Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13829 

10See JTEKT Corp. v. United States, Consol. 

Court No. 06–00250, slip op. 15–18 (CIT February 

25, 2015). 

11See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From 

Japan and the United Kingdom: Final Results of 

Sunset Reviews and Revocation of Antidumping 

Duty Orders, 79 FR 16771 (March 26, 2014). 

1See Petitioner’s submission entitled ‘‘Petition 

for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 

Silicomanganese from Australia,’’ dated February 

19, 2015 (‘‘Petition’’). 

2See Petition, at 2–3. 

3See Letter from the Department to Petitioner 

entitled ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties on Imports of Silicomanganese 

from Australia: Supplemental Question Regarding 

Industry Support,’’ dated February 20, 2015. 

4See Industry Support Supplement to the 

Petition, dated February 23, 2015 (‘‘First Petition 

Supplement’’). 

5See Letter from the Department to Petitioner 

entitled ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties on Imports of Silicomanganese 

from Australia: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated 

February 24, 2015. 

6See Supplement to the Petition, dated February 

27, 2015 (‘‘Second Petition Supplement’’). 

7See Memorandum from Thomas Martin to the 

File entitled ‘‘Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of 

Silicomanganese from Australia: Telephone 

Conference with Petitioner’s Counsel,’’ dated March 

3, 2015; Memorandum from Thomas Martin to the 

File entitled ‘‘Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of 

Silicomanganese from Australia: Telephone 

Conference with Petitioner’s Counsel,’’ dated March 

4, 2015. 

8See Supplement to the Petition, dated March 5, 

2015 (‘‘Third Petition Supplement’’). 

9See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition’’ section below. 

remand in its entirety on February 25, 

2015, and entered judgment.10

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 

341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 

the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 

516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act), the Department 

must publish a notice of a court 

decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with 

a Department determination and must 

suspend liquidation of entries pending 

a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s 

February 25, 2015, judgment affirming 

the Final Second Remand constitutes a 

final decision of that court that is not in 

harmony with AFBs 16. This notice is 

published in fulfillment of the 

publication requirements of Timken. 

Amended Final Results 

Because there is now a final court 

decision, the Department is amending 

AFBs 16 with respect to Nachi’s and 

NTN’s weighted-average dumping 

margins as redetermined in the Final 

First Remand. The revised weightedaverage dumping margin for the period 

May 1, 2004, to April 30, 2005, for 

Nachi is 13.91 percent. The revised 

weighted-average dumping margin for 

the period May 1, 2004, to April 30, 

2005, for NTN is 8.02 percent. 

Accordingly, the Department will 

continue the suspension of liquidation 

of the subject merchandise pending the 

expiration of the period of appeal or, if 

appealed, pending a final and 

conclusive court decision. In the event 

the Court’s ruling is not appealed, or if 

appealed and upheld by the Federal 

Circuit, the Department will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to assess antidumping duties on 

appropriate entries of the subject 

merchandise from NTN or Nachi using 

the revised assessment rates calculated 

by the Department in the Final First 

Remand. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Because we revoked the antidumping 

duty order on ball bearings and parts 

thereof from Japan effective September 

15, 2011, no cash deposits for estimated 

antidumping duties on future entries of 

subject merchandise will be required.11

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 

751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: March 11, 2015. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06137 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–602–808] 

Silicomanganese From Australia: 

Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value 

Investigation 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 17, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Magd Zalok at (202) 482–4162 or 

Thomas Martin at (202) 482–3936, 

Office IV, AD/CVD Operations, 

Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On February 19, 2015, the Department 

of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received 

an antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) petition 

concerning imports of silicomanganese 

from Australia filed in proper form on 

behalf of Felman Production, LLC 

(‘‘Petitioner’’).1 Petitioner is a domestic 

producer of silicomanganese.2

On February 20, 2015, the Department 

requested additional information and 

clarification with respect to the industry 

support section of the Petition.3

Petitioner filed a response to this 

request on February 23, 2015.4 On 

February 24, 2015, the Department 

requested additional information and 

clarification on certain portions of the 

Petition.5 Petitioner filed a response to 

this request on February 27, 2015.6 On 

March 3 and 4, 2015, Department 

personnel spoke with Petitioner’s 

counsel via telephone, requesting 

additional information and 

clarification.7 Petitioner filed a response 

to these requests on March 5, 2015.8

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), Petitioner alleges that 

silicomanganese from Australia is being, 

or is likely to be, sold in the United 

States at less than fair value within the 

meaning of section 731 of the Act and 

that such imports are materially 

injuring, or threatening material injury 

to, an industry in the United States. 

Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) 

of the Act, the Petition is accompanied 

by information reasonably available to 

Petitioner supporting its allegations. 

The Department finds that Petitioner 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioner is 

an interested party as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department 

also finds that Petitioner demonstrated 

sufficient industry support with respect 

to the initiation of the AD investigation 

that Petitioner is requesting.9

Period of Investigation 

Because the Petition was filed on 

February 19, 2015, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1) the period of investigation 

(‘‘POI’’) is January 1, 2014 through 

December 31, 2014. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The product covered by this 

investigation is silicomanganese from 

Australia. For a full description of the 

scope of this investigation, see ‘‘Scope 

of the Investigation’’ in Appendix I of 

this notice. 

Comments on Scope of the Investigation 

During our review of the Petition, the 

Department issued questions to, and 

received responses from, Petitioner 

pertaining to the proposed scope to 

ensure that the scope language in the 

Petition would be an accurate reflection 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

13830 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

10See Second Petition Supplement at 1–3; Third 

Petition Supplement at 2. 

11See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties; Final rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 

1997). 

12On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and 

Compliance changed the name of Import 

Administration’s AD and CVD Centralized 

Electronic Service System (‘‘IA ACCESS’’) to AD 

and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System 

(‘‘ACCESS’’). The Web site location has changed 

from http://iaaccess.trade.gov to http://

access.trade.gov. The Final Rule changing the 

references to the Regulations can be found at 79 FR 

69046 (November 20, 2014). 

13See section 771(10) of the Act. 

14See 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)). 

of the products for which the domestic 

industry is seeking relief.10

As discussed in the preamble to the 

Department’s regulations,11 we are 

setting aside a period for interested 

parties to raise issues regarding product 

coverage (scope). The period for scope 

comments is intended to provide the 

Department with ample opportunity to 

consider all comments and to consult 

with parties prior to the issuance of the 

preliminary determination. If scope 

comments include factual information 

(see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such 

factual information should be limited to 

public information. All such comments 

must be filed by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time 

(‘‘ET’’) on March 31, 2015, which is 20 

calendar days from the signature date of 

this notice. Any rebuttal comments, 

which may include factual information, 

must be filed no later than 10 calendar 

days after the initial comments 

deadline, which in this instance, is 

April 10, 2015. 

The Department requests that any 

factual information the parties consider 

relevant to the scope of the investigation 

be submitted during this time period. 

However, if a party subsequently finds 

that additional factual information 

pertaining to the scope of the 

investigation may be relevant, the party 

may contact the Department and request 

permission to submit the additional 

information. All such comments must 

be filed on the record of this 

investigation. 

Filing Requirements 

All submissions to the Department 

must be filed electronically using 

Enforcement and Compliance’s 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Centralized Electronic Service System 

(‘‘ACCESS’’).12 An electronically-filed 

document must be received successfully 

in its entirety by the time and date it is 

due. Documents excepted from the 

electronic submission requirements 

must be filed manually (i.e., in paper 

form) with Enforcement and 

Compliance’s APO/Dockets Unit, Room 

1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

14th Street and Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20230, and 

stamped with the date and time of 

receipt by the applicable deadlines. 

Comments on Product Characteristics 

for AD Questionnaire 

The Department requests comments 

from interested parties regarding the 

appropriate physical characteristics of 

silicomanganese to be reported in 

response to the Department’s AD 

questionnaire. This information will be 

used to identify the key physical 

characteristics of the subject 

merchandise in order to report the 

relevant cost of production accurately, 

as well as to develop appropriate 

product-comparison criteria. 

Interested parties may provide any 

information or comments that they feel 

are relevant to the development of an 

accurate list of physical characteristics. 

Specifically, they may provide 

comments as to which characteristics 

are appropriate to use as: (1) General 

product characteristics; and (2) productcomparison criteria. We note that it is 

not always appropriate to use all 

product characteristics as productcomparison criteria. We base productcomparison criteria on meaningful 

commercial differences among products. 

In other words, although there may be 

some physical product characteristics 

utilized by manufacturers to describe 

silicomanganese, it may be that only a 

select few product characteristics take 

into account commercially meaningful 

physical characteristics. In addition, 

interested parties may comment on the 

order in which the physical 

characteristics should be used in 

matching products. Generally, the 

Department attempts to list the most 

important physical characteristics first 

and the least important characteristics 

last. 

In order to consider the suggestions of 

interested parties in developing and 

issuing the AD questionnaire, all 

comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET 

on March 31, 2015, which is 20 calendar 

days from the signature date of this 

notice. Any rebuttal comments must be 

filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on April 10, 2015. 

All comments and submissions to the 

Department must be filed electronically 

using ACCESS, as explained above, on 

the record of this investigation. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition 

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) At least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) Poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method to poll the 

‘‘industry.’’ 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product, or 

those producers whose collective output 

of a domestic like product constitutes a 

major proportion of the total domestic 

production of the product. Thus, to 

determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The International 

Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’), which is 

responsible for determining whether 

‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been 

injured, must also determine what 

constitutes a domestic like product in 

order to define the industry. While both 

the Department and the ITC must apply 

the same statutory definition regarding 

the domestic like product,13 they do so 

for different purposes and pursuant to a 

separate and distinct authority. In 

addition, the Department’s 

determination is subject to limitations of 

time and information. Although this 

may result in different definitions of the 

like product, such differences do not 

render the decision of either agency 

contrary to law.14

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). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13831 

15For a discussion of the domestic like product 

analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: Silicomanganese 

from Australia (‘‘Initiation Checklist’’) at 

Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the 

Antidumping Petition Covering Silicomanganese 

from Australia (‘‘Attachment II’’). This checklist is 

dated concurrently with this notice and can be 

accessed electronically via ACCESS. Access to 

documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the 

Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main 

Department of Commerce building. 

16See Petition, at 4 (fn. 4). 

17See First Petition Supplement, at 2 and Exhibit 

1; see also Petition, at 3. 

18See First Petition Supplement, at 2. For further 

discussion, see Initiation Checklist, at Attachment 

II. 

19See Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 

20See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also 

Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 

21See Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 

22 Id. 

23 Id. 

24See Petition, at 23–24; see also Second Petition 

Supplement, at 5. 

25See Petition, at 1–2, 16–40 and Exhibits 5 and 

20–28; see also Second Petition Supplement, at 1, 

5 and Exhibit A. 

26See Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, 

Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation for the Antidumping Duty 

Petition Covering Silicomanganese from Australia. 

27See Petition, at 14 and Exhibit 5. 

28See Petition, at 14–16. 

29See Petition, at 15. 

30See SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103–316 at 833 (1994). 

31 Id. 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, Petitioner does not offer a 

definition of the domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigation. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that 

silicomanganese constitutes a single 

domestic like product and we have 

analyzed industry support in terms of 

that domestic like product.15

In determining whether Petitioner has 

standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of 

the Act, we considered the industry 

support data contained in the Petition 

with reference to the domestic like 

product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of the 

Investigation,’’ in Appendix I of this 

notice. Petitioner provided its own 2014 

production data for the domestic like 

product.16 In addition, Petitioner 

provided the 2014 domestic like 

product production data of Eramet 

Marietta, Inc., which was identified as 

the only other producer of 

silicomanganese in the United States.17

To establish industry support, Petitioner 

compared its own production data to 

data for the total production of the 

domestic like product for the entire 

domestic industry.18

Our review of the data provided in the 

Petition, supplemental submissions, and 

other information readily available to 

the Department indicates that Petitioner 

has established industry support.19

First, the Petition established support 

from domestic producers (or workers) 

accounting for more than 50 percent of 

the total production of the domestic like 

product and, as such, the Department is 

not required to take further action in 

order to evaluate industry support (e.g., 

polling).20 Second, the domestic 

producers (or workers) have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act 

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petition 

account for at least 25 percent of the 

total production of the domestic like 

product.21 Finally, the domestic 

producers (or workers) have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act 

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petition 

account for more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like product 

produced by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the Petition.22 Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the Petition 

was filed on behalf of the domestic 

industry within the meaning of section 

732(b)(1) of the Act. 

The Department finds that Petitioner 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because it is an 

interested party as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act and it has 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the AD 

investigation that it is requesting the 

Department to initiate.23

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioner alleges that the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product is being materially injured, or is 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of the imports of the subject 

merchandise sold at less than normal 

value (‘‘NV’’). In addition, Petitioner 

alleges that subject imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.24

Petitioner contends that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by 

reduced market share; underselling and 

price depression or suppression; lost 

sales and revenue; a plant shutdown 

and the inability to restart a third 

furnace for production; reduced 

employment levels; and decline in 

financial performance.25 We have 

assessed the allegations and supporting 

evidence regarding material injury, 

threat of material injury, and causation, 

and we have determined that these 

allegations are properly supported by 

adequate evidence and meet the 

statutory requirements for initiation.26

Allegation of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value 

The following is a description of the 

allegation of sales at less than fair value 

upon which the Department based its 

decision to initiate an investigation of 

imports of silicomanganese from 

Australia. The sources of data relating to 

U.S. price and NV are discussed in 

greater detail in the initiation checklist. 

Export Price 

Petitioner based export price (‘‘EP’’) 

on the POI average unit value (‘‘AUV’’) 

of silicomanganese imports from 

Australia under Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheading 7202.30.0000 

(which covers the subject merchandise), 

calculated using U.S. import statistics 

obtained from the ITC’s Dataweb. The 

AUV represents FOB Australia port 

terms. To be conservative, Petitioner 

made no adjustments to EP for foreign 

inland freight or other expenses at the 

port of exportation.27

Normal Value 

Petitioner alleged that the sales of 

silicomanganese in Australia were made 

at prices substantially below the fullyloaded cost of production (‘‘COP’’). 

Accordingly, Petitioner based NV on the 

constructed value (‘‘CV’’) of the 

imported merchandise.28

Sales-Below-Cost Allegation 

Petitioner provided information 

demonstrating reasonable grounds to 

believe or suspect that sales of 

silicomanganese in the Australian 

market were made at prices below the 

COP, within the meaning of section 

773(b) of the Act, and requested that the 

Department conduct a country-wide 

sales-below-cost investigation.29 The 

Statement of Administrative Action 

(‘‘SAA’’), submitted to Congress in 

connection with the interpretation and 

application of the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, states that an allegation 

of sales below COP need not be specific 

to individual exporters or producers.30

The SAA states that ‘‘Commerce will 

consider allegations of below-cost sales 

in the aggregate for a foreign country, 

just as Commerce currently considers 

allegations of sales at less than fair value 

on a country-wide basis for purposes of 

initiating an antidumping 

investigation.’’ 31

Further, section 773(b)(2)(A) of the 

Act requires that the Department have 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

13832 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

32 Id. 

33See Initiation Checklist. 

34See Petition, at Exhibit 11 and Second Petition 

Supplement, at 8. 

35See Petition, at Exhibit 14 and Second Petition 

Supplement, at 9. 

36See Petition, at Exhibits 16 and 17. 

37See Petition, at Exhibit 10 and Second Petition 

Supplement, at Exhibit D. 

38See Second Petition Supplement, at 10 and 

Exhibit G. 

39See Second Petition Supplement, at 11. 

40See Initiation Checklist. 

41See Petition, at Exhibits 18 and 19. 

42See Initiation Checklist. 

43See Second Petition Supplement, at Exhibit B. 

44See section 733(a) of the Act. 

45 Id. 

‘‘reasonable grounds to believe or 

suspect’’ that below-cost sales have 

occurred before initiating such an 

investigation. Reasonable grounds exist 

when an interested party provides 

specific factual information on costs and 

prices, observed or constructed, 

indicating that sales in the foreign 

market in question are at below-cost 

prices.32 As explained in the ‘‘Cost of 

Production’’ section below, we find 

reasonable grounds exist that indicate 

sales in Australia were made at belowcost prices. 

Cost of Production 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the 

Act, COP consists of the cost of 

manufacturing (‘‘COM’’); selling, general 

and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) expenses; 

financial expenses; and packing 

expenses. Petitioner calculated COM 

based on its experience adjusted for 

known differences between the United 

States and Australia during the 

proposed POI.33 Petitioner used 2014 

global market prices for manganese ore 

as published in the Metal Bulletin,34

Bureau of Labor Statistics wage data,35

and electricity rates from an Australian 

electricity supplier36 to account for cost 

differences between the United States 

and Australia in the manufacture of 

silicomanganese. Petitioner calculated 

the cost of other materials based on its 

own experience.37

Petitioner relied on the 2013 financial 

statements of Grange Resources Limited, 

an Australian producer of comparable 

merchandise (i.e., magnetite pellets), to 

determine the SG&A and profit ratios, 

which is consistent with the 

Department’s practice. Petitioner 

calculated the factory overhead ratio 

based on its own production 

experience.38

Petitioner obtained a price quote from 

Tasmanian Electro Metallurgical 

Company for silicomanganese, meeting 

ASTM A–483 grade B specifications, for 

sale in the Australian market. Based 

upon a comparison of the net price of 

the foreign like product in the home 

market to the COP of the product, we 

find reasonable grounds to believe or 

suspect that sales of the foreign like 

product in the comparison market were 

made below the COP, within the 

meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the 

Act.39 Accordingly, the Department is 

initiating a country-wide cost 

investigation relating to sales of 

silicomanganese in Australia. 

Normal Value Based on Constructed 

Value 

Because home market sales prices fell 

below COP, pursuant to sections 

773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, 

Petitioner based NV on CV.40 Petitioner 

calculated CV using the same COM, 

SG&A, and financial expense used to 

calculate the COP, as discussed above. 

Petitioner relied on Grange Resources 

Limited’s FY 2013 financial statements 

to determine the profit rate used in the 

calculation of CV.41

Fair Value Comparisons 

Based on the data provided by 

Petitioner, there is reason to believe that 

imports of silicomanganese from 

Australia are being, or are likely to be, 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value. Based on comparisons of export 

price to CV in accordance with section 

773(a) of the Act, the estimated AD 

margin is 77.97 percent.42

Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value 

Investigation 

Based upon the examination of the 

Petition on silicomanganese from 

Australia, we find that the Petition 

meets the requirements of section 732 of 

the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an 

AD investigation to determine whether 

imports of silicomanganese from 

Australia are being, or are likely to be, 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value. In accordance with section 

733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will 

make our preliminary determination no 

later than 140 days after the date of this 

initiation. 

Respondent Selection 

The Petition names only one company 

as a producer/exporter of 

silicomanganese in Australia: 

Tasmanian Electro Metallurgical 

Company, and Petitioner provided 

information from an independent thirdparty source as support of this claim.43

Furthermore, we currently know of no 

additional producers/exporters of 

subject merchandise from Australia. 

Accordingly, the Department intends to 

examine all known producers/exporters 

in this investigation (i.e., the company 

named above). We invite interested 

parties to comment on this issue. Parties 

wishing to comment must do so within 

five days of the publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register. 

Comments must be filed electronically 

using ACCESS. An electronically-filed 

document must be received successfully 

in its entirety by the Department’s 

electronic records system, ACCESS, by 

5 p.m. ET by the deadline noted above. 

Distribution of Copies of the Petition 

In accordance with section 

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.202(f), copies of the public version 

of the Petition have been provided to 

the government of Australia. To the 

extent practicable, we will attempt to 

provide a copy of the public version of 

the Petition to each exporter named in 

the Petition, as provided under 19 CFR 

351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 732(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determination by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

within 45 days after the date on which 

the Petition was filed, whether there is 

a reasonable indication that imports of 

silicomanganese from Australia are 

materially injuring or threatening 

material injury to a U.S. industry.44 A 

negative ITC determination will result 

in the investigation being terminated; 45

otherwise, the investigation will 

proceed according to statutory and 

regulatory time limits. 

Submission of Factual Information 

On April 10, 2013, the Department 

published Definition of Factual 

Information and Time Limits for 

Submission of Factual Information: 

Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 

2013), which modified two regulations 

related to AD and countervailing duty 

(‘‘CVD’’) proceedings: The definition of 

factual information (19 CFR 

351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for 

the submission of factual information 

(19 CFR 351.301). The final rule 

identifies five categories of factual 

information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), 

which are summarized as follows: (i) 

Evidence submitted in response to 

questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted 

in support of allegations; (iii) publicly 

available information to value factors 

under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure 

the adequacy of remuneration under 19 

CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed 

on the record by the Department; and (v) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13833 

46See Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 

57790 (September 20, 2013). 

47See section 782(b) of the Act. 

48See 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. 

evidence other than factual information 

described in (i)–(iv). The final rule 

requires any party, when submitting 

factual information, to specify under 

which subsection of 19 CFR 

351.102(b)(21) the information is being 

submitted and, if the information is 

submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct 

factual information already on the 

record, to provide an explanation 

identifying the information already on 

the record that the factual information 

seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The 

final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 

so that, rather than providing general 

time limits, there are specific time limits 

based on the type of factual information 

being submitted. These modifications 

are effective for all proceeding segments 

initiated on or after May 10, 2013, and 

thus are applicable to this investigation. 

Interested parties should review the 

final rule, available at http://

enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/

1304frn/2013-08227.txt prior to 

submitting factual information in this 

investigation. 

Revised Extension of Time Limits 

Regulation 

On September 20, 2013, the 

Department modified its regulation 

concerning the extension of time limits 

for submissions in AD and CVD 

proceedings.46 The modification 

clarifies that parties may request an 

extension of time limits before a time 

limit established under 19 CFR part 351 

expires, or as otherwise specified by the 

Secretary. In general, an extension 

request will be considered untimely if it 

is filed after the time limit established 

under Part 351 expires. For submissions 

which are due from multiple parties 

simultaneously, an extension request 

will be considered untimely if it is filed 

after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. 

Examples include but are not limited to: 

(1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual 

information to value factors under 19 

CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the 

adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 

351.511(a)(2) filed pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification 

and correction information filed 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) 

comments concerning the selection of a 

surrogate country and surrogate values 

and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

data; and (5) quantity and value 

questionnaires. Under certain 

circumstances, the Department may 

elect to specify a different time limit by 

which extension requests will be 

considered untimely for submissions 

which are due from multiple parties 

simultaneously. In such a case, the 

Department will inform parties in a 

letter or memorandum setting forth the 

deadline (including a specified time) by 

which extension requests must be filed 

to be considered timely. This 

modification also requires that an 

extension request be made in a separate, 

stand-alone submission, and clarifies 

the circumstances under which the 

Department will grant untimely-filed 

requests for the extension of time limits. 

These modifications are effective for all 

segments initiated on or after October 

21, 2013, and thus are applicable to this 

investigation. Interested parties should 

review Extension of Time Limits; Final 

Rule, available at http://www.gpo.gov/

fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013- 

22853.htm, prior to submitting requests 

to extend time limits in this 

investigation. 

Certification Requirements 

Any party submitting factual 

information in an AD or CVD 

proceeding must certify to the accuracy 

and completeness of that information.47

Parties are hereby reminded that revised 

certification requirements are in effect 

for company/government officials, as 

well as their representatives. 

Investigations initiated on the basis of 

petitions filed on or after August 16, 

2013, and other segments of any AD or 

CVD proceedings initiated on or after 

August 16, 2013, should use the formats 

for the revised certifications provided at 

the end of the Final Rule.48 The 

Department intends to reject factual 

submissions if the submitting party does 

not comply with the applicable revised 

certification requirements. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under 

administrative protective orders 

(‘‘APO’’) in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.305. On January 22, 2008, the 

Department published Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Documents Submission Procedures; 

APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 

22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate 

in this investigation should ensure that 

they meet the requirements of these 

procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of 

appearance as discussed in 19 CFR 

351.103(d)). 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.203(c). 

Dated: March 11, 2015. 

Christian Marsh 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

Appendix I 

Scope of the Investigation 

The scope of this investigation covers all 

forms, sizes and compositions of 

silicomanganese, except low-carbon 

silicomanganese, including silicomanganese 

briquettes, fines, and slag. Silicomanganese is 

a ferroalloy composed principally of 

manganese, silicon, and iron, and normally 

contains much smaller proportions of minor 

elements, such as carbon, phosphorus, and 

sulfur. Silicomanganese is sometimes 

referred to as ferrosilicon manganese. 

Silicomanganese generally contains by 

weight not less than 4 percent iron, more 

than 30 percent manganese, more than 8 

percent silicon and not more than 0.2 percent 

phosphorus. Silicomanganese is properly 

classifiable under subheading 7202.30.0000 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). 

Low-carbon silicomanganese is excluded 

from the scope of this investigation. It is 

sometimes referred to as ferromanganesesilicon. The low-carbon silicomanganese 

excluded from this investigation is a 

ferroalloy with the following chemical 

specifications by weight: minimum 55 

percent manganese, minimum 27 percent 

silicon, minimum 4 percent iron, maximum 

0.10 percent phosphorus, maximum 0.10 

percent carbon, and maximum 0.05 percent 

sulfur. Low-carbon silicomanganese is 

classifiable under HTSUS subheading 

7202.30.0000. 

The HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes. The 

written description of the scope is 

dispositive. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06142 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–822] 

Helical Spring Lock Washers From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review; 2012–2013 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 7, 2014, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

helical spring lock washers (HSLW) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES