[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16352-16356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06621]



[[Page 16352]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-602-810, A-351-850, A-403-805]


Silicon Metal From Australia, Brazil and Norway: Initiation of 
Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations

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

DATES: Effective March 28, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith at (202) 482-1766 
(Australia); Robert James at (202) 482-0649 (Brazil); and Andrew Medley 
at (202) 482-4987 (Norway), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and 
Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitions

    On March 8, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received antidumping duty (AD) petitions (the Petitions) concerning 
imports of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway, filed in 
proper form on behalf of Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. (the 
petitioner).\1\ The Petitions also included countervailing duty (CVD) 
petitions on silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan.\2\ 
The petitioner is a domestic producer of silicon metal.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and 
Norway; Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petition, dated March 8, 
2017 (the Petitions).
    \2\ Id.
    \3\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 1 and Exhibit I-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of silicon metal 
from Australia, Brazil, and Norway 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. 
Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are 
accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner 
supporting its allegations.
    The Department finds that the petitioner filed these Petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioner is an 
interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The 
Department also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient 
industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD 
investigations that the petitioner is requesting.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the 
Petitions'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigations

    Because the petitions were filed on March 8, 2017, the period of 
investigation (POI) for each investigation is, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.204(b)(1), January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.

Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is silicon metal from 
Australia, Brazil, and Norway. For a full description of the scope of 
these investigations, see the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' at 
Appendix I of this notice.

Comments on Scope of the Investigations

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we 
are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues 
regarding product coverage (scope). The Department will consider all 
comments received from parties and, if necessary, will consult with 
parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If 
scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), 
all such factual information should be limited to public information. 
In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the 
Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 
5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on April 17, 2017, which is 20 calendar 
days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, 
which may include factual information (also limited to public 
information), must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on April 27, 2017, which is 
10 calendar days after the initial comments. All such comments must be 
filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD 
investigations.
    The Department requests that any factual information the parties 
consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted 
during this time period. However, if a party subsequently believes that 
additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the 
investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department 
and request permission to submit the additional information. As stated 
above, all such comments must be filed on the records of each of the 
concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

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).\5\ An electronically 
filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the 
time and date when 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 18022, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable 
deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order 
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011) for details of the 
Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect 
on August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at 
https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at 
https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires

    The Department will provide interested parties an opportunity to 
comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of silicon metal to 
be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This 
information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics 
of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant 
costs 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 silicon metal, 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

[[Page 16353]]

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 questionnaires, all product 
characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on April 17, 
2017, 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 27, 2017. 
All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed 
electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of the 
Australia, Brazil, and Norway less-than-fair-value investigations.

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,\6\ 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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \7\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 
2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. 
Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition).
    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does 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 silicon metal, as 
defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we 
have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like 
product.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in 
this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 
Silicon Metal from Australia (Australia AD Initiation Checklist), at 
Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Silicon Metal from Australia, 
Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway (Attachment II); Antidumping Duty 
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Silicon Metal from Brazil 
(Brazil AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; and Antidumping 
Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Silicon Metal from Norway 
(Norway AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II. These checklists 
are dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice and 
on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via 
ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of 
the main Department of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether the petitioner has 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 the Investigations,'' in Appendix I of 
this notice. The petitioner provided its own production of the domestic 
like product in 2016, as well as estimated 2016 production data of the 
domestic like product by the entire U.S. industry.\9\ The petitioner 
also provided a letter from the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, 
Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers 
International Union (USW), stating that the USW represents the workers 
at the petitioner's Alloy, WV and Niagara Falls, NY silicon metal 
plants and it supports the Petitions.\10\ In addition, the petitioner 
provided a letter of support for the Petitions from the Industrial 
Division of the Communications Workers of America (IEU-CWA), stating 
that the IEU-CWA represents the workers at the petitioner's Selma, AL 
plant and it supports the Petitions.\11\ To establish industry support, 
the petitioner compared its production to the total 2016 production of 
the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.\12\ We 
relied on the data the petitioner provided for purposes of measuring 
industry support.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 1, 3-4 and Exhibits I-1 
and I-2.
    \10\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 4 and Exhibit I-5.
    \11\ Id., at 4 and Exhibit I-6.
    \12\ Id., at 3-4 and Exhibit I-2.
    \13\ Id. For further discussion, see Australia AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II; Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, at 
Attachment II; and Norway AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the data provided in the Petitions and other 
information readily available to the Department indicates that the 
petitioner has established industry support.\14\ 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).\15\ 
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.\16\ 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

[[Page 16354]]

expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.\17\ 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Australia AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; 
Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; and Norway AD 
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \15\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Australia AD 
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; Brazil AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II; and Norway AD Initiation Checklist, at 
Attachment II.
    \16\ See Australia AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; 
Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; and Norway AD 
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions 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 investigations that 
it is requesting that the Department initiate.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The 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, the 
petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility 
threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 38-39 and Exhibit I-45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression 
or depression; lost sales and revenues; declines in production, 
production capacity, capacity utilization, and U.S. shipments; increase 
in inventories; declines in average number of workers, hours worked, 
and wages paid; and declines in financial performance.\20\ 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.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 25-53 and Exhibits I-1, 
I-2, I-11--I-16, I-20, I-21, and I-30--I-60; see also Silicon Metal 
from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway; Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Petition: Revised Exhibit I-46, dated March 14, 
2017.
    \21\ See Australia AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, 
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and 
Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions 
Covering Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and 
Norway (Attachment III); see also Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, at 
Attachment III; and Norway AD 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 investigations of imports of silicon metal from Australia, 
Brazil, and Norway. The sources of data for the deductions and 
adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater 
detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.

Export Price

    For Brazil, the petitioner based export price (EP) on transaction-
specific average unit values (AUVs) for shipments of silicon metal from 
Brazil entered under the relevant Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS) subheading for three entries during one month of 
the POI into three specific ports.\22\ The petitioner linked port 
arrival data from an independent source to U.S. port-specific import 
statistics obtained from the ITC's Dataweb.\23\ The petitioner linked 
imports of silicon metal entered under the relevant HTSUS subheading to 
shipments from producers in Brazil to ensure the Dataweb statistics 
were specific to subject merchandise.\24\ Because the AUVs are based on 
the reported customs values, which reflect FOB foreign port prices, the 
petitioner made an adjustment for foreign inland freight from the 
production facility to the port of export.\25\ The petitioner made no 
other adjustments to EP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist.
    \23\ Id.; see also Volume IV of the Petitions at BR-AD 2C.
    \24\ See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist.
    \25\ Id.; see also Volume IV of the Petitions at 4-5, and 
Exhibit BR-AD 2A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Constructed Export Price

    For Australia and Norway, the petitioner had reason to believe that 
sales are made through U.S. affiliates. Therefore, the petitioner based 
constructed export price (CEP) on actual sales prices for silicon metal 
produced in, and exported from, those countries.\26\ The petitioner 
made deductions from U.S. price for movement expenses consistent with 
the delivery terms.\27\ The petitioner also deducted from U.S. price 
operating expenses incurred by the U.S. affiliate.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Australia AD Initiation Checklist and Norway AD 
Initiation Checklist.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ See Volume II of the Petitions at 1-3 and Exhibit AU-AD 2A 
and Volume VII of the Petitions at 1-4 and Exhibit NO-AD 2A; and 
Australia AD Initiation Checklist and Norway AD Initiation 
Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices

    For Australia, Brazil, and Norway, the petitioner provided home 
market price information based on sales, or offers for sale, of 
merchandise identical or similar to the product being imported into the 
United States during the POI.\29\ As the prices obtained for Brazil 
were on an ex-factory basis, the petitioner made no adjustment for 
movement expenses.\30\ For Australia and Norway, the petitioner made 
certain adjustments to the prices, including deductions for inland 
freight charges (where applicable).\31\ The petitioner made no other 
adjustments to home market prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Volume II of the Petitions, at 3-5 and Exhibit AU-AD 
3A; Volume IV of the Petitions at 5 and Exhibit BR-AD 3A; Volume VII 
of the Petitions at 4-5 and Exhibit NO-AD 3A; see also Australia AD 
Initiation Checklist, Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, and Norway AD 
Initiation Checklist.
    \30\ See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist.
    \31\ See Australia AD Initiation Checklist and Norway AD 
Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Australia and Brazil, the petitioner provided information 
indicating that sales of silicon metal in the home market were made at 
prices below the cost of production (COP) and, as a result, also 
calculated NV based on constructed value (CV).\32\ For further 
discussion of COP and NV based on CV, see below.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous 
amendments to the AD and CVD law were made. See Trade Preferences 
Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015). See 
also Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension Act 
of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice). The 
amendments to sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are 
applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, 
and, therefore, apply to these AD investigations. See Applicability 
Notice, 80 FR at 46794-95.
    \33\ In accordance with section 505(a) of the Trade Preferences 
Extension Act of 2015, amending section 773(b)(2) of the Act, for 
these investigations, the Department will request information 
necessary to calculate the CV and COP to determine whether there are 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign 
like product have been made at prices that represent less than the 
COP of the product. The Department no longer requires a COP 
allegation to conduct this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    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.
    For Australia, the petitioner relied on the 2015 financial 
statements of Australian producer Simcoa Operations Pty Ltd. (Simcoa) 
to calculate the COP.\34\ The petitioner adjusted Simcoa's 2015 COP 
data to the POI using Australian producer price index information 
obtained from International Financial Statistics.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Australia AD Initiation Checklist.
    \35\ Id.

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

[[Page 16355]]

    For Brazil, the petitioner calculated COM based on its own 
experience during the POI, adjusted for known differences based on 
information available to the petitioner.\36\ The petitioner valued 
material inputs using publicly available data for the prices of these 
inputs, where possible. The petitioner used its own cost for one 
material input, as it was unable to find a publicly-available price for 
this input. The petitioner valued labor and energy inputs for silicon 
metal using publicly available data multiplied by the product-specific 
usage rates.\37\ The petitioner relied on the 2015 financial statements 
of Brazilian silicon metal producer Rima Industrial, S.A. (Rima) to 
calculate SG&A and depreciation.\38\ Because Rima's financial 
statements do not contain any data on other fixed overhead costs or 
variable overhead costs, the petitioner valued these overhead items 
using its own fixed and variable manufacturing overhead costs to 
produce silicon metal during the POI.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist.
    \37\ Id.
    \38\ Id.
    \39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Australia and Brazil, because certain home market prices fell 
below COP in the petitioner's allegation, pursuant to sections 
773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, as noted above, the 
petitioner also calculated NVs based on CV.\40\ Pursuant to section 
773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the COM, SG&A, financial expenses, 
packing expenses, and profit. The petitioner calculated CV using the 
same COP described above, adding an amount for profit.\41\ For 
Australia, the petitioner based profit on Simcoa's above-cost home 
market sales during the POI. For Brazil, the petitioner calculated the 
profit rate based on Rima's financial statements. These rates were 
applied to the corresponding total COM, SG&A, and financial expenses 
calculated above to derive CV.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Australia AD Initiation Checklist and Brazil AD 
Initiation Checklist.
    \41\ Id.
    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to 
believe that imports of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and 
Norway are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at 
less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP or CEP to NV, in 
accordance with sections 772 and 773(a) of the Act, the estimated 
dumping margins for silicon metal are as follows: 28.58 to 52.81 
percent for Australia; \43\ 15.41 to 28.24 percent for Brazil; \44\ and 
32.25 and 45.66 percent for Norway.\45\ Based on comparisons of EP or 
CEP to CV in accordance with sections 772 and 773(e) of the Act, the 
estimated dumping margins are as follows: 42.33 and 45.77 percent for 
Australia,\46\ and 121.79 to 134.92 percent for Brazil.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Volume II of the Petitions, at 7 and Exhibit AU-AD1, 
and Australia AD Initiation Checklist.
    \44\ See Volume IV of the Petitions, at 8-9 and Exhibit BR-AD1, 
and Brazil AD Initiation Checklist.
    \45\ See Volume VII of the Petitions, at 5 and Exhibit NO-AD1, 
and Norway AD Initiation Checklist.
    \46\ See Volume II of the Petitions, at 7 and Exhibit AU-AD1, 
and Australia AD Initiation Checklist.
    \47\ See Volume IV of the Petitions, at 8-9 and Exhibit BR-AD1, 
and Brazil AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations

    Based upon the examination of the AD Petitions, we find that they 
meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are 
initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of silicon 
metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway 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 this initiation.

Respondent Selection

    Based on information from independent sources, the petitioner 
identified one company in Australia, five companies in Brazil, and two 
companies in Norway, as producers/exporters of silicon metal.\48\ With 
respect to Brazil, following standard practice in AD investigations 
involving market economy countries, in the event the Department 
determines that the number of companies is large, the Department 
intends to review U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for 
U.S. imports under the appropriate HTSUS numbers listed with the 
``Scope of the Investigations,'' in Appendix I, below; and if it 
determines that it cannot individually examine each company based upon 
the Department's resources, then the Department will select respondents 
based on that data. We also intend to release the CBP data under 
Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to 
information protected by APO. Comments regarding the CBP data and 
respondent selection should be submitted seven calendar days after the 
placement of the CBP data on the record of the investigation. Parties 
wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments five 
calendar days after the deadline for the initial comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 15-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Department normally relies on the number of producers/
exporters identified in the petition and/or import data from CBP to 
determine whether to select a limited number of producers/exporters for 
individual examination in AD investigations, the petitioner identified 
only one company as a producer/exporter of silicon metal in Australia: 
Simcoa, and two companies in Norway: Elkem AS and Wacker Chemicals 
Norway AS.\49\ We currently know of no additional producers/exporters 
of merchandise under consideration from these countries and the 
petitioner provided information from independent sources as 
support.\50\ Accordingly, the Department intends to examine all known 
producers/exporters in the investigations for Australia and Norway 
(i.e., the companies cited above for each respective investigation). 
Parties wishing to comment on respondent selection for Australia and 
Norway must do so within five days of the publication of this notice in 
the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Id.
    \50\ See Volume I of the Petitions at Exhibits I-17 and I-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments for the above-referenced investigations must be filed 
electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be 
received successfully in its entirety by 5:00 p.m. ET by the dates 
noted above. We intend to finalize our decision regarding respondent 
selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.

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 
provided to the Governments of Australia, Brazil, and Norway via 
ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of 
the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the 
Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

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

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date 
on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil,

[[Page 16356]]

and/or Norway are materially injuring or threatening material injury to 
a U.S. industry.\51\ A negative ITC determination for any country will 
result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that 
country; \52\ otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to 
statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See section 733(a) of the Act.
    \52\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) 
Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence 
submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available 
information to value factors 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, must 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. Time limits for the 
submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, 
which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual 
information being submitted. Parties should review the regulations 
prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

Extensions of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the 
expiration of a time limit established under Part 351, or as otherwise 
specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be 
considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time 
limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due 
from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be 
considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. 
Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time 
limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for 
submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such 
a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting 
forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension 
requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request 
must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited 
circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension 
of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 
57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual 
information in these investigations.

Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding 
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\53\ 
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.\54\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the 
submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \54\ 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 
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 these investigations 
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 28, 2017.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I--Scope of the Investigations

    The scope of these investigations covers all forms and sizes of 
silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal 
contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, 
and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor 
grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon 
by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded 
from the scope of these investigations.
    Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 
2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While HTSUS numbers are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written 
description of the scope remains dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2017-06621 Filed 4-3-17; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P