[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31133-31137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-08675]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-351-861, C-834-813, C-557-829, C-821-839]


Ferrosilicon From Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and the Russian 
Federation: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations

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


DATES: Applicable April 17, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Palmer or Laurel Smalley (Brazil), 
Lana Nigro (Kazakhstan), John McGowan or Suresh Maniam (Malaysia), and 
Mark Hoadley (the Russian Federation (Russia)), AD/CVD Operations, 
Offices VIII, VII, and I, Enforcement and Compliance, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-9068, (202) 482-
3456, (202) 482-1779, (202) 482-0461, (202) 482-1603, and (202) 482-
3148, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petitions

    On March 28, 2024, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) 
received countervailing duty (CVD) 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\ The CVD petitions were accompanied by 
antidumping duty (AD) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between April 1 and 2, 2024, Commerce requested supplemental 
information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions.\3\ Between 
April 3 and 8, 2024, the petitioners filed timely responses to these 
requests for additional information.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Commerce's Letters, ``Petition for the Imposition of 
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Ferrosilicon from Brazil: 
Supplemental Questions,'' dated April 1, 2024; ``Petition for the 
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Ferrosilicon from 
Kazakhstan: Supplemental Questions Regarding Volume V,'' dated April 
2, 2024; ``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on 
Imports of Ferrosilicon from Malaysia: Supplemental Questions,'' 
dated April 1, 2024; ``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing 
Duties on Imports of Ferrosilicon from the Russian Federation: 
Supplemental Questions regarding Volume IX,'' dated April 1, 2024; 
and ``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duties on Imports of Ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, 
and the Russian Federation: Supplemental Questions,'' dated April 1, 
2024.
    \4\ See Petitioners' Letters, ``Petitioners' Response to 
Supplemental Questions--General Issues,'' dated April 3, 2024 
(General Issues Supplement); ``Ferrosilicon from Brazil: Response to 
Supplemental Questionnaire for Volume III of the Petition,'' dated 
April 5, 2024; ``Ferrosilicon from Kazakhstan: Response to 
Supplemental Questionnaire for Volume V of the Petition,'' dated 
April 8, 2024; ``Ferrosilicon from Malaysia: Response to 
Supplemental Questions for Volume VII of the Petition,'' dated April 
3, 2024; and ``Ferrosilicon from the Russian Federation: Response to 
Supplemental Questions Regarding Volume IX of the Petition,'' dated 
April 5, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that the Government of Brazil 
(GOB), the Government of Kazakhstan (GOK), the Government of Malaysia 
(GOM), and the Government of Russia (GOR) (collectively, Governments) 
are providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 
701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of ferrosilicon from Brazil, 
Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Russia, and that such imports are materially 
injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry 
producing ferrosilicon in the United States. Consistent with section 
702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs 
on which we are initiating CVD investigations, 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 with respect 
to the initiation of the requested CVD 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, the periods of 
investigation (POI) for Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Russia are 
January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Investigations

    The merchandise 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.

[[Page 31134]]

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).\7\ Commerce will consider all 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, all such 
factual information should be limited to public information.\8\ 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.\9\ Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual 
information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 17, 2024, which is 10 
calendar days from the initial comment deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997) (Preamble).
    \8\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ``factual 
information'').
    \9\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commerce requests that any factual information that parties 
consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted 
during that time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that 
additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the 
investigations may be relevant, the party must contact Commerce and 
request permission to submit the additional information. All scope 
comments must be filed simultaneously on the records of the concurrent 
AD 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.\10\ An electronically filed document must be received 
successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations

    Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce 
notified the Governments of the receipt of the Petitions and provided 
an opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petitions.\11\ 
Commerce held consultations with the GOB on April 10, 2024,\12\ the GOK 
on April 17, 2024,\13\ the GOM on April 16, 2024,\14\ and the GOR on 
April 9, 2024.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Commerce's Letters, ``Countervailing Duty Petition on 
Ferrosilicon from Brazil: Invitation for Consultations to Discuss 
the Countervailing Duty Petition,'' dated April 1, 2024; 
``Invitation for Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty 
Petition on Ferrosilicon from Kazakhstan,'' dated March 29, 2024; 
``Countervailing Duty Petition on Ferrosilicon from Malaysia: 
Invitation for Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty 
Petition,'' dated March 28, 2024; and ``Invitation for Consultations 
to Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition on Ferrosilicon from the 
Russian Federation,'' dated March 28, 2024.
    \12\ See Memorandum, ``Consultations with Officials from the 
Government of Brazil,'' dated April 11, 2024.
    \13\ See Memorandum, ``Consultations with Officials from the 
Government of Kazakhstan,'' dated April 17, 2024.
    \14\ See Memorandum, ``Consultations with the Government of 
Malaysia,'' dated April 16, 2024.
    \15\ See Memorandum, ``Consultations with the Government of 
Russia Regarding the Countervailing Duty Petition on Ferrosilicon 
from the Russian Federation,'' dated April 9, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, 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,\16\ 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.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \17\ 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 petitioners do not 
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope 
of the investigations.\18\ Based on our analysis of the information 
submitted on the record, we have determined that ferrosilicon, as 
described in the domestic like product definition set forth in the 
Petitions, constitutes a single domestic like product, and we have 
analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Petitions at Volume I (pages 15-18 and Exhibits I-1 and 
I-9).
    \19\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as 
applied to these cases and information regarding industry support, 
see CVD Investigation Initiation Checklists: Ferrosilicon from 
Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and the Russian Federation, dated 
concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Country-
Specific CVD 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 
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 the

[[Page 31135]]

appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners 
provided their own production of the domestic like product in 2023.\20\ 
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.\21\ We relied on data provided by the petitioners 
for purposes of measuring industry support.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Petitions at Volume I (page 3 and Exhibit I-4); see 
also General Issues Supplement at 5.
    \21\ See Petitions at Volume I (pages 2-3 and Exhibit I-3); see 
also General Issues Supplement at 4 and Attachment 2.
    \22\ 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 
CVD 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.\23\ 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 to evaluate industry 
support (e.g., polling).\24\ 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.\25\ 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.\26\ Accordingly, Commerce determines that 
the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the 
meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 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 
CVD Initiation Checklists.
    \24\ See Attachment II of the Country-Specific CVD Initiation 
Checklists; see also section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act.
    \25\ See Attachment II of the Country-Specific CVD Initiation 
Checklists.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Injury Test

    Because Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Russia 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 Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and/or Russia materially 
injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are 
benefiting 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 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.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 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 effect 
on financial performance.\29\ We assessed the allegations and 
supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material 
injury, causation, cumulation, as well as negligibility, and we have 
determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate 
evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Petitions at Volume I (pages 20-47 and Exhibits I-1, I-
2, I-4, and I-8 through I-44).
    \30\ See Country-Specific CVD 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of CVD Investigations

    Based upon the examination of the Petitions and supplemental 
responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 702 of 
the Act. Therefore, we are initiating CVD investigations to determine 
whether imports of ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and 
Russia benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOB, 
GOK, GOM, and the GOR, respectively. 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 these initiations.

Brazil

    Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 19 of the 
programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the basis 
for our decision to initiate on each program, see the Brazil CVD 
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for 
this investigation is available on ACCESS.

Kazakhstan

    Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all 21 of the 
programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the basis 
for our decision to initiate on each program, see the Kazakhstan CVD 
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for 
this investigation is available on ACCESS.

Malaysia

    Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all 13 
programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the basis 
for our decision to initiate on each program, see the Malaysia CVD 
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for 
this investigation is available on ACCESS.

Russia

    Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all 23 of the 
programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the basis 
for our decision to initiate on each program, see the Russia CVD 
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for 
this investigation is available on ACCESS.

Respondent Selection

    In the Petitions, the petitioners identify 11 companies in Brazil, 
five companies in Kazakhstan, two companies in Malaysia, and 11 
companies in Russia as producers and/or exporters of ferrosilicon.\31\ 
With respect to Malaysia, the GOM provided comments in which it stated 
that there are four producers of ferrosilicon in

[[Page 31136]]

Malaysia.\32\ Commerce intends to follow its standard practice in CVD 
investigations and calculate company-specific subsidy rates in these 
investigations. In the event that Commerce determines that the number 
of companies is large and it cannot individually examine each company 
based on Commerce's resources, where appropriate, Commerce intends to 
select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 
data for U.S. imports of ferrosilicon during the POI under the 
appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States subheadings 
listed within the ``Scope of the Investigations'' in the appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Petitions at Volume I (page 10 and Exhibit I-6).
    \32\ See Memorandum, ``Countervailing Duty Petition on 
Ferrosilicon from Malaysia: Government of Malaysia Statements for 
the Consultations,'' dated April 16, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 11, 2024, Commerce released the CBP data for imports of 
ferrosilicon from Russia and, on April 12, 2024, 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 regarding the 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.\33\ 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. 
Commerce will not accept rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or 
respondent selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Memoranda, ``Countervailing Duty Petition on 
Ferrosilicon from Brazil: Release of Data from U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection,'' dated April 12, 2024; ``Countervailing Duty 
Petition on Ferrosilicon from Kazakhstan: Release of Data from U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection,'' dated April 12, 2024; 
``Countervailing Duty Petition on Imports of Ferrosilicon from 
Malaysia: Release of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Entry 
Data,'' dated April 12, 2024; and ``Ferrosilicon from the Russian 
Federation: Release of Data from U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection,'' dated April 10, 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.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petitions has been 
provided to the GOB, GOK, GOM, and GOR 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 its initiation, as required by 
section 702(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determination 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.\34\ A negative ITC determination 
for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with 
respect to that country.\35\ Otherwise, these CVD investigations will 
proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.
    \35\ 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 of production 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 \36\ 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.\37\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
    \37\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(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.\38\ 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.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See 19 CFR 351.302.
    \39\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding 
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\40\ 
Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 
351.303(g).\41\ Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the 
submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \41\ See Certification of Factual Information to Import 
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also 
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at 
https://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. 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 letters of 
appearance). Note that

[[Page 31137]]

Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the 
service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f).\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 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 702 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. 2024-08675 Filed 4-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P