``Final Rule''), which 
modified two regulations related to AD and countervailing duty 
(``CVD'') proceedings: the definition of factual information (19 CFR 
351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual 
information (19 CFR 351.301). As amended, 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) 
identifies five categories of factual information, which are summarized 
as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) 
evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available 
information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the 
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence 
placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than 
factual information described in (i)-(iv). Any party, when submitting 
factual information, is now required to specify under which subsection 
of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the 
information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual 
information already on the record, to provide an explanation 
identifying the information already on the record that the factual 
information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. As amended, 19 CFR 
351.301 now provides specific time limits based on the type of factual 
information being submitted. These modifications are effective for all 
proceeding segments initiated on or after May 10, 2013, and thus are 
applicable to these investigations. Please review the Final Rule, 
available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, 
prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). On January 22, 2008, the 
Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in these investigations 
should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures 
(e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 
351.103(d)).
    Any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding 
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\40\ 
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are 
in effect for company/government officials as well as their 
representatives in all segments of any AD/CVD proceeding initiated on 
or after March 14, 2011.\41\ The formats for the revised certifications 
are provided at the end of the Interim Final Rule and the Supplemental 
Interim Final Rule. The Department intends to reject factual 
submissions in any proceeding segments initiated on or after March 14, 
2011, if the submitting party does not comply with the revised 
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: Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 7491 (February 10, 2011) 
(``Interim Final Rule'') (amending 19 CFR 351.303(g)(1) & (2)), as 
supplemented by Certification of Factual Information to Import 
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings: Supplemental Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 54697 (September 
2, 2011) (``Supplemental Interim Final Rule'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

     Dated: August 8, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-19736 Filed 8-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P