[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16356-16360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06622]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-351-851; C-602-811; C-834-808]


Silicon Metal From Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan: Initiation 
of Countervailing Duty Investigations

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

DATES: Effective March 28, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Johnson at (202) 482-4929 
(Australia); Bob Palmer at (202) 482-9068 (Brazil); and Terre Keaton 
Stefanova at (202) 482-1280 (Kazakhstan), AD/CVD Operations, 
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petitions

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

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

    On March 9, 2017, and March 13, 2017, the Department requested 
supplemental information pertaining to certain areas of the Petitions 
with

[[Page 16357]]

respect to Australia \3\ and Brazil. \4\ The petitioner filed responses 
to these requests on March 14, 2017, and March 15, 2017.5 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Letter from the Department, ``Petition for the 
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Silicon Metal from 
Australia: Supplemental Questions,'' March 13, 2017.
    \4\ See Letter from the Department ``Petition for the Imposition 
of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Silicon Metal from Brazil: 
Supplemental Questions,'' March 9, 2017; see also Memorandum to the 
File from Bob Palmer, ``Countervailing Duty Investigation on Silicon 
Metal from Brazil: Phone Call with Petitioner,'' March 15, 2017.
    \5\ See Letter from the petitioner, re: ``Silicon Metal from 
Brazil; Countervailing Duty Investigation; Response to Deficiency 
Questionnaire,'' dated March 14, 2017, and Letter from the 
petitioners, re: ``Silicon Metal from Australia; Countervailing Duty 
Investigation; Response to Deficiency Questionnaire,'' dated March 
15, 2017.
    \6\ The petitioner also submitted information regarding the 
average useful life of assets used to produced silicon metal on the 
record of the Kazakhstan proceeding. See Letter from the petitioner, 
re: ``Silicon Metal from Kazakhstan; Countervailing Duty 
Investigation; Information on Useful Lives of Assets,'' dated March 
15, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of silicon metal 
from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan received countervailable 
subsidies from the Governments of Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan, 
respectively, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) 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 702(b)(1) of the Act, for those alleged programs on which we 
are initiating CVD investigations, the Petitions are accompanied by 
information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting their 
allegations.
    The Department finds that the petitioner filed the 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 CVD investigations that the petitioner 
is requesting.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See ``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 January 1, 2016, through 
December 31, 2016.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is silicon metal from 
Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan. For a full description of the scope 
of these investigations, see 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. 
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 (Eastern Time) 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 these 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).\9\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements); see 
also 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations

    Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department 
notified representatives of the Governments of Australia, Brazil and 
Kazakhstan of the receipt of the Petitions. Also, following invitations 
extended in accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, on 
March 16, 20 and 24, 2017, respectively, consultations with the 
Governments of Australia, Brazil and Kazakhstan at the Department's 
main building. Memoranda regarding these consultations are available 
electronically via ACCESS.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support 
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of 
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of 
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, 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

[[Page 16358]]

the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition 
regarding the domestic like product,\10\ 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.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \11\ 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).
    Regarding the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer 
a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of 
these 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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in 
this case, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation 
Checklist: Silicon Metal from Australia (Australia CVD 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); 
Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Silicon 
Metal from Brazil (Brazil CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment 
II; and Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 
Silicon Metal from Kazakhstan (Kazakhstan CVD Initiation Checklist), 
at Attachment II. These checklists are dated concurrently with 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 
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product 
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in 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.\13\ 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.\14\ 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.\15\ To establish industry support, 
the petitioner compared its production to the total 2016 production of 
the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.\16\ We 
relied on the data the petitioner provided for purposes of measuring 
industry support.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Petitions, Volume I at 1, 3-4 and Exhibits I-1 and I-2.
    \14\ See Petitions, Volume I at 4 and Exhibit I-5.
    \15\ Id., at 4 and Exhibit I-6.
    \16\ Id., at 3-4 and Exhibit I-2.
    \17\ Id. For further discussion, see Australia CVD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II; Brazil CVD Initiation Checklist, at 
Attachment II; and Kazakhstan CVD 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.\18\ 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).\19\ 
Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory 
criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act 
because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions 
account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic 
like product.\20\ Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met 
the statutory criteria for industry support under section 
702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) 
who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the 
production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the 
industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.\21\ 
Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) 
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Australia CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; 
Brazil CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; and Kazakhstan 
CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \19\ See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Australia CVD 
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; Brazil CVD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II; and Kazakhstan CVD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \20\ See Australia CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; 
Brazil CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; and Kazakhstan 
CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \21\ 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 CVD investigations that 
it is requesting the Department initiate.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Injury Test

    Because Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan are ``Subsidies Agreement 
Countries'' within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 
701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the 
ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from 
these countries materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a 
U.S. industry.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are 
benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are 
causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry 
producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioner 
alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility thresholds 
provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\23\ The petitioner 
also demonstrates that subject imports from Brazil, which has been 
designated as a developing country under section 771(36)(A) of the Act, 
exceed the negligibility threshold of four percent provided for under 
section 771(24)(B) of the Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Petitions, Volume I at 38-39 and Exhibit I-45.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 16359]]

declines 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 Petitions, Volume I 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.
    \26\ See Australia CVD 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 CVD Initiation Checklist, 
at Attachment III; and Kazakhstan CVD Initiation Checklist, at 
Attachment III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of CVD Investigations

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a 
CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on 
behalf of an industry that (1) alleges the elements necessary for an 
imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act and (2) is 
accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner 
supporting the allegations.
    The petitioner alleges that producers/exporters of silicon metal in 
Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan benefit from countervailable 
subsidies bestowed by the governments of these countries, respectively. 
The Department examined the Petitions and finds that they comply with 
the requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating these 
CVD investigations to determine whether manufacturers, producers, and/
or exporters of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan 
receive countervailable subsidies from the governments of these 
countries, respectively.
    Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous 
amendments to the AD and CVD laws were made.\27\ The amendments to 
sections 776 and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations 
made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to these CVD 
investigations.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 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).
    \28\ See Applicability Notice, 80 FR at 46794-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Australia

    Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all three 
alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision 
to initiate on each program, see the Australia CVD Initiation 
Checklist.

Brazil

    Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all six 
alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision 
to initiate on each program, see the Brazil CVD Initiation Checklist.

Kazakhstan

    Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on five of the 
six alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our 
decision to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the 
Kazakhstan CVD Initiation Checklist.
    A public version of the initiation checklist for each investigation 
is available on ACCESS.
    In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary 
determinations no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.

Respondent Selection

    Based on information from independent sources, the petitioner 
identified one company in Australia,\29\ five companies in Brazil,\30\ 
and two companies in Kazakhstan as producers/exporters of silicon 
metal.\31\ With respect to Brazil, following standard practice in CVD 
investigations, 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 those 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Petitions, Volume I at 15-16 and Exhibit I-19 and 20.
    \30\ See Petitions, Volume I at 16-19 and Exhibit I-20 and 21.
    \31\ See Petitions, Volume I at 19 and Exhibit I-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 CVD investigations, the petitioner identified 
only one company as a producer/exporter of silicon metal in Australia: 
Simcoa Operations Pty Ltd., and two companies in Kazakhstan: (1) LLP 
Tau-Ken Temir, and; (2) LLP Metallurgical Combine Kaz Silicon. We 
currently know of no additional producers/exporters of merchandise 
under consideration from Australia and Kazakhstan and the petitioner 
provided information from independent sources as support.\32\ 
Accordingly, the Department intends to examine all known producers/
exporters in the investigations for Australia and Kazakhstan (i.e., the 
companies cited above for each respective investigation). Parties 
wishing to comment on respondent selection for Australia and Kazakhstan 
must do so within five days of the publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Petitions, Volume I at Exhibits I-17 and I-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An 
electronically-filed document must be received successfully, in its 
entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the date noted above. 
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 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petitions have been 
provided to the Governments of Australia, Brazil and Kazakhstan via 
ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of 
the public version of the Petitions to each known exporter (as named in 
the Petitions), consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

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

[[Page 16360]]

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, and/or 
Kazakhstan are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, 
a U.S. industry.\33\ A negative ITC determination will result in the 
investigation being terminated with respect to that country.\34\ 
Otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and 
regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See section 703(a)(2) of the Act.
    \34\ See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Extension of Time Limits Regulation

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the 
expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as 
otherwise specified by 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.\35\ 
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.\36\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the 
submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised 
certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \36\ 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 at 19 CFR 
351.103(d)).
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 
777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: March 28, 2017.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I

Scope of the Investigations

    The scope of these investigation 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. 2017-06622 Filed 4-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P