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


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-602-808]


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

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

DATES: Effective Date: March 17, 2015.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petition

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

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

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

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

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

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

Period of Investigation

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

Scope of the Investigation

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

Comments on Scope of the Investigation

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

[[Page 13830]]

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

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

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

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

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

Filing Requirements

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

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

Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaire

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

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support 
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of 
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of 
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department 
shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to 
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by 
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a 
statistically valid sampling method to poll the ``industry.''
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers as a whole of a domestic like product, or those producers 
whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major 
proportion of the total domestic production of the product. Thus, to 
determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the 
statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who 
produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission 
(``ITC''), which is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic 
industry'' has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a 
domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the 
Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition 
regarding the domestic like product,\13\ they do so for different 
purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In 
addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of 
time and information. Although this may result in different definitions 
of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of 
either agency contrary to law.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \14\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 
2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. 
Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
Petition).

[[Page 13831]]

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

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

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

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

    Our review of the data provided in the Petition, supplemental 
submissions, and other information readily available to the Department 
indicates that Petitioner has established industry support.\19\ First, 
the Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) 
accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the 
domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to 
take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., 
polling).\20\ Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the 
statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) 
of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the 
Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the 
domestic like product.\21\ Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) 
have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 
732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) 
who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the 
production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the 
industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition.\22\ 
Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) 
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

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

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

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

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

Allegation of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

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

Export Price

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

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

Normal Value

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

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

Sales-Below-Cost Allegation

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

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

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

[[Page 13832]]

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

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

Cost of Production

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

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

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

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

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

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

Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

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

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

Fair Value Comparisons

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

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

Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation

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

Respondent Selection

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

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

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

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

ITC Notification

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

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

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

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

Submission of Factual Information

    On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual 
Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: 
Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two 
regulations related to AD and countervailing duty (``CVD'') 
proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 
351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual 
information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule identifies five categories 
of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized 
as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) 
evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available 
information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the 
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence 
placed on the record by the Department; and (v)

[[Page 13833]]

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

Revised Extension of Time Limits Regulation

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

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

Certification Requirements

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

    \47\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \48\ See Certification of Factual Information To Import 
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also 
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

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

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

Appendix I

Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of this investigation covers all forms, sizes and 
compositions of silicomanganese, except low-carbon silicomanganese, 
including silicomanganese briquettes, fines, and slag. 
Silicomanganese is a ferroalloy composed principally of manganese, 
silicon, and iron, and normally contains much smaller proportions of 
minor elements, such as carbon, phosphorus, and sulfur. 
Silicomanganese is sometimes referred to as ferrosilicon manganese.
    Silicomanganese generally contains by weight not less than 4 
percent iron, more than 30 percent manganese, more than 8 percent 
silicon and not more than 0.2 percent phosphorus. Silicomanganese is 
properly classifiable under subheading 7202.30.0000 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'').
    Low-carbon silicomanganese is excluded from the scope of this 
investigation. It is sometimes referred to as ferromanganese-
silicon. The low-carbon silicomanganese excluded from this 
investigation is a ferroalloy with the following chemical 
specifications by weight: minimum 55 percent manganese, minimum 27 
percent silicon, minimum 4 percent iron, maximum 0.10 percent 
phosphorus, maximum 0.10 percent carbon, and maximum 0.05 percent 
sulfur. Low-carbon silicomanganese is classifiable under HTSUS 
subheading 7202.30.0000.
    The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes. The written description of the scope is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2015-06142 Filed 3-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P