[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31137-31142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-08674]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-351-860, A-834-812, A-557-828, A-821-838]


Ferrosilicon From Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and the Russian 
Federation: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations

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


DATES: Applicable April 17, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaron Moore (Brazil) at (202) 482-
3640; Samantha Kinney (Kazakhstan) at (202) 482-2285; Peter Farrell 
(Malaysia) at (202) 482-2104; and Jacob Saude (the Russian Federation 
(Russia)) at (202) 482-0981, 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 28, 2024, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) 
received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of 
ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Russia filed in 
proper form on behalf of CC Metals and Alloys, LLC and Ferroglobe USA, 
Inc. (the petitioners).\1\ These AD Petitions were accompanied by 
countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of ferrosilicon 
from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Russia.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Petitions for the Imposition of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties,'' dated March 28, 2024 (the 
Petitions).
    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 1, 2024, Commerce requested supplemental information 
pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions in supplemental 
questionnaires.\3\ The petitioners responded to Commerce's supplemental 
questionnaires on April 3 and 4, 2024.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Commerce's Letter, ``Supplemental Questions,'' dated 
April 1, 2024 (General Issues Questionnaire); see also Country-
Specific Supplemental Questionnaires: Brazil Supplemental, 
Kazakhstan Supplemental, Malaysia Supplemental, and Russia 
Supplemental, dated April 1, 2024.
    \4\ See Petitioners' Letters, ``Petitioner's Responses to 
Supplemental Questions--General Issues,'' dated April 3, 2024 
(General Issues Supplement); see also Country-Specific AD 
Supplemental Responses: Brazil AD Supplement, Kazakhstan AD 
Supplement, Malaysia AD Supplement, and Russia AD Supplement, dated 
April 4, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of ferrosilicon 
from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Russia are being, or are likely 
to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) within 
the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that imports of such 
products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, 
the ferrosilicon industry in the United States. Consistent with section 
732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions were accompanied by information 
reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations.
    Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf 
of the domestic industry, because the petitioners are interested 
parties, as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also 
finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support for 
the initiation of the requested LTFV investigations.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See section on ``Determination of Industry Support for the 
Petitions,'' infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Periods of Investigation

    Because the Petitions were filed on March 28, 2024, pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) for the Brazil, 
Kazakhstan, and Malaysia LTFV investigations is January 1, 2023, 
through December 31, 2023. Because Russia is a non-market economy (NME) 
country, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the POI for the Russia LTFV 
investigation is July 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023.

Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is ferrosilicon from 
Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Russia. For a full description of the 
scope of these investigations, see the appendix to this notice.

Comments on the Scope of the Investigations

    As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are 
setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding 
product coverage (i.e., scope).\6\ Commerce will consider all scope 
comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will 
consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the 
preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual 
information,\7\ all such factual information should be limited to 
public information. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, 
Commerce requests that scope comments be submitted by 5:00 p.m. Eastern 
Time (ET) on May 7, 2024, which is 20 calendar days from the signature 
date of this notice.\8\ Any rebuttal comments, which may include 
factual information, and should also be limited to public information, 
must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 17, 2024, which is 10 calendar 
days from the initial comment deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997) (Preamble); see also 19 CFR 
351.312.
    \7\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ``factual 
information'').
    \8\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commerce requests that any factual information that parties 
consider relevant to the scope of these investigations be submitted 
during that period. However, if a party subsequently finds that 
additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the 
investigations may be relevant, the party

[[Page 31138]]

must contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional 
information. All scope comments must be filed simultaneously on the 
records of the concurrent LTFV and CVD investigations.

Filing Requirements

    All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via 
Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty 
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception 
applies.\9\ An electronically filed document must be received 
successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order 
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and 
Compliance: Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 
(November 20, 2014) for details of Commerce's electronic filing 
requirements, effective August 5, 2011. Information on 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_on_Electronic_Filing_Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Product Characteristics

    Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment 
on the appropriate physical characteristics of ferrosilicon to be 
reported in response to Commerce's AD questionnaires. This information 
will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the 
subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors of 
production (FOP) or cost of production (COP) 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 ferrosilicon, 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, Commerce 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 May 7, 2024, 
which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice.\10\ 
Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 17, 2024, 
which is 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline. All 
comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using 
ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of each of the LTFV 
investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, Commerce 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 Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the 
domestic like product. The U.S. 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 Commerce and the 
ITC apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like 
product,\11\ they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a 
separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce'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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \12\ 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 Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United 
States, 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 petitioners do not 
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope 
of the investigations.\13\ Based on our analysis of the information 
submitted on the record, we have determined that ferrosilicon, as 
defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product, and 
we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like 
product.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Petitions at Volume I (pages 15-18 and Exhibits I-1 and 
I-9).
    \14\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as 
applied to these cases and information regarding industry support, 
see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklists: 
Ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and the Russian 
Federation, dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this 
notice (Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists), at Attachment 
II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Ferrosilicon from Brazil, 
Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and the Russian Federation (Attachment II). 
These checklists are on file electronically via ACCESS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product 
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in the appendix to 
this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided 
their own production of the domestic like product in 2023.\15\ The 
petitioners stated that there are no other known producers of 
ferrosilicon in the United States and provided information to support 
their claim; therefore, the Petitions are supported by 100 percent of 
the U.S. industry.\16\ We have relied

[[Page 31139]]

on the data provided by the petitioners for purposes of measuring 
industry support.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Petitions at Volume I (page 3 and Exhibit I-4); see 
also General Issues Supplement at 5.
    \16\ See Petitions at Volume I (pages 2-3 and Exhibit I-3); see 
also General Issues Supplement at 4 and Attachment 2.
    \17\ See Petitions at Volume I (pages 2-3 and Exhibits I-3 and 
I-4); see also General Issues Supplement at 4-5 and Attachment 2. 
For further discussion, see Attachment II of the Country-Specific AD 
Initiation Checklists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the General 
Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce 
indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for 
the Petitions.\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, 
Commerce 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 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.\20\ Finally, the 
domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for 
industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the 
domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for 
more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product 
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or 
opposition to, the Petitions.\21\ Accordingly, Commerce determines that 
the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the 
meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Petitions at Volume I (pages 2-3 and Exhibits I-3 and 
I-4); see also General Issues Supplement at 4-5 and Attachment 2. 
For further discussion, see Attachment II of the Country-Specific AD 
Initiation Checklists.
    \19\ See Attachment II of the Country-Specific AD Initiation 
Checklists; see also section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act.
    \20\ See Attachment II of the Country-Specific AD Initiation 
Checklists.
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the 
domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened 
with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject 
merchandise sold at LTFV. In addition, the petitioners allege that 
subject imports from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Russia exceed 
the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of 
the Act.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Petitions at Volume I (page 20 and Exhibit I-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by the significant and increasing volume of subject 
imports; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; low 
capacity utilization rates; lost sales and revenues; and adverse impact 
on financial performance.\24\ We assessed the allegations and 
supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material 
injury, causation, as well as negligibility, and we have determined 
that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and 
meet the statutory requirements for initiation.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id. at 20-47 and Exhibits I-1, I-2, I-4, I-8 through I-44; 
see also General Issues Supplement at 5-6.
    \25\ See Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists at Attachment 
III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and 
Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions 
Covering Ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and the 
Russian Federation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations of Sales at LTFV

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at LTFV 
upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate LTFV investigations 
of imports of ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and 
Russia. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating 
to U.S. price and normal value (NV) are discussed in greater detail in 
the Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists.

U.S. Price

    For Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Russia, the petitioners based 
export price (EP) on the POI average unit values derived from official 
U.S. import statistics for imports of ferrosilicon produced in and 
exported from each country.\26\ For each country, the petitioners made 
certain adjustments to U.S. price to calculate a net ex-factory U.S. 
price, where applicable.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value 28
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ In accordance with section 773(b)(2) of the Act, for the 
Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Malaysia investigations, Commerce will 
request information necessary to calculate the constructed value 
(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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Brazil, the petitioners based NV on home market prices obtained 
through market research for ferrosilicon produced in and sold, or 
offered for sale, in Brazil during the applicable time period.\29\ The 
petitioners made certain adjustments to home market price to calculate 
a net ex-factory home market price, where applicable.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist.
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Kazakhstan and Malaysia, the petitioners stated that they were 
unable to obtain home market or third country pricing information for 
ferrosilicon to use as a basis for NV.\31\ Therefore, for Kazakhstan 
and Malaysia, the petitioners calculated NV based on CV.\32\ For 
further discussion of CV, see the section ``Normal Value Based on 
Constructed Value,'' below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Kazakhstan AD Initiation Checklist; see also Malaysia 
AD Initiation Checklist.
    \32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commerce considers Russia to be an NME country.\33\ In accordance 
with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign 
country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by 
Commerce. Therefore, we continue to treat Russia as an NME country for 
purposes of the initiation of the Russia LTFV investigation. 
Accordingly, we base NV on FOPs valued in a surrogate market economy 
country in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See, e.g., Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from the 
Russian Federation: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Classification of the Russian Federation as a 
Non-Market Economy, 87 FR 69002 (November 17, 2022), and 
accompanying ``Reconsideration of Russia's Status as a Market 
Economy'' Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners claim that Malaysia is an appropriate surrogate 
country for Russia because it is a market economy that is at a level of 
economic development comparable to that of Russia and is a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise.\34\ The petitioner provided 
publicly available information from Malaysia to value all FOPs except 
labor.\35\ Consistent with Commerce's recent practice in cases 
involving Malaysia as a surrogate country,\36\ to value labor, the 
petitioner provided labor statistics from another surrogate country, 
Romania.\37\ Based on the information provided by the petitioner, we 
believe it is appropriate to use Malaysia as a surrogate country

[[Page 31140]]

for Russia to value all FOPs except labor and to value labor using 
labor statistics from Romania for initiation purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Russia AD Initiation Checklist.
    \35\ Id.
    \36\ See, e.g., Certain Collated Steel Staples from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review; and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2021-2022, 88 FR 
85242 (December 7, 2023), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum (IDM) at Comment 2; and Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and 
Tube from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 88 FR 15671 (March 14, 
2023), and accompanying IDM at Comment 2.
    \37\ See Russia AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments 
regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly 
available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled 
date of the preliminary determination.

Factors of Production

    Because information regarding the volume of inputs consumed by 
Russian producers/exporters was not reasonably available, the 
petitioners used product-specific consumption rates from a U.S. 
producer of ferrosilicon as a surrogate to value Russian manufacturers' 
FOPs (except labor).\38\ Additionally, the petitioners calculated 
factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, 
and profit based on the experience of a Malaysian producer of identical 
merchandise.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Id.
    \39\ Id. As noted above, the petitioner calculated labor using 
information specific to Romania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    As noted above for Kazakhstan and Malaysia, the petitioners stated 
that they were unable to obtain home market or third-country prices for 
ferrosilicon to use as a basis for NV. Therefore, for Kazakhstan and 
Malaysia, the petitioners calculated NV based on CV.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Kazakhstan AD Initiation Checklist; see also Malaysia 
AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, the petitioners calculated 
CV as the sum of the cost of manufacturing, SG&A expenses, financial 
expenses, and profit.\41\ For Kazakhstan and Malaysia, in calculating 
the cost of manufacturing, the petitioners relied on the production 
experience and input consumption rates of a U.S. producer of 
ferrosilicon, valued using publicly available information applicable to 
the respective countries.\42\ In calculating SG&A expenses, financial 
expenses, and profit ratios, the petitioners relied on the fiscal year 
2022 financial statements of producers of identical merchandise 
domiciled in Kazakhstan and Malaysia, respectively.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Id.
    \42\ Id.
    \43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, 
and Russia are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at 
LTFV. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 
and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for ferrosilicon for 
each of the countries covered by this initiation are as follows: (1) 
Brazil--21.78 percent; (2) Kazakhstan--237.75 percent; (3) Malaysia--
162.66 percent; and (4) Russia--283.27 percent.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of LTFV Investigations

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

Respondent Selection

Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Malaysia

    In the Petitions, the petitioner identified 11 companies in Brazil, 
five companies in Kazakhstan, and two companies in Malaysia as 
producers/exporters of ferrosilicon.\45\ With respect to Malaysia, the 
Government of Malaysia provided comments on the record of the companion 
CVD case, which have been placed on the record of the Malaysia AD case, 
in which it stated that there are four producers of ferrosilicon in 
Malaysia.\46\ Following standard practice in LTFV investigations 
involving market economy countries, in the event Commerce determines 
that the number of companies is large, and it cannot individually 
examine each company based upon Commerce's resources, where 
appropriate, Commerce intends to select mandatory respondents based on 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for imports under the 
appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 
subheading(s) listed in the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in the 
appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Petitions at Volume I (page 10 and Exhibit I-6); see 
also General Issues Supplement at 3-4.
    \46\ See Memorandum, ``Antidumping Duty Petition on Ferrosilicon 
from Malaysia: Placement of Document on the Record,'' dated April 
16, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 12, 2024, Commerce released CBP data on imports of 
ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Malaysia under administrative 
protective order (APO) to all parties with access to information 
protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to 
comment on CBP data and/or respondent selection must do so within three 
business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of 
these investigations.\47\ Comments must be filed electronically using 
ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully 
in its entirety via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. ET on the specified deadline. 
Commerce will not accept rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or 
respondent selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See Memoranda, ``Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Ferrosilicon from Brazil AD Petition: Release of U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection Data,'' dated April 12, 2024; ``Antidumping Duty 
Petition on Ferrosilicon from Kazakhstan: Release of Data from U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection,'' dated April 12, 2024; and 
``Antidumping Duty Petition on Ferrosilicon from Malaysia: Release 
of Data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection,'' dated April 12, 
2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such 
applications may be found on Commerce's website at https://www.trade.gov/administrative-protective-orders.

Russia

    In the Petitions, the petitioner named 11 companies in Russia as 
producers and/or exporters of ferrosilicon.\48\ Our standard practice 
for respondent selection in AD investigations involving NME countries 
is to select respondents based on quantity and value (Q&V) 
questionnaires in cases where Commerce has determined that the number 
of companies is large and it cannot individually examine each company 
based upon its resources. Therefore, considering the number of 
producers and/or exporters identified in the Petitions, Commerce will 
solicit Q&V information that can serve as a basis for selecting 
exporters for individual examination in the event that Commerce 
determines that the number is large and decides to limit the number of 
respondents individually examined pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the 
Act. Because there are 11 Russian producers and/or exporters identified 
in the Petitions, Commerce has determined that it will issue Q&V 
questionnaires to each potential respondent for which the petitioners 
have provided a complete address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See Petitions at Volume I (page 10 and Exhibit I-6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commerce will post the Q&V questionnaires along with filing 
instructions on Commerce's website at

[[Page 31141]]

https://www.trade.gov/ec-adcvd-case-announcements. Producers/exporters 
of ferrosilicon from Russia that do not receive Q&V questionnaires may 
still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy 
of the Q&V questionnaire from Commerce's website. Responses to the Q&V 
questionnaire must be submitted by the relevant Russian producers/
exporters no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on May 1, 2024, which is two weeks 
from the signature date of this notice. All Q&V questionnaire responses 
must be filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically filed 
document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by ACCESS no 
later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the deadline noted above.
    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). As stated above, instructions 
for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at 
https://www.trade.gov/administrative-protective-orders.

Separate Rates

    In order to obtain separate rate status in an NME investigation, 
exporters and producers must submit a separate rate application. The 
specific requirements for submitting a separate rate application in an 
NME investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, 
which is available on Commerce's website at https://access.trade.gov/Resources/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. The separate rate application will be 
due 30 days after publication of this initiation notice. Exporters and 
producers must file a timely separate rate application if they want to 
be considered for individual examination. Exporters and producers who 
submit a separate rate application and have been selected as mandatory 
respondents will be eligible for consideration for separate rate status 
only if they respond to all parts of Commerce's AD questionnaire as 
mandatory respondents. Commerce requires that companies from Russia 
submit a response both to the Q&V questionnaire and to the separate 
rate application by the respective deadlines to receive consideration 
for separate rate status. Companies not filing a timely Q&V 
questionnaire response will not receive separate rate consideration.

Use of Combination Rates

    Commerce will calculate combination rates for certain respondents 
that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The 
Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:

    {w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate 
rates only to exporters, all separate rates that {Commerce{time}  
will now assign in its NME investigation will be specific to those 
producers that supplied the exporter during the period of 
investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the 
exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise 
to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both 
to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated 
separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms 
receiving the {weighted average{time}  of the individually 
calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of 
``combination rates'' because such rates apply to specific 
combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-
deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise 
both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that 
supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See Enforcement and Compliance's Policy Bulletin No. 05.1, 
regarding, ``Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination 
Rates in Antidumping Investigation involving NME Countries,'' (April 
5, 2005), at 6 (emphasis added), available on Commerce's website at 
https://access.trade.gov/Resources/policy/bull05-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Russia 
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

    Commerce 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 ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan, 
Malaysia, and/or Russia are materially injuring, or threatening 
material injury to, a U.S. industry.\50\ A negative ITC determination 
for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with 
respect to that country.\51\ Otherwise, these LTFV investigations will 
proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See section 733(a) of the Act.
    \51\ 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 Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual 
information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's 
regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to 
specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information 
is being submitted \52\ 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.\53\ 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. Interested parties 
should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information 
in these investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
    \53\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Particular Market Situation Allegation

    Section 773(e) of the Act addresses the concept of particular 
market situation (PMS) for purposes of CV, stating that ``if a 
particular market situation exists such that the cost of materials and 
fabrication or other processing of any kind does not accurately reflect 
the cost of production in the ordinary course of trade, the 
administering authority may use another calculation methodology under 
this subtitle or any other calculation methodology.'' When an 
interested party submits a PMS allegation pursuant to section 773(e) of 
the Act (i.e., a cost-based PMS allegation), Commerce will respond to 
such a submission consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v). If Commerce 
finds that a cost-based PMS exists under section 773(e) of the Act, 
then it will modify its dumping calculations appropriately.
    Neither section 773(e) of the Act, nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v), 
sets a deadline for the submission of cost-based PMS allegations and 
supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 
773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting 
factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, 
should an interested party wish to submit a cost-based PMS allegation 
and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of 
the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of a 
respondent's initial section D questionnaire response.

[[Page 31142]]

    We note that a PMS allegation filed pursuant to sections 
773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(III) or 773(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act (i.e., a sales-
based PMS allegation) must be filed within 10 days of submission of a 
respondent's initial section B questionnaire response, in accordance 
with 19 CFR 301(c)(2)(i) and 19 CFR 351.404(c)(2).

Extensions of Time Limits

    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 Commerce. 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, or as otherwise specified by 
Commerce.\54\ 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. ET on the due date. Under certain 
circumstances, Commerce 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 a letter or memorandum of 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, standalone submission; under limited circumstances we will 
grant untimely filed requests for the extension of time limits, where 
we determine, based on 19 CFR 351.302, that extraordinary circumstances 
exist. Parties should review Commerce's regulations concerning the 
extension of time limits and the Time Limits Final Rule prior to 
submitting factual information in these investigations.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See 19 CFR 351.301; see also Extension of Time Limits; 
Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013) (Time Limits Final 
Rule), available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm.
    \55\ See 19 CFR 351.302; see also, e.g., Time Limits Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding 
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\56\ 
Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 
351.303(g).\57\ Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the 
submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \57\ See Certification of Factual Information to Import 
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule). Additional 
information regarding the Final Rule is available at https://access.trade.gov/Resources/filing/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate 
in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements 
of 19 CFR 351.103(d) (e.g., by filing the required letter of 
appearance). Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements 
pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f).\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See Administrative Protective Order, Service, and Other 
Procedures in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 88 FR 
67069 (September 29, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) 
and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

    Dated: April 17, 2024.
Ryan Majerus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the 
non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for 
Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix

Scope of the Investigations

    The scope of these investigations covers all forms and sizes of 
ferrosilicon, regardless of grade, including ferrosilicon 
briquettes. Ferrosilicon is a ferroalloy containing by weight four 
percent or more iron, more than eight percent but not more than 96 
percent silicon, three percent or less phosphorus, 30 percent or 
less manganese, less than three percent magnesium, and 10 percent or 
less any other element. The merchandise covered also includes 
product described as slag, if the product meets these 
specifications.
    Subject merchandise includes material matching the above 
description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise processed 
in a third country, including by performing any grinding or any 
other finishing, packaging, or processing that would not otherwise 
remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigations if 
performed in the country of manufacture of the ferrosilicon.
    Ferrosilicon is currently classifiable under subheadings 
7202.21.1000, 7202.21.5000, 7202.21.7500, 7202.21.9000, 
7202.29.0010, and 7202.29.0050 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States (HTSUS). While the HTSUS numbers are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
scope remains dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2024-08674 Filed 4-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P