Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway; Inv. No. 701-TA-567-569 and 731-TA-1343-1345 (Final)

=== Determination- CVD- Preliminary - Australia === 37843Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Notices 1 See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 82 FR 16356 (April 4, 2017) (Initiation Notice). 2 See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 82 FR 22490 (May 16, 2017). 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Silicon Metal from Australia,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 4 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 5 See Initiation Notice. 6 See Memorandum, ‘‘Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,’’ dated June 27, 2017 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum). 7 See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity. 8 See Initiation Notice. 9 See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil and Norway: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 82 FR 16352 (April 4, 2017). Notification to Interested Parties This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c). Dated: August 7, 2017. Carole Showers, Executive Director, Office of Policy, performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation The scope of this investigation covers all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded from the scope of these investigations. Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive. Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope Comments IV. Alignment V. Injury Test VI. Use of Facts Otherwise Available VII. Subsidies Valuation VIII. Analysis of Programs IX. Conclusion [FR Doc. 2017–17117 Filed 8–11–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–602–811] Silicon Metal From Australia: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to a producer/exporter of silicon metal from Australia. The period of investigation is January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. DATES : Effective August 14, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Johnson or John Anwesen, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4929 or (202) 482–0131, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on April 4, 2017. 1 On May 16, 2017, the Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation and the revised deadline is now August 7, 2017. 2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http:// access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/ frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is silicon metal from Australia. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I. Scope Comments In accordance with the preamble to the Department’s regulations, 4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage, (i.e., scope).5 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record for this preliminary determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum. 6 The Department preliminarily is not modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. See Appendix I. Methodology The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, the Department preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an ‘‘authority’’ that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.7 Alignment On March 28, 2017, the Department initiated this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of silicon metal from Australia. 8 On the same day, the Department also initiated antidumping duty (AD) investigations of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway. 9 This CVD investigation and the AD investigations of Australia, Brazil, and Norway cover the same class or kind of merchandise. As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), the Department is aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determinations in the companion AD investigations of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway based on VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Aug 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14AUN1.SGM 14AUN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 37844 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Notices 10 See Letter from the petitioner, ‘‘Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan; Countervailing Duty Investigations; Request for Alignment of Final Determinations,’’ dated July 10, 2017. 11 As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, the Department has found the following companies to be cross-owned with Simcoa: Silicon Metal Company of Australia Pty Ltd., Microsilica Pty Ltd., and Simcoa International Pty Ltd. 12 See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements). a request made by the petitioner.10 Consequently, the final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the final AD determinations for Australia, Brazil, and Norway, which are currently scheduled to be issued no later than December 18, 2017, unless postponed. All-Others Rate Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination, the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and de minimis rates and any rates based entirely under section 776 of the Act. The Department calculated an individual estimated countervailable subsidy rate for Simcoa Operations Pty. Ltd. (Simcoa), the only individually examined producer/exporter in this investigation. Because the only individually calculated rate is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available, the estimated weighted-average rate calculated for Simcoa is the rate assigned to all-other producers and exporters, pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act. Preliminary Determination The Department preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist: Company Subsidy rate (percent) Simcoa Operations Pty Ltd 11 ..... 16.23 All-Others .................................... 16.23 Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the rates indicated above. Disclosure The Department intends to disclose to interested parties its calculations and analysis performed in this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the publication date of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Verification As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, the Department intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination. Public Comment Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance at a date to be determined. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.12 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party’s name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, the Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final injury determination before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination. Notification to Interested Parties This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c). Dated: August 7, 2017. Carole Showers, Executive Director, Office of Policy, performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation The scope of these investigation covers all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded from the scope of these investigations. Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive. Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope Comments IV. Alignment V. Injury Test VI. Subsidies Valuation VII. Analysis of Programs VIII. Conclusion [FR Doc. 2017–17116 Filed 8–11–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–570–054] Certain Aluminum Foil From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Aug 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14AUN1.SGM 14AUN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination - AD- Preliminary - Norway === 47475Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 / Notices 6 See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011). 7 Id. 1 See Silicon Metal From Australia, Brazil, and Norway: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 82 FR 16352 (April 4, 2017) (Initiation Notice). 2 See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 82 FR 35753 (August 1, 2017). 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than- Fair-Value Investigation of Silicon Metal from Norway,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. Accordingly, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the entries reported by Baoding Mantong without regard to antidumping duties. The Department also intends to instruct CBP to liquidate entries of subject merchandise from the exporters identified above as being part of the PRC-wide entity (including Huayang Chemical) at the PRC-wide rate, i.e., 453.79 percent. Pursuant to a refinement in the Department’s non-market economy practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate.6 Additionally, if the Department determines that an exporter had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter’s case number (i.e., at that exporter’s rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate. 7 Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Baoding Mantong and other previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters which are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but received a separate rate in a previous segment, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter- specific rate published for the most recently-completed period; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the PRC- wide entity (i.e., 453.79 percent); and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied the non-PRC exporter. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this period of review. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: October 4, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I List of Topics Discussed in the Final Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. List of Issues III. Background IV. Scope of the Order V. Discussion of Interested Party Comments Comment 1: Bona Fides of Baoding Mantong’s U.S. Sale Comment 2: Moot Arguments Concerning Baoding Mantong’s Margin Calculations Comment 3: Assignment of the PRC-Wide Rate to Pharm-Rx Following Judicial Review of the Rate VI. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2017–22068 Filed 10–11–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–403–805] Silicon Metal From Norway: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Preliminary Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances, Preliminary Determination of No Shipments, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that silicon metal from Norway is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. DATES : Applicable October 12, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brittany Bauer, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3860. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on April 4, 2017. 1 On July 26, 2017, the Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation, and the revised deadline is now October 4, 2017. 2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:35 Oct 11, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12OCN1.SGM 12OCN1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES 47476 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 / Notices 4 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 5 See Initiation Notice. Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https:// access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is silicon metal from Norway. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I. Scope Comments In accordance with the preamble to the Department’s regulations, 4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).5 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. After evaluating these comments, the Department preliminarily determines that modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice is not warranted. See the scope in Appendix I to this notice. However, the Department is inviting comment on one of the issues raised: The appropriate calculation methodology for determining the silicon content of out-of-scope products (i.e., silicon metal with a silicon content in excess of 99.99 percent), and, specifically, which impurities should be taken into account in that calculation. These comments are due no later than November 6, 2017. Rebuttal comments will be due no later than November 13, 2017. For a summary of the product coverage comments submitted on the record of this proceeding, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Methodology The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. The Department has calculated export prices in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Constructed export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Preliminary Determination of No Sales On April 5, 2017, Wacker Chemicals Norway A.S. (Wacker), one of the two respondents named in the Initiation Notice, timely filed a statement reporting that it had ‘‘no exports, sales, or entries’’ of subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. Subsequently, we received information from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) confirming Wacker’s claim that it had no entries of subject merchandise during the POI. Based on the foregoing, the Department preliminarily determines that Wacker had no sales of subject merchandise during the POI, and, therefore, we preliminarily determine not to further examine Wacker as part of this investigation. As such, any entries of subject merchandise exporterd by Wacker will be subject to the All-Others Rate. For additional information regarding this determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Preliminary Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances In accordance with section 733(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, the Department preliminarily finds that critical circumstances do not exist for Elkem, and for all other producers and exporters. For a full description of the methodology and results of the Department’s critical circumstances analysis, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. All-Others Rate Sections 733(d)(1)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. The Department calculated an individual estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Elkem AS (Elkem), the only individually-examined exporter/producer in this investigation. Because the only individually- calculated dumping margin is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available, the estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Elkem is the margin assigned to all-other producers and exporters, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. Preliminary Determination The Department preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist: Exporter/producer Estimated weighted- average dumping margin (percent) Elkem AS .............................. 3.74 All-Others .............................. 3.74 Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondent listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted- average dumping margin determined in this preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted- average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. Disclosure The Department intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Verification As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, the Department intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:35 Oct 11, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12OCN1.SGM 12OCN1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES 47477Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 / Notices 6 See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements). 7 See Letter from Elkem, ‘‘Request for Postponement of Final Determination,’’ dated September 20, 2017. Public Comment Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.6 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party’s name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Section 351.210(e)(2) of the Department’s regulations requires that a request by exporters for postponement of the final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four- month period to a period not more than six months in duration. On September 20, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), Elkem requested that the Department postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months. 7 In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) The preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, the Department is postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, the Department will make its final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, the Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. Notification to Interested Parties This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c). Dated: October 4, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation The scope of this investigation covers all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded from the scope of this investigation. Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive. Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Period of Investigation IV. Scope Comments V. Preliminary Determination of No Sales VI. Discussion of the Methodology A. Determination of the Comparison Method B. Results of the Differential Pricing Analysis VII. Date of Sale VIII. Product Comparisons IX. Export Price and Constructed Export Price X. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability B. Level of Trade C. Cost of Production Analysis 1. Calculation of COP 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices 3. Results of the COP Test D. Calculation of NV Based on Comparison Market Prices E. Calculation of NV Based on Constructed Value XI. Currency Conversion XII. Critical Circumstances XIII. Conclusion [FR Doc. 2017–22065 Filed 10–11–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–489–815] Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2015– 2016 AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : On June 6, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Department) published the preliminary results of the 2015–2016 administrative review (AR) of the antidumping duty (AD) order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube (LWRPT) from Turkey for the period May 1, 2015, through April 30, 2016 (POR). Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made changes to the margin calculations for the final results of this AR. The final weighted- average dumping margins are listed below in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this notice. DATES : Applicable October 12, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Hill, AD/CVD Operations, VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:35 Oct 11, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12OCN1.SGM 12OCN1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination- AD - Final - Australia === 9839Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2018 / Notices 8 Palmyra do Brasil reported that it changed its name from Dow Corning Silicio do Brasil Indu´ stria e Come´rcio Ltda. (DC Silicio) on June 30, 2017. Commerce verified this name change. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 2. 9 As discussed in the Preliminary Determination, Commerce has found the following companies to be cross-owned with Palmyra do Brasil, previously known as Dow Corning Silicio do Brasil Indu´ stria e Come´rcio Ltda. (DC Silicio): Palmyra Recursos Naturais Explorac¸a˜o e Come´rcio Ltda. and Dow Corning Metais do Para´ IND. merchandise selected for individual examination in this investigation. 8 Commerce assigned a rate based entirely on facts otherwise available with an adverse inference pursuant to section 776 of the Act to Ligas de Aluminio S.A.—LIASA (LIASA). Section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that in the final determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and de minimis rates and any rates based entirely under section 776 of the Act. The only rate for an individually- examined respondent that is not zero, de minimis or based entirely on adverse facts otherwise available is the rate calculated for Palmyra do Brasil. Consequently, the rate calculated for Palmyra do Brasil is also assigned as the rate for all-other producers and exporters, pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act. Commerce determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist: Company Subsidy rate (percent) Palmyra do Brasil Indu´ stria e Come´ rcio de Silicio Meta´ lico e Recursos Naturais Ltda.9 ........ 2.44 Ligas de Aluminio S.A.—LIASA 52.51 All-Others .................................... 2.44 Disclosure We intend to disclose to parties in this proceeding the calculations performed for this final determination within five days of the date of publication of our final determination, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation As a result of our Preliminary Determination and pursuant to section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, Commerce instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we issued instructions to CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for countervailing duty (CVD) purposes for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after December 12, 2017, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries from August 14, 2017, through December 11, 2017. If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order, will reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act, and will require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non- privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/ destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c). Dated: February 27, 2018. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation The scope of this investigation covers all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded from the scope of these investigations. Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive. Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences IV. Subsidies Valuation V. Analysis of Programs VI. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Whether the Tax Incentives in the State of Para´ (ICMS) Program Is Countervailable Comment 2: Whether the Predominantly Exporting Companies (PEC) Program Is Countervailable Comment 3: Whether Palmyra do Brasil Received Reintegra Benefits During the Period of Investigation (POI) Comment 4: Whether the Forest Fee Reduction Program Is Countervailable VII. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2018–04661 Filed 3–7–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–602–810] Silicon Metal From Australia: Affirmative Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of silicon metal from Australia are being, VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 07, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM 08MRN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 9840 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2018 / Notices 1 See Silicon Metal from Australia: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 82 FR 47471 (October 12, 2017) (Preliminary Determination), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 2 See Memorandum for The Record from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, performing the non- exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government’’ (Tolling Memorandum), dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by 3 days. 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Silicon Metal from Australia,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). 4 See Memorandum, ‘‘Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,’’ dated June 29, 2017 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum). 5 These parties include Wacker Chemicals Norway A.S., Elkem AS, and the petitioner. 6 See Memorandum, ‘‘Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway: Final Scope Comments Decision Memorandum,’’ dated February 27, 2018 (Final Scope Decision Memorandum). 7 Only the petitioner submitted case briefs in this investigation. 8 Simcoa is the sole mandatory respondent in this case. 9 See Preliminary Determination, 82 FR at 47472. 10 See Letter from Simcoa to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘Silicon Metal from Australia: Withdrawal from Participation as a Respondent,’’ dated October 12, 2017. 11 See Preliminary Decision Memorandum, at 14– 16. Note: the Preliminary Determination, at 82 FR 47472, incorrectly stated that critical circumstances exist for imports of the subject merchandise produced or exported by Simcoa and all others. It should have stated that critical circumstances exist for imports of the subject merchandise produced or exported by Simcoa only, consistent with the analysis in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, at 14–16. or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). In addition, we determine that critical circumstances exist with respect to certain imports of the subject merchandise. The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. The final dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the ‘‘Final Determination’’ section of this notice. DATES : Applicable March 8, 2018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith or Denisa Ursu, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1766 and (202) 482–2285, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On October 12, 2017, Commerce published the Preliminary Determination of sales at LTFV of silicon metal from Australia. 1 Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce’s practice, the deadline will become the next business day. The revised deadline for the final determination of this investigation is now February 27, 2018.2 A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is adopted by this notice.3 Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is silicon metal from Australia. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the ‘‘Scope of the Investigation’’ in Appendix I of this notice. Scope Comments During the course of this investigation, Commerce received numerous scope comments from interested parties. Prior to the Preliminary Determination, Commerce issued a Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum 4 to address these comments. Since the Preliminary Determination, Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. (the petitioner), submitted a case brief and interested parties submitted rebuttal briefs concerning the limits to silicon content as specified in the scope. 5 Commerce reviewed these briefs, considered the arguments therein, and is not making any additional changes to the scope of the investigation. For further discussion, see Commerce’s Final Scope Decision Memorandum. 6 The scope in Appendix I reflects the final scope language. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the petitioner’s case briefs 7 are addressed in either the Final Scope Decision Memorandum or the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice at Appendix II. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http:// access.trade.gov, and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B–8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/ frn/index.html. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we informed Simcoa Operations Pty Ltd. (Simcoa),8 that we intended to verify its submitted sales and cost information.9 However, on October 12, 2017, Simcoa notified Commerce that it will no longer participate in this investigation. 10 As a result, Commerce was unable to verify Simcoa’s information as required under section 782(i)(1) of the Act. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on Simcoa’s decision to no longer participate in this investigation and our analysis of the comments received, we find that Simcoa has been uncooperative in this investigation and that facts available with an adverse inference with respect to Simcoa is warranted in the final determination in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308. For further discussion, see ‘‘Use of Adverse Facts Available’’ section below and the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part In accordance with section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, we preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of silicon metal from Simcoa, and do not exist with respect to companies covered by the ‘‘all others’’ rate.11 Commerce received no comments regarding this issue after the Preliminary Determination. Therefore, for the final determination, we continue to find that, in accordance with section 735(a)(3) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.206, critical circumstances exist with respect to subject merchandise produced or exported by Simcoa, but do VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 07, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM 08MRN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 9841Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2018 / Notices 12 See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway, dated March 8, 2017 (the Petition), Volume II at 5. 13 See, e.g., Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, In Part, 81 FR 3108 (January 20, 2016), and Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 73 FR 5508 (January 30, 2008) (unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 73 FR 19814 (April 11, 2008)). 14 See the Petition, Volume II, at Exhibit AU–AD 1. 15 See the Petition, Volume II at 5 and 48; see also Initiation Notice and accompanying Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Silicon Metal from Australia (Australia AD Initiation Checklist), at pages 5–9. 16 See Modification of Regulations Regarding the Practice of Accepting Bonds During the Provisional Measures Period in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations, 76 FR 61042 (October 3, 2011). not exist with respect to companies covered by the ‘‘all others’’ rate. Use of Adverse Facts Available The mandatory respondent Simcoa failed to allow its sales and cost data to be verified by Commerce. Therefore, we find that the application of facts available with an adverse inference with respect to Simcoa is warranted in the final determination. In applying total adverse facts available, Commerce has assigned to Simcoa’s exports of the subject merchandise the rate of 51.28 percent, which is the highest rate calculated in the Petition.12 For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 1 and 2. All-Others Rate Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides where, as here, the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are zero or de minimis margins, or based entirely on facts available pursuant to section 776 of the Act, Commerce may use any reasonable method to establish the all others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated. Where the sole individually investigated respondent’s margin is based on total AFA under section 776 of the Act, our practice under these circumstances has been to assign as the all others rate the simple average of the margins in the Petition,13 which we have done for this final determination. 14 Final Determination The final weighted-average dumping margins are as follows: Exporter Dumping margin (percent) Simcoa Operations Pty Ltd. 51.28 All Others .............................. 41.73 Disclosure The weighted-average dumping margin assigned to Simcoa in the final determination of this investigation is the highest rate calculated in the Petition and the all others rate is the simple average of the margins in the Petition. Neither the dumping margin assigned to Simcoa nor the margins used to calculate the all others rate are proprietary in nature and they are considered to be public information (in both the Petition and in the Australia AD Initiation Checklist). 15 As the rate assigned to Simcoa and the all others rate are based on margins in the Petition, no disclosure of calculations is necessary for this final determination. Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, for this final determination, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of silicon metal from Australia, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 12, 2017, the date of publication in the Federal Register of the affirmative Preliminary Determination. For entries made by Simcoa, in accordance with section 735(c)(4)(A) of the Act, because we continue to find that critical circumstances exist, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of silicon metal from Australia which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 14, 2017, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination. Additionally, for entries made by companies covered by the ‘‘all others’’ rate, in accordance with section 735(c)(4)(B) of the Act, because we continue to find that critical circumstances do not exist with regard to imports from all other producers and exporters of silicon metal from Australia, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of silicon metal from Australia which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 12, 2017, which is the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination. Pursuant to section 735(c)(1) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the margins indicated in the chart above.16 These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because Commerce’s final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of silicon metal from Australia no later than 45 days after this final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the ‘‘Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation’’ section. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders This notice will serve as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of propriety information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. Notification to Interested Parties This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 07, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM 08MRN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 9842 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2018 / Notices 1 See Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from India: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 82 FR 49592 (October 26, 2017) (Initiation Notice). 2 See Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from India: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation, 82 FR 57727 (December 7, 2017). The postponement of the preliminary determination to the 130th day after initiation of the investigation resulted in the deadline falling on Sunday, February 25, 2018. Consistent with Commerce’s practice, the deadline became the next business day, Monday, February 26. Id. at footnote 6. 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government,’’ dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by three days. 4 See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from India,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 5 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 6 See Initiation Notice. 7 See Memorandum, ‘‘Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from India and the People’s Republic of China: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum). 8 See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity. 9 See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. Dated: February 27, 2018. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation The scope of this investigation covers all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded from the scope of this investigation. Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive. Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Discussion of the Issues: Comment 1: Application of Facts Available for Simcoa Comment 2: Appropriate Rate for Use as Adverse Facts Available IV. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2018–04657 Filed 3–7–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–533–880] Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From India: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of polytetrafluoroethylene resin (PTFE resin) from India. The period of investigation is April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017. DATES : Effective March 8, 2018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toby Vandall, Emily Halle, or Aimee Phelan, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1664, (202) 482–0176, or (202) 482–0697, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on October 26, 2017. 1 On December 7, 2017, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation to February 26, 2018. 2 Commerce exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. As a result, the deadline for this preliminary determination became February 28, 2018. 3 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 4 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http:// access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/ frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is PTFE resin from India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I. Scope Comments In accordance with the preamble to Commerce’s regulations, 5 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage, (i.e., scope).6 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record for this preliminary determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum.7 Commerce is preliminarily adopting the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. Methodology Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an ‘‘authority’’ that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific. 8 Commerce notes that, in making these findings, it relied, in part, on facts available and, because it finds that the government of India did not act to the best of its ability to respond to Commerce’s requests for information, Commerce drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. 9 For further information, see ‘‘Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences’’ in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. All-Others Rate Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and de VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 07, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM 08MRN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination - AD- Preliminary - Australia === 47471Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 / Notices 1 See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 82 FR 16352 (April 4, 2017) (Initiation Notice). 2 See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 82 FR 35753 (August 1, 2017). 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than- Fair-Value Investigation of Silicon Metal from Australia’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 4 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 5 See Initiation Notice. withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise exported by the companies listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of the administrative review for each exporter as listed above, except if the rate is zero or de minimis, then no cash deposit will be required for that exporter; (2) for previously investigated companies not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the investigation; (3) for all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 223.01 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC entity that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Disclosure We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days after public announcement of the final results in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative and new shipper reviews in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B)(iii), 751(a)(3), 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.214. Dated: October 5, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary, for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum: I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Surrogate Country V. Separate Rates VI. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Calculation of Surrogate Value for Non-Refrigerated Inland Freight Expenses Comment 2: Selection of Financial Information to Value Factory Overhead, Selling, General & Administrative Expenses, and Profit VII. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2017–22071 Filed 10–11–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–602–810] Silicon Metal From Australia: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that silicon metal from Australia is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. DATES : Applicable October 12, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith or Denisa Ursu, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1766 or (202) 482–2285, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on April 4, 2017.1 On August 1, 2017, the Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation and the revised deadline is now October 4, 2017. 2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https:// access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is silicon metal from Australia. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I. Scope Comments In accordance with the preamble to the Department’s regulations, 4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).5 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. After evaluating these comments, the Department VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:35 Oct 11, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12OCN1.SGM 12OCN1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES 47472 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 / Notices 6 See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements). preliminarily determines that modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice is not warranted. See the scope in Appendix I to this notice. However, the Department is inviting comment on one of the issues raised: The appropriate calculation methodology for determining the silicon content of out-of-scope products (i.e., silicon metal with a silicon content in excess of 99.99 percent), and, specifically, which impurities should be taken into account in that calculation. These comments are due no later than November 6, 2017. Rebuttal comments will be due no later than November 13, 2017. For a summary of the product coverage comments submitted on the record of this proceeding, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Methodology The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. The Department has calculated constructed export prices in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances In accordance with section 733(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, the Department preliminarily finds that critical circumstances exist for Simcoa. For a full description of the methodology and results of the Department’s critical circumstances analysis, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. All-Others Rate Sections 733(d)(1)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. The Department calculated an individual estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Simcoa Operations Pty Ltd. (Simcoa), the only individually examined exporter/producer in this investigation. Because the only individually calculated dumping margin is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available, the estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Simcoa is the margin assigned to all other producers and exporters, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. Preliminary Determination The Department preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist: Exporter/producer Estimated weighted- average dumping margin (percent) Simcoa Operations Pty Ltd .. 20.79 All-Others .............................. 20.79 Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 773(d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, as discussed below. Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondent listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin determined in this preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all- others estimated weighted-average dumping margin. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. Section 733(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered, or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. The Department preliminarily finds that critical circumstances exist for imports of subject merchandise produced or exported by Simcoa and all others. In accordance with section 733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of shipments of subject merchandise from the producer(s) or exporter(s) identified in this paragraph that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication of this notice. The Department normally adjusts cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties by the amount of export subsidies countervailed in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding, when CVD provisional measures are in effect. In the concurrent CVD silicon metal investigation, however, the Department preliminarily did not make an affirmative determination for countervailable export subsidies. Therefore, the Department has not offset the estimated weighted-average dumping margins by countervailable export subsidies. Disclosure The Department intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Verification As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, the Department intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination. Public Comment Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.6 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:35 Oct 11, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12OCN1.SGM 12OCN1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES 47473Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 / Notices 7 See Letter from Simcoa, ‘‘Silicon Metal from Australia: Request for Postponement of Final Determination,’’ dated September 13, 2017. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party’s name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Section 351.210(e)(2) of the Department’s regulations requires that a request by exporters for postponement of the final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four- month period to a period not more than six months in duration. On September 13, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), Simcoa requested that the Department postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months. 7 In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) The preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, the Department is postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, the Department will make its final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, the Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. Notification to Interested Parties This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c). Dated: October 4, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation The scope of this investigation covers all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded from the scope of this investigation. Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive. Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Period of Investigation IV. Scope Comments V. Discussion of the Methodology A. Determination of the Comparison Method B. Results of the Differential Pricing Analysis VI. Date of Sale VII. Product Comparisons VIII. Constructed Export Price IX. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability B. Level of Trade C. Cost of Production Analysis 1. Calculation of COP 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices 3. Results of the COP Test D. Calculation of NV Based on Comparison-Market Prices X. Currency Conversion XI. Critical Circumstances XII. Conclusion [FR Doc. 2017–22067 Filed 10–11–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [Application No. 03–3A008] Export Trade Certificate of Review ACTION : Notice of Issuance of an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to California Pistachio Export Council (‘‘CPEC’’), Application No. 03– 3A008. SUMMARY : The U.S. Department of Commerce issued an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to CPEC on October 5, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph E. Flynn, Director, Office of Trade and Economic Analysis (‘‘OTEA’’), International Trade Administration, by telephone at (202) 482–5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at etca@trade.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001–21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325 (2016). OTEA is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the Secretary of Commerce to publish a summary of the certification in the Federal Register. Under Section 305(a) of the Act and 15 CFR 325.11(a), any person aggrieved by the Secretary’s determination may, within 30 days of the date of this notice, bring an action in any appropriate district court of the United States to set aside the determination on the ground that the determination is erroneous. Description of Amended Certificate CPEC’s Export Trade Certificate of Review has been amended to: • Remove Horizon Marketing Agency in Common Cooperative Inc. as a Member • Add the following new Members: Æ Arizona Nut Company, LLC (controlling entity A&P Ranch, L.P.) Æ Horizon Growers Cooperative, Inc. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:35 Oct 11, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12OCN1.SGM 12OCN1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination - AD- Preliminary - Brazil === 47466 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 / Notices collect in accordance with OMB Federal Register notice, ‘‘Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity’’ (published October 30, 1997 at 62 FR 58782). Sex data will be collected in accordance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. These items should not be submitted with the application but should be available upon request by the Agency. • The applicant and the ultimate recipient must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Executive Order 12250, and 7 CFR part 1901, subpart E. • The applicant and the ultimate recipient must comply with Executive Order 13166 ‘‘Limited English Proficiency.’’ For information on limited English proficiency and agency-specific guidance, go to hhtp://www.LEP.gov. • Construction Contract Equal Opportunity Clause. Each prospective recipient must execute Form RD 400–1 which assures USDA that the recipient will include the prescribed equal opportunity clause in construction contracts where Federal financial assistance exceeds $10,000. Compliance with additional OMB Circulars or government-wide regulations may be specified in the grant agreement. 3. Reporting. i. The grantee must provide periodic financial and performance reports under USDA grant regulations, program rules and the grant agreement. The grantee must submit a final project performance report. The nature and frequency of required reports is established in USDA grant regulations and the project- specific grant agreements. ii. The applicant must have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the reporting requirements for first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 in the event the applicant receives funding unless such applicant is exempt from such reporting requirements pursuant to 2 CFR 170.110(b). The reporting requirements under the Transparency Act pursuant to 2 CFR part 170 are as follows: a. First Tier Sub-Awards of $25,000 or more in non-Recovery Act funds (unless they are exempt under 2 CFR part 170) must be reported by the Recipient to http://www.fsrs.gov no later than the end of the month following the month the obligation was made. Please note that a consolidation of eight federal procurement systems is currently underway, including the Sub-award Reporting System (FSRS), into one system, the System for Award Management (SAM). As a result, the FSRS will soon be consolidated into and accessed through https://www.sam.gov. b. Total Compensation of the Recipient’s Executives (5 most highly compensated executives) must be reported by the Recipient (if the Recipient meets the criteria under 2 CFR part 170) to https://www.sam.gov by the end of the month following the month in which the award was made. c. Total Compensation of the Subrecipient’s Executives. The Total Compensation of the Subrecipient’s Executives (5 most highly compensated executives) must be reported by the Subrecipient (if the Subrecipient meets the criteria under 2 CFR part 170) to the Recipient by the end of the month following the month in which the sub award was made. G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact The RUS Contact for this grant announcement is Robin Meigel, Finance Specialist, Rural Utilities Service, Electric Programs, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1568, Room 0270–S South Building, Washington, DC 20250–1568. Telephone (202) 720–9452, Fax (202) 690–0717, email: Energy.Grants@ wdc.usda.gov. H. Other Information 1. Disclosure of Information All material submitted by the applicant or grantee may be made available to the public in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and USDA’s implementing regulations at 7 CFR part 1. In addition, in compliance with statutory requirements for Federal spending transparency, USDA will announce all Federal awards publicly and publish the required information on a publicly available OMB-designated government-wide Web site (at time of publication, www.USAspending.gov). (2 CFR 200.211). 2. USDA Non-Discrimination Statement In accordance with Federal civil rights laws and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/ parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877–8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD– 3027, found online at http:// www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_ cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632–9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 9410, Washington, DC 20250–9410; Fax: (202) 690–7442; or, Email: program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. Dated: September 19, 2017. Christopher A. McLean, Acting Administrator, Rural Utilities Service. [FR Doc. 2017–22042 Filed 10–11–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–351–850] Silicon Metal From Brazil: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that silicon metal from VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:35 Oct 11, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12OCN1.SGM 12OCN1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES 47467Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 / Notices 1 See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway, 82 FR 16352 (April 4, 2017) (Initiation Notice). 2 See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 82 FR 35753 (August 1, 2017). 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than- Fair-Value Investigation of Silicon Metal from Brazil’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 4 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 5 See Initiation Notice. 6 On August 23, 2017 Dow Corning Silı´cio notified the Department that it had legally changed its name to Palmyra do Brasil. For further discussion of Dow Corning Silı´cio’s name change to Palmyra do Brasil, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 7 See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan and Norway: Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petition,’’ dated March 8, 2017 (the Petition). 8 See, e.g. Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Nitrite from the Federal Republic of Germany, 73 FR 21909, 21912 (April 23, 2008), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Nitrite from the Federal Republic of Germany, 73 FR 38986, 38987 (July 8, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Raw Flexible Magnets From Taiwan, 73 FR 39673, 39674 (July 10, 2008); Steel Threaded Rod from Thailand: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances, 78 FR 79670, 79671 (December 31, 2013), unchanged in Steel Threaded Rod From Thailand: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 FR 14476, 14477 (March 14, 2014); and Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Japan: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 82 FR 12796, 12797 (March 7, 2017), unchanged in Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Japan: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 82 FR 23195 (May 22, 2017). Brazil is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. DATES : Applicable October 12, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert James or Jesus Saenz, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0649 or (202) 482–8184, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on April 4, 2017. 1 On August 1, 2017, the Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation and the revised deadline is now October 4, 2017. 2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https:// access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is silicon metal from Brazil. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I. Scope Comments In accordance with the preamble to the Department’s regulations,4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).5 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. After evaluating these comments, the Department preliminarily determines that modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice is not warranted. See the scope in Appendix I to this notice. However, the Department is inviting comment on one of the issues raised: The appropriate calculation methodology for determining the silicon content of out-of-scope products (i.e., silicon metal with a silicon content in excess of 99.99 percent), and, specifically, which impurities should be taken into account in that calculation. These comments are due no later than November 6, 2017, and rebuttal comments no later than November 13, 2017. For a summary of the product coverage comments submitted on the record of this proceeding, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Methodology The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. The Department has preliminarily relied on the facts otherwise available, in accordance with section 776(a)(1) of the Act, to determine an estimated weighted- average dumping margin for Palmyra do Brasil Indu´ stria e Come´rcio de Silı´cio Meta´lico e Recursos Naturais Ltda. (Palmyra do Brasil) (formerly known as Dow Corning Silı´cio do Brasil Indu´ stria e Come´rcio Ltda. (Dow Corning Silı´cio)). 6 Furthermore, pursuant to section 776(a) and (b) of the Act, the Department has preliminarily relied upon adverse facts available to determine an estimated weighted-aveage dumping margin for Ligas de Aluminio S.A. (LIASA). For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. All-Others Rate Sections 733(d)(1)(A)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, if the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually examined are zero, de minimis, or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act, then the Department may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers or exporters. The Department has preliminarily determined the estimated weighted- average dumping margin for each of the individually examined respondents (i.e., Palmyra do Brasil and LIASA) entirely under section 776 of the Act. Consequently, the only available rates for this preliminary determination are the dumping margins alleged in the Petition 7 and are the dumping margins upon which we initiated this investigation. Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, the Department’s practice under these circumstances is to calculate the ‘‘all-others’’ rate as a simple average of the dumping margins alleged in the Petition. 8 For a full VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:35 Oct 11, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12OCN1.SGM 12OCN1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES 47468 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 / Notices 9 See Silicon Metal From Brazil: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 82 FR 37841 (August 14, 2017), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 4–9; and Memorandum to the File from Jaron Moore, International Trade Compliance Analyst, ‘‘Preliminary Margin Calculations—Silicon Metal from Brazil,’’ dated concurrently with this notice. 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements). description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Preliminary Determination The Department preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist: Exporter/producer Estimated weighted- average dumping margin (percent) Cash deposit rate (adjusted for export subsidy offset(s)) (percent) Palmyra do Brasil Indu´ stria e Come´ rcio de Silı´cio Meta´ lico e Recursos Naturais Ltda. (formerly known as Dow Corning Silı´cio do Brasil Indu´ stria e Come´ rcio Ltda.) .......................................................................................... 56.78 9 56.24 Ligas de Aluminio S.A.—LIASA .............................................................................................................................. 134.92 10 134.38 All-Others ................................................................................................................................................................. 56.78 11 56.24 Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register as discussed below. Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin, adjusted for export subsidy offset(s), as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined in this preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers and exporters. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The Department normally adjusts cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties by the amount of export subsidies countervailed in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding, when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Accordingly, as the Department preliminarily made an affirmative determination for countervailable export subsidies, the Department has offset the estimated weighted-average dumping margins by the appropriate CVD rate to determine the required cash deposit rates. The adjusted cash deposit rates may be found in the Preliminary Determination section above. Should provisional measures in the companion CVD investigation expire prior to the expiration of provisional measures in this LTFV investigation, the Department will direct CBP to begin collecting estimated antidumping duty cash deposits unadjusted for countervailed export subsidies at the time that the provisional CVD measures expire. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. Disclosure Normally, the Department discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a preliminary determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary determination in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, the Department preliminarily determined estimated weighted-avearge dumping margins for both respondents that are determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. As these rates are based solely on margins from the Petition, there are no calculations to disclose. Verification As explained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, consistent with section 782(d), we will afford Palmyra do Brasil the opportunity to remedy certain deficiencies in its reported sales and further manufacturing cost data after issuing this preliminary determination. As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify this respondent’s information if we rely upon it in making our final determination. We do not intend to verify LIASA as it has been found to have been uncooperative in this investigation. Public Comment Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.12 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party’s name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:35 Oct 11, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12OCN1.SGM 12OCN1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES 47469Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 / Notices 13 See Letter from Palmyra do Brasil, ‘‘Silicon Metal from Brazil/Exporter’s Request for Postponement of Final Antidumping Determination’’ dated September 6, 2017. 1 See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Rescission of Review in Part, and Preliminary Intent to Rescind New Shipper Review; 2015–2016, 82 FR 26435 (June 7, 2017), and accompanying Decision Memorandum (Preliminary Decision Memorandum) (collectively, Preliminary Results). 2 The Crawfish Processors Alliance consists of the following firms: A&S Crawfish; Acadiana Fishermen’s Cooperative; Arnaudville Seafood Plant; Atchafalaya Crawfish Processors; Atchafalaya Crawfish Processing, L.L.C.; Bayou Land Seafood, LLC; Bieber Farms Crawfish, Inc.; Blanchard’s Seafood, Inc.; Bonanza Crawfish Farm, Inc.; CJL Enterprise, Inc. d/b/a C.J.’s; Cajun Central, Inc.; Cajun Seafood Distributor, Inc.; Catahoula Crawfish, Inc.; Choplin Seafood; Clearwater Crawfish; Crawfish Enterprises, Inc.; Dugas Seafood aka Carl’s Seafood; Toups Crawfish, L.L.C.; Harvestime Seafood; Harvey’s Seafood; Louisiana Seafood Co.; Louisiana Premium Seafood; L.T. West, Inc.; Continued location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Section 351.210(e)(2) of the Department’s regulations requires that a request by exporters for postponement of the final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four- month period to a period not more than six months in duration. On September 6, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), Palmyra do Brasil requested that the Department postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.13 In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) The preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, the Department is postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, the Department will make its final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, the Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. Notification to Interested Parties This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c). Dated: October 4, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation The scope of this investigation covers all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded from the scope of this investigation. Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive. Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Name Change for Dow Corning Silicio do Brasil Indu´ stria e Come´rcio Ltda. IV. Period of Investigation V. Scope Comments VI. Application of Facts Available and Use of Adverse Facts Available A. Application of Facts Available B. Use of Adverse Inference for LIASA C. Preliminary Estimated Weighted- Average Dumping Margin Based on AFA D. Corroboration of Secondary Information VII. Conclusion [FR Doc. 2017–22066 Filed 10–11–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–848] Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of New Shipper Review; 2015–2016 AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : On June 7, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review and intent to rescind the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) for the administrative review and aligned new shipper review is September 1, 2015, through August 31, 2016. Based on our analysis of the comments received, the Department has made changes to the margin calculations for the final results of the administrative review. The Department continues to find that Jingzhou Tianhe Aquatic Products, Ltd.’s (Jingzhou Tianhe) single sale made to the United States during the POR was not bona fide and, therefore, is rescinding the new shipper review with respect to Jingzhou Tianhe. DATES : Applicable October 12, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Hansen or Minoo Hatten, AD/ CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3683 or (202) 482–1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On June 7, 2017, the Department published the preliminary results of the administrative review and intent to rescind the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People’s Republic of China (the PRC) 1 and invited interested parties to comment. On July 14, 2017, Hubei Nature Agriculture Industry Co., Ltd. (Hubei Nature) timely submitted its case brief in the administrative review and, on July 19, 2017, the Crawfish Processors Alliance 2 (the petitioners) timely VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:35 Oct 11, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12OCN1.SGM 12OCN1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination - AD- Final - Brazil === 9835Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2018 / Notices 7 As discussed in the Preliminary Determination, Commerce has found the following companies to be cross-owned with Simcoa: Silicon Metal Company of Australia Pty Ltd.; Microsilica Pty Ltd.; and Simcoa International Pty Ltd. 1 See Silicon Metal From Brazil: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 82 FR 47466 (October 12, 2017) (Preliminary Determination), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Commerce determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rate exists: Company Subsidy rate Simcoa Operations Pty. Ltd.7 14.78 percent. All-Others .............................. 14.78 percent. Disclosure We intend to disclose to parties in this proceeding the calculations performed for this final determination within five days of the date of publication of our final determination, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation As a result of our Preliminary Determination and pursuant to section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, Commerce instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we issued instructions to CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for countervailing duty (CVD) purposes for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after December 12, 2017, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries from August 14, 2017, through December 11, 2017. If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order, will reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act, and will require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non- privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/ destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c). Dated: February 27, 2018. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation The scope of this investigation covers all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded from the scope of these investigations. Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive. Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Subsidies Valuation IV. Analysis of Programs V. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Provision of Electricity for Less Than Adequate Remuneration (LTAR) Comment 2: Payments Under the Demand Side Management (DSM) Scheme and Ancillary Service (Spinning Reserve) Scheme Comment 3: Renewable Energy Target (RET) Program Comment 4: Research and Development (R&D) Tax Incentive Comment 5: Provision of Quartz for LTAR Comment 6: State Agreement Loan and Grant Comment 7: Calculation Errors in the Preliminary Determination VI. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2018–04667 Filed 3–7–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–351–850] Silicon Metal From Brazil: Affirmative Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of silicon metal from Brazil are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. The final margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the ‘‘Final Determination’’ section of this notice. DATES : Applicable March 8, 2018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith or Jesus Saenz, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1766 and (202) 482–8184, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On October 12, 2017, Commerce published the Preliminary Determination of sales at LTFV of silicon metal from Brazil. 1 Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce’s practice, VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 07, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM 08MRN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 9836 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2018 / Notices 2 See Memorandum for The Record from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, performing the non- exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government’’ (Tolling Memorandum), dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by three days. 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Silicon Metal from Brazil,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). 4 See Memorandum, ‘‘Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,’’ dated June 29, 2017 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum). 5 These parties include Wacker Chemicals Norway A.S., Elkem AS, and the petitioner. 6 See Memorandum, ‘‘Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway: Final Scope Comments Decision Memorandum,’’ dated February 27, 2018 (Final Scope Decision Memorandum). 7 For discussion of our verification findings, see the following memoranda: Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Verification of the Sales Response of Palmyra do Brasil Indu´ stria e Come´rcio de Silı´cio Meta´lico e Recursos Naturais Ltda. in the Antidumping Investigation of Silicon Metal from Brazil,’’ dated January 19, 2018); Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Verification of the Sales Response of Dow Corning Corporation and Hemlock Semiconductors Operations LLC in the Antidumping Investigation of Silicon Metal from Brazil,’’ dated January 17, 2018; Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of Palmyra do Brasil Indu´ stria e Come´rcio de Silı´cio Meta´lico e Recursos Naturais Ltda. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Silicon Metal from Brazil,’’ dated January 17, 2018; and Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of Dow Corning in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Silicon Metal from Brazil,’’ dated January 17, 2018. 8 See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway, dated March 8, 2017 (the Petition), Volume IV at 8–9. the deadline will become the next business day. The revised deadline for the final determination of this investigation is now February 27, 2018.2 A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.3 Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is silicon metal from Brazil. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the ‘‘Scope of the Investigation’’ in Appendix I of this notice. Scope Comments During the course of this investigation, Commerce received numerous scope comments from interested parties. Prior to the Preliminary Determination, Commerce issued a Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum 4 to address these comments. Since the Preliminary Determination, Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. (the petitioner), submitted a case brief and interested parties submitted rebuttal briefs concerning the limits to silicon content as specified in the scope. 5 Commerce reviewed these briefs, considered the arguments therein, and is making no additional changes to the scope of the investigation. For further discussion, see Commerce’s Final Scope Decision Memorandum. 6 The scope in Appendix I reflects the final scope language. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in the investigation are addressed in either the Final Scope Decision Memorandum or the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice at Appendix II. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http:// access.trade.gov, and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B–8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/ frn/index.html. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), from October 2017 through January 2018, we conducted verification of the sales and cost information submitted by respondent Palmyra do Brasil Indu´ stria e Come´rcio de Silı´cio Meta´lico e Recursos Naturais Ltda. (Palmyra) for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by Palmyra. 7 Changes Since the Preliminary Determination We made certain changes to the Preliminary Determination for Palmyra based on the additional questionnaire responses received after our Preliminary Determination, verification findings, and our review and analysis of interested party comments. For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Use of Adverse Facts Available The respondent Ligas de Aluminio S.A.—LIASA (LIASA) failed to participate in this investigation. Therefore, in the Preliminary Determination, pursuant to sections 776(a)(1), 776(a)(2)(A)–(C), and 776(b) of the Act, Commerce assigned LIASA a rate based on adverse facts available (AFA). No party filed comments on our Preliminary Determination with respect to LIASA and there is no new information on the record that would cause us to revisit it. Accordingly, we continue to find that the application of AFA pursuant to section 776(a) and (b) of the Act is warranted with respect to LIASA. In applying total AFA, Commerce assigned to LIASA’s exports of the subject merchandise the rate of 134.92 percent, which is the highest rate calculated in the petition 8 and which has been corroborated to the extent practicable within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. All-Others Rate Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that, in the final determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated weighted- average dumping margin for all-other exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted- average of the estimated weighted- average dumping margins established for exporters or producers individually examined, excluding rates that are zero, de minimis or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. As Commerce determined an estimated weighted-average dumping margin based entirely under section 776 of the Act for LIASA, we have determined the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers and exporters equal to the rate calculated for Palmyra. Final Determination The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 07, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM 08MRN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 9837Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2018 / Notices 9 See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Final Cash Deposit Rates’’ dated February 27, 2018. 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 See, e.g., Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Turkey: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 80 FR 61362 (October 13, 2015), and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Critical Circumstances Determination: Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers From the Republic of Korea, 77 FR 17413 (March 26, 2012). Exporter or producer Estimated weighted-aver- age dumping margin (percent) Cash deposit rate (adjusted for subsidy offset(s)) (percent) Palmyra do Brasil Indu´ stria e Come´ rcio de Silı´cio Meta´ lico e Recursos Naturais Ltda. (formerly known as Dow Corning Silı´cio do Brasil Indu´ stria e Come´ rcio Ltda.) .......................................................................................... 68.97 9 68.87 Ligas de Aluminio S.A.—LIASA .............................................................................................................................. 134.92 10 133.49 All-Others ................................................................................................................................................................. 68.97 11 68.87 Disclosure Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties its calculations and analysis performed in this final determination within five days of any public announcement in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, for this final determination, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of silicon metal from Brazil, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 12, 2017, the date of publication in the Federal Register of the affirmative Preliminary Determination. Further, the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price as shown above, adjusted where appropriate, for export subsidies found in the final determination of the companion countervailing duty investigation. Consistent with our longstanding practice, where the product under investigation is also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty investigation, we instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price, less the amount of the countervailing duty determined to constitute any export subsidies. 12 Therefore, in the event that a countervailing duty order is issued and suspension of liquidation is resumed in the companion countervailing duty investigation on silicon metal from Brazil, the Department will instruct CBP to require cash deposits adjusted by the amount of export subsidies, as appropriate. These adjustments are reflected in the final column of the rate chart, above. Until such suspension of liquidation is resumed in the companion countervailing duty investigation, and so long as suspension of liquidation continues under this antidumping duty investigation, the cash deposit rates for this antidumping duty investigation will be the rates identified in the estimated weighted- average dumping margin column in the rate chart, above. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because Commerce’s final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of silicon metal from Brazil no later than 45 days after this final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits posted will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the ‘‘Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation’’ section. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders This notice will serve as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of propriety information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. Notification to Interested Parties This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c). Dated: February 27, 2018. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation The scope of this investigation covers all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded from the scope of this investigation. Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive. Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Changes Made Since the Preliminary Determination IV. Discussion of Methodology V. Date of Sale VI. Product Comparisons VII. Constructed Export Price VIII. Normal Value IX. Currency Conversion X. Adjustment for Countervailable Export Subsidies XI. Discussion of the Issues: Comment 1: Proper Basis for U.S. Price Comment 2: Treatment of Non-Brazilian Silicon Metal in Calculating Further- Manufacturing Costs VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 07, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM 08MRN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 9838 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2018 / Notices 1 See Silicon Metal from Brazil: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, and Alignment of Final Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 82 FR 37841 (August 14, 2017) (Preliminary Determination). 2 See Memorandum for The Record from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, performing the non- exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government’’ (Tolling Memorandum), dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by 3 days. 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Silicon Metal from Brazil: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination of the Countervailing Duty Investigation,’’ dated concurrently with this determination (Issues and Decision Memorandum) and hereby adopted by this notice. 4 See Memorandum, ‘‘Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,’’ dated June 29, 2017 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum). 5 See Memorandum, ‘‘Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway: Final Scope Comments Decision Memorandum,’’ dated February 27, 2018 (Final Scope Decision Memorandum). 6 See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity. 7 See sections 776(a), (b), and 782(d) of the Act. Comment 3: Adjustments to Dow Corning’s Further-Manufacturing Costs Comment 4: Differential Pricing Comment 5: Treatment of Certain Sales to an Unaffiliated Toller Comment 6: Treatment of Downstream Sales to Affiliated Customers Comment 8: Minor Corrections XII. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2018–04668 Filed 3–7–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–351–851] Silicon Metal From Brazil: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of silicon metal from Brazil. The period of investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. DATES : Applicable March 8, 2018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Palmer or George Ayache, AD/ CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–9068 or (202) 482–2623, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background Commerce published the Preliminary Determination on August 14, 2017.1 Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce’s practice, the deadline will become the next business day. The revised deadline for the final determination of this investigation is now February 27, 2018. 2 A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum issued concurrently with this notice. 3 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http:// enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is silicon metal from Brazil. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the ‘‘Scope of the Investigation’’ in Appendix I of this notice. Scope Comments During the course of this investigation, Commerce received numerous scope comments from interested parties. Prior to the Preliminary Determination, Commerce issued a Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum 4 to address these comments. Since the Preliminary Determination, Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. (the petitioner) submitted a case brief and interested parties submitted rebuttal briefs concerning the limits to silicon content as specified in the scope. Commerce reviewed these briefs, considered the arguments therein, and is not making any additional changes to the scope of the investigation. For further discussion, see Commerce’s Final Scope Decision Memorandum. 5 The scope in Appendix I reflects the final scope language. Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice at Appendix II. Methodology Commerce conducted this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an ‘‘authority’’ that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific. 6 For a full description of the methodology underlying our final determination, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. In making these findings, Commerce relied, in part, on facts otherwise available and, because it finds that one or more respondents did not act to the best of their ability to respond to Commerce’s requests for information, it drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. 7 For further information, see ‘‘Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences’’ in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, verification, and the minor corrections presented at verification, we made certain changes to the respondents’ subsidy rate calculations. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Final Determination In accordance with section 705(c)(l)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated a rate for Palmyra do Brasil Indu´ stria e Come´rcio de Silicio Meta´lico e Recursos Naturais Ltda. (Palmyra do Brasil), a producer/exporter of subject VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 07, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM 08MRN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination- CVD- Preliminary - Kazakhstan === 37847Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Notices 1 See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 82 FR 16356 (April 4, 2017) (Initiation Notice). 2 See Silicon Metal From Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 82 FR 22490 (May 16, 2017). 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination of the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Silicon Metal from the Republic of Kazakhstan,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 4 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 5 See Initiation Notice. 6 See Memorandum, ‘‘Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,’’ dated June 27, 2017 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum). 7 See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity. 8 See Tau-Ken Temir’s Supplemental Affiliation Response, dated May 15, 2017 (Tau-Ken Temir May 15, 2017 SAFFR). 9 See GOK’s June 1, 2017 Initial Questionnaire Response (GOK June 1, 2017 IQR). 10 See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. 11 See Initiation Notice, 82 FR 16356. 12 See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 82 FR 16352 (April 4, 2017). Dated: August 9, 2017. James Maeder, Senior Director, perfoming the Duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. [FR Doc. 2017–17114 Filed 8–11–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–834–808] Silicon Metal From the Republic of Kazakhstan: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of silicon metal from the Republic of Kazakhstan (Kazakhstan). The period of investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. DATES : Effective August 14, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terre Keaton Stefanova or Rebecca Janz, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1280 or (202) 482–2972, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on April 4, 2017. 1 On May 16, 2017, the Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation and the revised deadline is now August 7, 2017. 2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3 Tau-Ken Temir LLP (Tau-Ken Temir), a producer and exporter of silicon metal from Kazakhstan, is the sole mandatory respondent for which we have determined there were exports during the period of investigation to the United States. A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http:// enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is silicon metal from Kazakhstan. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I. Scope Comments In accordance with the preamble to the Department’s regulations, 4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).5 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record for this preliminary determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum. 6 The Department preliminarily is not modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. See Appendix I. Methodology The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, the Department preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an ‘‘authority’’ that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.7 In its questionnaire responses, Tau- Ken Temir refused to provide the Department with requested information or analyze whether its cross-owned companies received countervailable subsidies. 8 Furthermore, the Government of Kazakhstan’s (GOK)’s initial questionnaire response was wholly deficient with respect to an allegation that electricity was sold to Tau-Ken Temir for less than adequate remuneration, and its supplemental response regarding this allegation was untimely filed. 9 Thus, the Department has relied on facts available as part of its analysis. Additionally, because we find that Tau-Ken Temir and the GOK did not act to the best of their abilities to respond to the Department’s requests for information and, therefore, impeded this investigation, we drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.10 For further information, see ‘‘Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences’’ in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Alignment On March 28, 2017, the Department initiated this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of silicon metal from Kazakhstan.11 On the same day, the Department also initiated antidumping duty (AD) investigations of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway.12 This CVD investigation and the AD investigations of Australia, Brazil, and Norway cover the same class or kind of merchandise. As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), the Department is aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determinations in the companion AD investigations of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway based on VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Aug 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14AUN1.SGM 14AUN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 37848 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Notices 13 See Letter from the petitioner, ‘‘Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan; Countervailing Duty Investigations; Request for Alignment of Final Determinations,’’ dated July 10, 2017. 14 See, e.g., Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel from the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 79 FR 59221 (October 1, 2014), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 77 FR 64468, 64470 (October 22, 2012); and Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Termination of Critical Circumstances Inquiry, 75 FR 30375 (June 1, 2010). 15 As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, the Department has found the following companies to be cross-owned with Tau- Ken Temir LLP: JSC NMC Tau-Ken Samruk and LLP Silicon Mining. 16 See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements). a request made by the petitioner.13 Consequently, the final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the final AD determinations for Australia, Brazil, and Norway, which are currently scheduled to be issued no later than December 18, 2017, unless postponed. All-Others Rate Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination, the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero or de minimis rates and any rates based entirely under section 776 of the Act. Pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, if the individual estimated countervailable subsidy rates established for all exporters and producers individually examined are zero, de minimis, or determined based entirely on facts otherwise available, the Department may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated subsidy rate for all-other producers or exporters. In this investigation, the Department preliminarily assigned a rate based entirely on facts available to Tau-Ken Temir. Accordingly, we are using ‘‘any reasonable method’’ to establish the all- others rate. We find that it is reasonable to rely on the rate established for Tau- Ken Temir as the all-others rate, particularly because there is no other information on the record that can be used to determine an all-others rate.14 Preliminary Determination The Department preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist: Company Subsidy rate (percent) Tau-Ken Temir LLP 15 ................ 120.00 Company Subsidy rate (percent) All-Others .................................... 120.00 Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the rates indicated above. Disclosure Normally, the Department discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a preliminary determination within five days of the public announcement of, where there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary determination in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because the Department preliminarily applied facts available with an adverse inference to the individually examined company Tau- Ken Temir in this investigation in accordance with section 776 of the Act, and the applied facts available rate is based solely on the corporate income tax rate in Kazakhstan, there are no calculations to disclose. Verification Because both Tau-Ken Temir and the GOK did not provide information requested by the Department, and the Department preliminarily determines that Tau-Ken Temir and the GOK have been uncooperative, we do not intend to conduct verification. Public Comment Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 30 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.16 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party’s name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, the Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final injury determination before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination. Notification to Interested Parties This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c). Dated: August 7, 2017. Carole Showers, Executive Director, Office of Policy performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation The scope of this investigation covers all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Aug 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14AUN1.SGM 14AUN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 37849Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Notices subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded from the scope of this investigation. Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive. Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Period of Investigation IV. Scope Comments V. Respondent Selection VI. Injury Test VII. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences VIII. Calculation of the All-Others Rate IX. Conclusion [FR Doc. 2017–17112 Filed 8–11–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648–XF604 Permanent Advisory Committee To Advise the U.S. Commissioners to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission; Meeting Announcement AGENCY : National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION : Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY : NMFS announces a public meeting of the Permanent Advisory Committee (PAC) to advise the U.S. Commissioners to the Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPFC) on September 12, 2017. DATES : The meeting of the PAC will be held via conference call on September 12, 2017, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. HST (or until business is concluded). Members of the public may submit written comments; comments must be received by September 7, 2017. ADDRESSES : The public meeting will be conducted via conference call. For details on how to call in to the conference line or to submit comments, please contact Emily Crigler, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office; telephone: 808–725–5036; email: emily.crigler@noaa.gov. Documents to be considered by the PAC will be sent out via email in advance of the conference call. Please submit contact information to Emily Crigler (telephone: 808–725–5036; email: emily.crigler@ noaa.gov) at least 3 days in advance of the call to receive documents via email. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Crigler, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office; 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818; telephone: 808–725–5036; facsimile: 808–725– 5215; email: emily.crigler@noaa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : In accordance with the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), the Permanent Advisory Committee, or PAC, has been formed to advise the U.S. Commissioners to the WCPFC. Members of the PAC have been appointed by the Secretary of Commerce in consultation with the U.S. Commissioners to the WCPFC. The PAC supports the work of the U.S. National Section to the WCPFC in an advisory capacity. The U.S. National Section is made up of the U.S. Commissioners and the Department of State. NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office provides administrative and technical support to the PAC in cooperation with the Department of State. More information on the WCPFC, established under the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, can be found on the WCPFC Web site: http://wcpfc.int/. Meeting Topics The purpose of the September 12, 2017, conference call is to discuss outcomes of: The 2017 regular session of the WCPFC Scientific Committee (SC13), the 2017 regular session of the WCPFC Northern Committee (NC13), and the Intersessional Meeting to progress the draft Bridging CMM on Tropical Tuna. There will also be a discussion on topics relevant to the subsequent regular session of the Technical and Compliance Committee (TCC13). Special Accommodations The conference call is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Emily Crigler at 808–725–5036 at least ten working days prior to the meeting. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 6902 et seq. Dated: August 9, 2017. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2017–17121 Filed 8–11–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648–XF431 Endangered Species; File No. 21516 AGENCY : National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION : Notice of availability; request for public comments. SUMMARY : We, NMFS, have received an application from Virginia Electric and Power Company, D.B.A. Dominion Virginia Power (Dominion) for an incidental take permit, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, for activities associated with the otherwise lawful continued operation and maintenance of the Dominion Chesterfield Power Station (CPS) in Chesterfield, VA. We are considering issuing a 10-year permit to the applicant that would authorize take of ESA-listed Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) from the Chesapeake Bay Distinct Population Segment (DPS) incidental to otherwise lawful activities associated with the withdrawal of cooling water from the James River and entrainment and impingement sampling required by the Clean Water Act. Pursuant to the ESA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), we announce the availability of Dominion’s ITP application and draft habitat conservation plan (HCP), as well as our draft environmental assessment (EA), for public review and comment. We provide this notice to seek comments from the public and Federal, Tribal, State, and local governments. DATES : To allow for timely processing of the permit application, we must receive your comments no later than September 13, 2017. ADDRESSES : The application is available for download and review at http:// www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/esa_ review.htm under the section heading ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits and Applications and at http:// www.regulations.gov. The application is also available upon written request or by appointment in the following office: Protected Resources Division, NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930; phone (978) 281–9328. Submit your comments by including NOAA–NMFS–2017–0051, by either of the following methods: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Aug 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14AUN1.SGM 14AUN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination - CVD - Preliminary - Brazil === 37841Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Notices 1 See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 82 FR 16356 (April 4, 2017) (Initiation Notice). 2 See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil and Kazakhstan: Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 82 FR 22490 (May 16, 2017). 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination: Countervailing Duty Investigation of Silicon Metal from Brazil,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 4 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 5 See Initiation Notice. 6 See Memorandum, ‘‘Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,’’ dated June 27, 2017 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum). counties, local governments, and planning agencies. Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,801. Estimated Time per Response: Between 7 and 606 hours, estimated average 40 hours. Estimated Total Burden Hours: 152,040. Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $4,523,190. Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C. Section 6. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Summarization of comments submitted in response to this notice will be included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. Comments will also become a matter of public record. Sheleen Dumas, PRA Department Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. 2017–17033 Filed 8–11–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–07–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S–75–2017] Approval of Subzone Status; Universal Metal Products, Inc.; Pharr, Texas On May 10, 2017, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by McAllen Foreign Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 12, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 12, on behalf of Universal Metal Products, Inc., in Pharr, Texas. The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (82 FR 25240, June 1, 2017). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval. Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board Executive Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 12B was approved on July 14, 2017, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board’s regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 12’s 873.5-acre activation limit. Dated: August 8, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. 2017–17120 Filed 8–11–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–351–851] Silicon Metal From Brazil: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of silicon metal from Brazil. The period of investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. DATES : Effective August 14, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Palmer or George Ayache, AD/ CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–9068 or (202) 482–2623, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on April 4, 2017. 1 On May 16, 2017, the Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation and the revised deadline is now August 7, 2017. 2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http:// access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/ frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is silicon metal from Brazil. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I. Scope Comments In accordance with the preamble to the Department’s regulations, 4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage, (i.e., scope).5 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record for this preliminary determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum. 6 The Department preliminarily is not modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. See Appendix I. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Aug 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14AUN1.SGM 14AUN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 37842 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Notices 7 See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity. 8 See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. 9 See Initiation Notice, 82 FR 16356. 10 See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 82 FR 16352 (April 4, 2017). 11 See Letter from the petitioner, ‘‘Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan; Countervailing Duty Investigations; Request for Alignment of Final Determinations,’’ dated July 10, 2017. 12 As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, the Department has found the following companies to be cross-owned with Dow Corning Silicio do Brasil Indu´ stria e Come´rcio Ltda.: Palmyra Recursos Naturais Explorac¸a˜o e Come´rcio Ltda. and Dow Corning Metais do Para´ IND. 13 See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements). Methodology The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, the Department preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an ‘‘authority’’ that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.7 In making these findings, the Department relied, in part, on facts available and, because it finds that one or more respondents did not act to the best of their ability to respond to the Department’s requests for information, it drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. 8 For further information, see ‘‘Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences’’ in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Alignment On March 28, 2017, the Department initiated this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of silicon metal from Brazil.9 On the same day, the Department also initiated antidumping duty (AD) investigations of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway. 10 This CVD investigation and the AD investigations of Australia, Brazil, and Norway cover the same class or kind of merchandise. As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), the Department is aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determinations in the companion AD investigations of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway, based on a request made by the petitioner.11 Consequently, the final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the final AD determinations, which are currently scheduled to be issued no later than December 18, 2017, unless postponed. All-Others Rate Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination, the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and de minimis rates and any rates based entirely under section 776 of the Act. In this investigation, the Department preliminarily assigned a rate based entirely on facts available to Ligas de Aluminio S.A.—LIASA (LIASA). Therefore, the only rate for an individually-examined respondent that is not zero, de minimis or based entirely on facts otherwise available is the rate calculated for Dow Corning Silicio do Brasil Indu´ stria e Come´rcio Ltda. (DC Silicio). Consequently, the rate calculated for DC Silicio is also assigned as the rate for all-other producers and exporters, pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act. Preliminary Determination The Department preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist: Company Subsidy rate (percent) Dow Corning Silicio do Brasil Indu´ stria e Come´ rcio Ltda12 ................................ 3.69 Ligas de Aluminio S.A.— LIASA ................................ 52.07 All-Others .............................. 3.69 Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the rates indicated above. Disclosure The Department intends to disclose to interested parties its calculations and analysis performed in this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the publication date of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Verification As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, the Department intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination. Public Comment Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.13 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party’s name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, the Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final injury determination before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Aug 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14AUN1.SGM 14AUN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 37843Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Notices 1 See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 82 FR 16356 (April 4, 2017) (Initiation Notice). 2 See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 82 FR 22490 (May 16, 2017). 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Silicon Metal from Australia,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 4 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 5 See Initiation Notice. 6 See Memorandum, ‘‘Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,’’ dated June 27, 2017 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum). 7 See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity. 8 See Initiation Notice. 9 See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil and Norway: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 82 FR 16352 (April 4, 2017). Notification to Interested Parties This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c). Dated: August 7, 2017. Carole Showers, Executive Director, Office of Policy, performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation The scope of this investigation covers all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded from the scope of these investigations. Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive. Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope Comments IV. Alignment V. Injury Test VI. Use of Facts Otherwise Available VII. Subsidies Valuation VIII. Analysis of Programs IX. Conclusion [FR Doc. 2017–17117 Filed 8–11–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–602–811] Silicon Metal From Australia: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to a producer/exporter of silicon metal from Australia. The period of investigation is January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. DATES : Effective August 14, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Johnson or John Anwesen, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4929 or (202) 482–0131, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on April 4, 2017. 1 On May 16, 2017, the Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation and the revised deadline is now August 7, 2017. 2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http:// access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/ frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is silicon metal from Australia. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I. Scope Comments In accordance with the preamble to the Department’s regulations, 4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage, (i.e., scope).5 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record for this preliminary determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum. 6 The Department preliminarily is not modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. See Appendix I. Methodology The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, the Department preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an ‘‘authority’’ that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.7 Alignment On March 28, 2017, the Department initiated this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of silicon metal from Australia. 8 On the same day, the Department also initiated antidumping duty (AD) investigations of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway. 9 This CVD investigation and the AD investigations of Australia, Brazil, and Norway cover the same class or kind of merchandise. As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), the Department is aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determinations in the companion AD investigations of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway based on VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Aug 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14AUN1.SGM 14AUN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination- CVD - Final- Brazil === 9838 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2018 / Notices 1 See Silicon Metal from Brazil: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, and Alignment of Final Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 82 FR 37841 (August 14, 2017) (Preliminary Determination). 2 See Memorandum for The Record from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, performing the non- exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government’’ (Tolling Memorandum), dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by 3 days. 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Silicon Metal from Brazil: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination of the Countervailing Duty Investigation,’’ dated concurrently with this determination (Issues and Decision Memorandum) and hereby adopted by this notice. 4 See Memorandum, ‘‘Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,’’ dated June 29, 2017 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum). 5 See Memorandum, ‘‘Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway: Final Scope Comments Decision Memorandum,’’ dated February 27, 2018 (Final Scope Decision Memorandum). 6 See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity. 7 See sections 776(a), (b), and 782(d) of the Act. Comment 3: Adjustments to Dow Corning’s Further-Manufacturing Costs Comment 4: Differential Pricing Comment 5: Treatment of Certain Sales to an Unaffiliated Toller Comment 6: Treatment of Downstream Sales to Affiliated Customers Comment 8: Minor Corrections XII. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2018–04668 Filed 3–7–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–351–851] Silicon Metal From Brazil: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of silicon metal from Brazil. The period of investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. DATES : Applicable March 8, 2018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Palmer or George Ayache, AD/ CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–9068 or (202) 482–2623, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background Commerce published the Preliminary Determination on August 14, 2017.1 Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce’s practice, the deadline will become the next business day. The revised deadline for the final determination of this investigation is now February 27, 2018. 2 A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum issued concurrently with this notice. 3 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http:// enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is silicon metal from Brazil. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the ‘‘Scope of the Investigation’’ in Appendix I of this notice. Scope Comments During the course of this investigation, Commerce received numerous scope comments from interested parties. Prior to the Preliminary Determination, Commerce issued a Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum 4 to address these comments. Since the Preliminary Determination, Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. (the petitioner) submitted a case brief and interested parties submitted rebuttal briefs concerning the limits to silicon content as specified in the scope. Commerce reviewed these briefs, considered the arguments therein, and is not making any additional changes to the scope of the investigation. For further discussion, see Commerce’s Final Scope Decision Memorandum. 5 The scope in Appendix I reflects the final scope language. Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice at Appendix II. Methodology Commerce conducted this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an ‘‘authority’’ that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific. 6 For a full description of the methodology underlying our final determination, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. In making these findings, Commerce relied, in part, on facts otherwise available and, because it finds that one or more respondents did not act to the best of their ability to respond to Commerce’s requests for information, it drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. 7 For further information, see ‘‘Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences’’ in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, verification, and the minor corrections presented at verification, we made certain changes to the respondents’ subsidy rate calculations. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Final Determination In accordance with section 705(c)(l)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated a rate for Palmyra do Brasil Indu´ stria e Come´rcio de Silicio Meta´lico e Recursos Naturais Ltda. (Palmyra do Brasil), a producer/exporter of subject VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 07, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM 08MRN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 9839Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2018 / Notices 8 Palmyra do Brasil reported that it changed its name from Dow Corning Silicio do Brasil Indu´ stria e Come´rcio Ltda. (DC Silicio) on June 30, 2017. Commerce verified this name change. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 2. 9 As discussed in the Preliminary Determination, Commerce has found the following companies to be cross-owned with Palmyra do Brasil, previously known as Dow Corning Silicio do Brasil Indu´ stria e Come´rcio Ltda. (DC Silicio): Palmyra Recursos Naturais Explorac¸a˜o e Come´rcio Ltda. and Dow Corning Metais do Para´ IND. merchandise selected for individual examination in this investigation. 8 Commerce assigned a rate based entirely on facts otherwise available with an adverse inference pursuant to section 776 of the Act to Ligas de Aluminio S.A.—LIASA (LIASA). Section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that in the final determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and de minimis rates and any rates based entirely under section 776 of the Act. The only rate for an individually- examined respondent that is not zero, de minimis or based entirely on adverse facts otherwise available is the rate calculated for Palmyra do Brasil. Consequently, the rate calculated for Palmyra do Brasil is also assigned as the rate for all-other producers and exporters, pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act. Commerce determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist: Company Subsidy rate (percent) Palmyra do Brasil Indu´ stria e Come´ rcio de Silicio Meta´ lico e Recursos Naturais Ltda.9 ........ 2.44 Ligas de Aluminio S.A.—LIASA 52.51 All-Others .................................... 2.44 Disclosure We intend to disclose to parties in this proceeding the calculations performed for this final determination within five days of the date of publication of our final determination, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation As a result of our Preliminary Determination and pursuant to section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, Commerce instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we issued instructions to CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for countervailing duty (CVD) purposes for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after December 12, 2017, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries from August 14, 2017, through December 11, 2017. If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order, will reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act, and will require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non- privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/ destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c). Dated: February 27, 2018. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation The scope of this investigation covers all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded from the scope of these investigations. Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive. Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences IV. Subsidies Valuation V. Analysis of Programs VI. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Whether the Tax Incentives in the State of Para´ (ICMS) Program Is Countervailable Comment 2: Whether the Predominantly Exporting Companies (PEC) Program Is Countervailable Comment 3: Whether Palmyra do Brasil Received Reintegra Benefits During the Period of Investigation (POI) Comment 4: Whether the Forest Fee Reduction Program Is Countervailable VII. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2018–04661 Filed 3–7–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–602–810] Silicon Metal From Australia: Affirmative Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of silicon metal from Australia are being, VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 07, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM 08MRN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination- CVD - Final- Kazakhstan === 9831Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2018 / Notices 1 See Silicon Metal from the Republic of Kazakhstan: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 82 FR 37847 (August 14, 2017) (Preliminary Determination), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 2 See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Silicon Metal from Kazakhstan,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government,’’ dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by three days. liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because Commerce’s final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of silicon metal from Norway no later than 45 days after this final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the ‘‘Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation’’ section. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. Notification to Interested Parties This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c). Dated: February 27, 2018. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation The scope of this investigation covers all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded from the scope of this investigation. Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive. Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Critical Circumstances IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Margin Calculations VI. Discussion of the Issues 1. Offset Cost of Manufacture for Miscellaneous Income Items 2. Commerce Should Adjust G&A Expenses to Reflect Total Miscellaneous Income 3. Whether to Calculate the G&A Expense Rate On a Company- or Division-Specific Basis 4. Elkem High Purity Silicon Grades 5. Constructed Export Price Offset 6. Weight Basis for International Freight Expenses 7. Pre-POI Merchandise Storage Costs 8. Marine Insurance Ministerial Error 9. Corrections Found at Verification VII. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2018–04666 Filed 3–7–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–834–808] Silicon Metal from the Republic of Kazakhstan: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of silicon metal from the Republic of Kazakhstan (Kazakhstan) during the period of investigation (POI) January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. DATES : Applicable March 8, 2018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca M. Janz or Maria Tatarska, AD/ CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2972 or (202) 482–1562, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background The petitioner in this investigation is Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. In addition to the Government of Kazakhstan, the mandatory respondent in this investigation is Tau-Ken Temir LLP (Tau-Ken Temir). A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination 1 on August 14, 2017, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.2 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http:// enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through January 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce’s practice, the deadline will become the next business day. The revised deadline for the final determination of this investigation is now February 27, 2018.3 Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is silicon metal from Kazakhstan. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 07, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM 08MRN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 9832 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2018 / Notices 4 See Memorandum, ‘‘Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,’’ dated June 29, 2017 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum). 5 See Memorandum, ‘‘Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway: Final Scope Comments Decision Memorandum,’’ dated February 27, 2018 (Final Scope Decision Memorandum). 6 As discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, Commerce continues to find that the following companies are cross-owned with TauKen Temir LLP: JSC NMC Tau-Ken Samruk and LLP Silicon Mining. 7 See Preliminary Determination, 82 FR at 37848. Scope Comments During the course of this investigation, Commerce received numerous scope comments from interested parties. Prior to the Preliminary Determination, Commerce issued a Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum 4 to address these comments. Since the Preliminary Determination, Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., (the petitioner) submitted a case brief and interested parties submitted rebuttal briefs concerning the limits to silicon content as specified in the scope. Commerce reviewed these briefs, considered the arguments therein, and is not making any additional changes to the scope of the investigation. For further discussion, see Commerce’s Final Scope Decision Memorandum. 5 The scope in Appendix I reflects the final scope language. Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix II. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, we made certain changes to the subsidy rate calculated for Tau-Ken Temir since the Preliminary Determination. As a result of these changes, Commerce has also revised the ‘‘all-others rate.’’ For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Use of Facts Otherwise Available Including Adverse Inferences For purposes of this final determination, we have continued to determine that the Government of Kazakhstan and Tau-Ken Temir failed to act to the best of their abilities in responding to Commerce’s requests for information. Accordingly, we continue to rely on facts available with adverse inferences, in accordance with sections 776(a)–(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), to calculate the subsidy rate for the mandatory respondent. A full discussion of our decision to rely on adverse facts available is presented in the ‘‘Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences’’ section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Final Determination In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we determined a rate for Tau-Ken Temir (the only individually investigated exporter/producer of subject merchandise). Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that, for companies not individually investigated, we will determine an ‘‘all others’’ rate equal to the weighted-average countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis countervailable subsidy rates, and any rates determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Where the rates for investigated companies are zero or de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available, section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act instructs Commerce to establish an ‘‘all others’’ rate using ‘‘any reasonable method.’’ In this investigation, Commerce assigned a rate based entirely on facts available to Tau-Ken Temir. Accordingly, we are using ‘‘any reasonable method’’ to establish the all- others rate. We find that it is reasonable to rely on the rate established for Tau- Ken Temir as the all-others rate, particularly because there is no other information on the record that can be used to determine an all-others rate. We determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates to be: Company Subsidy rate (percent) Tau-Ken Temir LLP 6 ............ 100 All Others .............................. 100 Suspension of Liquidation As a result of our affirmative Preliminary Determination, pursuant to section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise from Kazakhstan which were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 14, 2017, the date of the publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register.7 In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we later issued instructions to CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for CVD purposes for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after December 12, 2017, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries from August 14, 2017, through December 11, 2017, as appropriate. We will issue a countervailing duty (CVD) order and reinstate the suspension of liquidation in accordance with our final determination and under section 706(a) of the Act if the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, and we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded. ITC Notification In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non- privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to the APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/ destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 07, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM 08MRN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 9833Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2018 / Notices 1 See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order, 83 FR 347 (January 3, 2018). 2 See Attachment for a list of the companies that requested an expedited review. 3 Under 19 CFR 351.214(k)(i)(2), this period may be extended to 300 days. and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c). Dated: February 27, 2018. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation The scope of this investigation covers all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded from the scope of this investigation. Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive. Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Period of Investigation IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Whether Commerce Should Apply Adverse Facts Available (AFA) to the Government of Kazakhstan (GOK) Comment 2: Whether Tau-Ken Temir Is Cross-Owned with JSC NME Tau-Ken Samruk (Tau-Ken Samruk) and LLP Silicon Mining (Silicon Mining) Comment 3: Whether Commerce Should Apply AFA to Tau-Ken Temir Comment 4: Whether Commerce’s Rejection of New Factual Information was Unlawful Comment 5: Whether Commerce Selected an Appropriate AFA Rate Comment 6: Whether the Sale of Assets to Tau-Ken Temir’s Parent Company is a Countervailable Subsidy VI. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2018–04664 Filed 3–7–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–122–858] Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada: Initiation of Expedited Review of the Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is initiating an expedited review of the countervailing duty order on certain softwood lumber products (softwood lumber) from Canada. DATES : Applicable March 8, 2018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Johnson or Emily Halle, AD/ CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–4793 or (202) 482– 0176, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On January 3, 2018, Commerce published the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber from Canada. 1 Between January 10, 2018, and February 5, 2018, Commerce received requests for an expedited review from 34 companies. 2 These companies, which were not selected for individual examination during the investigation, made these requests pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(k). Initiation of Expedited Review In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(k)(1)(i)–(iii), each company that requested a review certified that it exported the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation; that it was not affiliated with an exporter or producer that Commerce individually examined in the investigation; and that it informed the Government of Canada, as the government of the exporting country, that the government will be required to provide a full response to Commerce’s questionnaire. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(k), we are initiating an expedited review of the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber from Canada. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1) and (k)(3), we intend to issue the preliminary results of this expedited review not later than 180 days from the date of initiation of this review. 3 As specified by 19 CFR 351.214(k)(3)(i), the period of review will be the same as the original period of investigation, i.e., January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(k)(3)(iii), the final results of this expedited review will not be the basis for the assessment of countervailing duties. Instead, this expedited review is intended to establish individual cash deposit rates for those companies that requested an expedited review, or to exclude from the countervailing duty order a company for which the final results of expedited review are zero or de minimis, as provided in 19 CFR 351.214(k)(3)(iv). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(f), we will rescind the expedited review for any company that withdraws its request for expedited review within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice of initiation. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation and notice are issued and published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(k)(2)(i) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(i). Dated: March 1, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Attachment Below is the list of companies that requested an expedited review of the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber from Canada. (1) 752615 B.C. Ltd., Fraserview Remanufacturing Inc., Gillwood Lumber, dba Fraserview Cedar Products (2) Antrim Cedar Corporation (3) Aquila Cedar Products Ltd. (4) Canadian Bavarian Millwork and Lumber (5) Canyon Lumber Company Ltd. (6) Cedarline Industries Ltd. (7) Central Cedar Ltd. (8) Chaleur Sawmills LP (9) Deep Cove Forest Products Inc. (10) Delco Forest Products Ltd. (11) Devon Lumber Co. Ltd. (12) Fontaine Inc. (13) Haida Forest Products Ltd. (14) Hainesville Sawmill Ltd. (15) H.J. Crabbe & Sons Ltd. (16) Ivor Forest Products Ltd. (17) Leslie Forest Products Ltd. (18) Les Produits Forestiers D&G Lte´e (19) Maibec Inc (20) Marcel Lauzon Inc (21) Marwood Ltd. (22) Mate´riaux Blanchet Inc. (23) Mobilier Rustique (Beauce) Inc. (24) MP Atlantic Wood Ltd. (25) North American Forest Products Ltd. (26) North Enderby Timber Ltd. (27) Olympic Industries, Inc. (28) Pacific Lumber Remanufacturing Inc. (29) Power Wood Corp. (30) Produits Matra Inc. (31) Rielly Lumber Inc. (32) Roland Boulanger & Cie Ite´e VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 07, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM 08MRN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination- AD - Final - Norway === 9829Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2018 / Notices 1 See Silicon Metal From Norway: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Preliminary Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances, Preliminary Determination of No Shipments, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 82 FR 47475 (October 12, 2016) (Preliminary Determination) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 2 See Memorandum for The Record from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, performing the non- exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government,’’ dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by 3 days. 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Silicon Metal From Norway,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). 4 See Memorandum, ‘‘Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,’’ dated June 29, 2017 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum). motor vehicles, motor vehicle bodies, stamped body parts, and lithium ion batteries within FTZ38A. The current request would add hybrid passenger vehicles and foreign-status materials/ components to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials/components and finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board. Production under FTZ procedures could exempt BMW MC from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials/components used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status materials/components noted below and in the existing scope of authority, BMW MC would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to previously authorized finished products and hybrid passenger vehicles (duty rate 2.5%). BMW MC would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status components which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment. The materials/components sourced from abroad include: Lubricating grease; touch-up paint; polyester band; rubber window guides; rubber seals; weather and damping strips of non-cellular rubber; tool bags of man-made fibers; acrylic coated cloth tape; warp knit fabric; seat protectors; mica seals; fiberglass heat shields; steel insertion brackets (similar to staples); aluminum alloy tube connectors; aluminum threaded fasteners (such as bolts, screws, nuts, washers); cylinder coils; gearbox oil coolers; cupholder warmers; parts of heat exchange units (multi-flow adaptors/connectors used to connect pipes or hoses to the battery cooler assembly); fire extinguishers; car jack cranks; card readers for common interface (CI) plus card to receive special television (TV) channels in the vehicle; housed ball bearings; inductors; actuators; Bluetooth antennas; speakers; audio frequency amplifiers; radar sensors; radios; acoustic warning signals; LED lighting; integrated lighting circuits; lens TV contour illumination; range-finding sensors; checking/locking fixtures; temperature sensors; weather sensors; oxygen sensors; voltage power testers; and, battery sensors (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 17.6%). The request indicates polyester band, acrylic coated cloth tape, warp knit fabric, and seat protectors will be admitted to the zone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41), thereby precluding inverted tariff benefits on such items. Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board’s Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is April 17, 2018. A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the ‘‘Reading Room’’ section of the Board’s website, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz. For further information, contact Juanita Chen at juanita.chen@trade.gov or 202–482–1378. Dated: March 1, 2018. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. 2018–04656 Filed 3–7–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–403–805] Silicon Metal From Norway: Affirmative Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Final Determination of No Sales, and Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of silicon metal from Norway are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). In addition, we determine that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of the subject merchandise. The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. The final dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the ‘‘Final Determination’’ section of this notice. DATES : Applicable March 8, 2018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brittany Bauer, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3860. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On October 12, 2017, Commerce published the Preliminary Determination of sales at LTFV of silicon metal from Norway. 1 Commerce exercised its discretion to toll deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce’s practice, the deadline will become the next business day. The revised deadline for the final determination of this investigation is now February 27, 2018. 2 A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is adopted by this notice. 3 Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is silicon metal from Norway. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the ‘‘Scope of the Investigation’’ in Appendix I of this notice. Scope Comments During the course of this investigation, Commerce received numerous scope comments from interested parties. Prior to the Preliminary Determination, Commerce issued a Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum 4 to address these comments. Since the Preliminary Determination, Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., (the petitioner) submitted a case brief and interested parties submitted VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 07, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM 08MRN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 9830 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2018 / Notices 5 These parties include Wacker Chemicals Norway A.S., Elkem AS, and the petitioner. 6 See Memorandum ‘‘Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway: Final Scope Comments Decision Memorandum,’’ dated February 27, 2018 (Final Scope Decision Memorandum). 7 For discussion of our verification findings, see the following memoranda: Memorandum, ‘‘Verification of the No Shipment Claim of Wacker Chemicals Norway A.S. in the Antidumping Duty Investigations of Silicon Metal from Norway,’’ dated November 6, 2017; Memorandum, ‘‘Verification of the Sales Response of Elkem AS in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Silicon Metal from Norway,’’ dated December 1, 2017; Memorandum, ‘‘Verification of the Sales Response of Elkem Materials Inc. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Silicon Metal from Norway,’’ dated December 1, 2017; and Memorandum, ‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of Elkem AS in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Silicon Metal from Norway,’’ dated December 7, 2017. 8 See Preliminary Determination, at 47476. 9 See Memorandum, ‘‘Verification of the No Shipment Claim of Wacker Chemicals Norway A.S. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Silicon Metal from Norway,’’ dated November 6, 2017. 10 See Preliminary Determination, and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum, at 15–18. 11 See Modification of Regulations Regarding the Practice of Accepting Bonds During the Provisional Measures Period in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations, 76 FR 61042 (October 3, 2011). rebuttal briefs concerning the limits to silicon content as specified in the scope. 5 Commerce reviewed these briefs, considered the arguments therein, and is not making any additional changes to the scope of the investigation. For further discussion, see Commerce’s Final Scope Decision Memorandum. 6 The scope in Appendix I reflects the final scope language. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in either the Final Scope Decision Memorandum or the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https:// access.trade.gov, and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B–8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/ frn/index.html. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act) in October and November 2017, we conducted verification of the sales and cost information submitted by Elkem AS (Elkem) for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by Elkem.7 In addition, as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in October 2017, we also verified the no sales claim submitted by Wacker Chemicals Norway A.S. (Wacker), using standard verification procedures. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for Elkem. For a discussion of these changes, see the ‘‘Margin Calculations’’ section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Final Determination of No Sales As noted in the Preliminary Determination, we preliminarily determined that Wacker had no sales of subject merchandise during the POI.8 In October 2017, we verified the no sales claim submitted by Wacker.9 After issuing the Preliminary Determination, Commerce received no comments from interested parties regarding this issue, and has not received any information that would cause it to alter its Preliminary Determination. Therefore, because the record indicates that Wacker did not sell subject merchandise to the United States, Commerce continues to find that Wacker had no sales of subject merchandise during the POI. Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances For the Preliminary Determination, Commerce found that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of silicon metal from Elkem, as well as ‘‘all other’’ producers and exporters of subject merchandise. 10 In this final determination, Commerce continues to find that, in accordance with 735(a)(3) of the Act, critical circumstances do not exist for Elkem or ‘‘all other’’ producers and exporters (including Wacker) in this investigation. A discussion of the determination can be found in the ‘‘Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances’’ section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. All-Others Rate Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated weighted- average dumping margin for all other producers and exporters shall be equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated excluding rates that are zero, de minimis margins or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Elkem is the only respondent for which Commerce calculated an estimated weighted- average dumping margin that is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available. Therefore, for purposes of determining the ‘‘all-others’’ rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Elkem, as referenced in the ‘‘Final Determination’’ section below. Final Determination The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows: Exporter or producer Weighted- average dumping margin (percent) Elkem AS .............................. 3.22 All Others .............................. 3.22 Disclosure We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, for this final determination, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of silicon metal from Norway, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 12, 2017, the date of publication in the Federal Register of the affirmative Preliminary Determination. Further, we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins indicated in the chart above. 11 These suspension of VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 07, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM 08MRN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 9831Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2018 / Notices 1 See Silicon Metal from the Republic of Kazakhstan: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 82 FR 37847 (August 14, 2017) (Preliminary Determination), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 2 See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Silicon Metal from Kazakhstan,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government,’’ dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by three days. liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because Commerce’s final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of silicon metal from Norway no later than 45 days after this final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the ‘‘Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation’’ section. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. Notification to Interested Parties This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c). Dated: February 27, 2018. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation The scope of this investigation covers all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded from the scope of this investigation. Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive. Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Critical Circumstances IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Margin Calculations VI. Discussion of the Issues 1. Offset Cost of Manufacture for Miscellaneous Income Items 2. Commerce Should Adjust G&A Expenses to Reflect Total Miscellaneous Income 3. Whether to Calculate the G&A Expense Rate On a Company- or Division-Specific Basis 4. Elkem High Purity Silicon Grades 5. Constructed Export Price Offset 6. Weight Basis for International Freight Expenses 7. Pre-POI Merchandise Storage Costs 8. Marine Insurance Ministerial Error 9. Corrections Found at Verification VII. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2018–04666 Filed 3–7–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–834–808] Silicon Metal from the Republic of Kazakhstan: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of silicon metal from the Republic of Kazakhstan (Kazakhstan) during the period of investigation (POI) January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. DATES : Applicable March 8, 2018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca M. Janz or Maria Tatarska, AD/ CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2972 or (202) 482–1562, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background The petitioner in this investigation is Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. In addition to the Government of Kazakhstan, the mandatory respondent in this investigation is Tau-Ken Temir LLP (Tau-Ken Temir). A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination 1 on August 14, 2017, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.2 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http:// enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through January 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce’s practice, the deadline will become the next business day. The revised deadline for the final determination of this investigation is now February 27, 2018.3 Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is silicon metal from Kazakhstan. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 07, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM 08MRN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination- CVD - Final- Australia === 9834 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2018 / Notices 1 See Silicon Metal from Australia: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 82 FR 37843 (August 14, 2017) (Preliminary Determination). 2 See Memorandum, ‘‘Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government’’ (Tolling Memorandum), dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by 3 days. 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Silicon Metal from Australia: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation,’’ dated concurrently with this determination (Issues and Decision Memorandum) and hereby adopted by this notice. 4 See Memorandum, ‘‘Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,’’ dated June 29, 2017 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum). 5 See Memorandum, ‘‘Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway: Final Scope Comments Decision Memorandum,’’ dated February 27, 2018 (Final Scope Decision Memorandum). 6 See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity. (33) Sechoirs de Beauce Inc. (34) Scierie Alexandre Lemay & Fils Inc. [FR Doc. 2018–04678 Filed 3–7–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–602–811] Silicon Metal From Australia: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to Simcoa Operations Pty. Ltd. (Simcoa), a producer/exporter of silicon metal from Australia. The period of investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. DATES : Applicable March 8, 2018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Johnson or John Anwesen, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4929 or (202) 482–0131, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background Commerce published the Preliminary Determination on August 14, 2017.1 Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce’s practice, the deadline will become the next business day. The revised deadline for the final determination of this investigation is now February 27, 2018. 2 A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum issued concurrently with this notice.3 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http:// enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is silicon metal from Australia. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the ‘‘Scope of the Investigation’’ in Appendix I of this notice. Scope Comments During the course of this investigation, Commerce received numerous scope comments from interested parties. Prior to the Preliminary Determination, Commerce issued a Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum 4 to address these comments. Since the Preliminary Determination, Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., (the petitioner) submitted a case brief and interested parties submitted rebuttal briefs concerning the limits to silicon content as specified in the scope. Commerce reviewed these briefs, considered the arguments therein, and is not making any additional changes to the scope of the investigation. For further discussion, see Commerce’s Final Scope Decision Memorandum. 5 The scope in Appendix I reflects the final scope language. Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice at Appendix II. Methodology Commerce conducted this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an ‘‘authority’’ that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.6 For a full description of the methodology underlying our final determination, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, and the minor corrections presented at verification, we made certain changes to the respondent’s subsidy rate calculations. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Final Determination In accordance with section 705(c)(l)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated a rate for Simcoa, the producer/exporter of subject merchandise selected for individual examination in this investigation. Section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that in the final determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and de minimis rates and any rates based entirely under section 776 of the Act. In this investigation, Commerce preliminarily calculated an individual estimated countervailable subsidy rate for Simcoa, the only individually examined producer/exporter in this investigation. Because the only individually calculated rate is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available, the estimated weighted-average rate calculated for Simcoa is the rate assigned to all-other producers and exporters, pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 07, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM 08MRN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 9835Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2018 / Notices 7 As discussed in the Preliminary Determination, Commerce has found the following companies to be cross-owned with Simcoa: Silicon Metal Company of Australia Pty Ltd.; Microsilica Pty Ltd.; and Simcoa International Pty Ltd. 1 See Silicon Metal From Brazil: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 82 FR 47466 (October 12, 2017) (Preliminary Determination), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Commerce determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rate exists: Company Subsidy rate Simcoa Operations Pty. Ltd.7 14.78 percent. All-Others .............................. 14.78 percent. Disclosure We intend to disclose to parties in this proceeding the calculations performed for this final determination within five days of the date of publication of our final determination, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation As a result of our Preliminary Determination and pursuant to section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, Commerce instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we issued instructions to CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for countervailing duty (CVD) purposes for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after December 12, 2017, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries from August 14, 2017, through December 11, 2017. If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order, will reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act, and will require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non- privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/ destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c). Dated: February 27, 2018. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation The scope of this investigation covers all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded from the scope of these investigations. Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive. Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Subsidies Valuation IV. Analysis of Programs V. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Provision of Electricity for Less Than Adequate Remuneration (LTAR) Comment 2: Payments Under the Demand Side Management (DSM) Scheme and Ancillary Service (Spinning Reserve) Scheme Comment 3: Renewable Energy Target (RET) Program Comment 4: Research and Development (R&D) Tax Incentive Comment 5: Provision of Quartz for LTAR Comment 6: State Agreement Loan and Grant Comment 7: Calculation Errors in the Preliminary Determination VI. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2018–04667 Filed 3–7–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–351–850] Silicon Metal From Brazil: Affirmative Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of silicon metal from Brazil are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. The final margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the ‘‘Final Determination’’ section of this notice. DATES : Applicable March 8, 2018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith or Jesus Saenz, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1766 and (202) 482–8184, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On October 12, 2017, Commerce published the Preliminary Determination of sales at LTFV of silicon metal from Brazil. 1 Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce’s practice, VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 07, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM 08MRN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC Scheduling === 49848 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2017 / Notices Claims are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101. On July 13, 2017, the parties each filed a timely response to the petitions for review. On July 24, 2017, Respondents filed their public interest comments pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4). Two days later, Neology filed a response to Respondents’ public interest comments. The Commission also received public interest comments from multiple non-parties. On August 16, 2017, the Commission determined to review-in-part the final ID. Specifically, the Commission determined to review the following findings in the final ID: (1) The Asserted Claims are not entitled to claim priority to an earlier filing date; (2) the Asserted Claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, and/or 112; (3) the Asserted Claims are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101; and (4) Neology has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the ’436 patent. The Commission requested briefing from the parties on certain issues under review. The Commission did not solicit briefing from the parties and from the public on the issues of remedy, bonding, and the public interest. Having reviewed the parties’ submissions and the record evidence, the Commission has determined to affirm, with modified reasoning, the ID’s finding of no violation of section 337 by the Respondents in connection with the Asserted Claims because Respondents have shown that the Asserted Claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103 and/ or 112. The Commission has also determined to affirm with modifications the ID’s finding that the Asserted Claims are not entitled to claim priority to an earlier filing date. The Commission has further determined to take no position on the ID’s findings that the Asserted Claims are directed at patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and that Neology has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the ’436 patent. A Commission opinion will be issued shortly. The authority for the Commission’s determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in Part 210 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 210. By order of the Commission. Issued: October 23, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2017–23366 Filed 10–26–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–567–569 and 731–TA–1343–1345 (Final)] Silicon Metal From Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. SUMMARY : The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701–TA–567–569 and 731–TA–1343– 1345 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of silicon metal, provided for in subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, from Australia, Brazil, and Norway preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce to be sold at less than fair value, and imports of silicon metal preliminarily determined to be subsidized by the governments of Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan. DATES : October 12, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lawrence Jones ((202) 205–3358), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for these investigations may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Scope.—For purposes of these investigations, the Department of Commerce has defined the subject merchandise as follows: ‘‘all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded from the scope of this investigation. Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive.’’ Background.—The final phase of these investigations is being scheduled pursuant to sections 705(b) and 731(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 1673d(b)), as a result of affirmative preliminary determinations by the Department of Commerce that certain benefits which constitute subsidies within the meaning of section 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b) are being provided to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan of silicon metal, and that such products imported from Australia, Brazil, and Norway are being sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 733 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). The investigations were requested in petitions filed on March 8, 2017, by Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., Beverly, Ohio. For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). Participation in the investigations and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the final phase of these investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission’s rules, no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance during the preliminary phase of the investigations need not file an additional notice of appearance during this final phase. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:54 Oct 26, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES 49849Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2017 / Notices Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in the final phase of these investigations available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the investigations. A party granted access to BPI in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO. Staff report.—The prehearing staff report in the final phase of these investigations will be placed in the nonpublic record on February 1, 2018, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.22 of the Commission’s rules. Hearing.—The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the final phase of these investigations beginning at 9:30 a.m. on February 15, 2018, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before February 9, 2018. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission’s deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should participate in a prehearing conference to be held on February 13, 2018, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, if deemed necessary. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of the Commission’s rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 business days prior to the date of the hearing. Written submissions.—Each party who is an interested party shall submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.23 of the Commission’s rules; the deadline for filing is February 8, 2018. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in section 207.24 of the Commission’s rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.25 of the Commission’s rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is February 22, 2018. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the investigations may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the investigations, including statements of support or opposition to the petition, on or before February 22, 2018. On March 19, 2018, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before March 21, 2018, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.30 of the Commission’s rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The Commission’s Handbook on E-Filing, available on the Commission’s Web site at https:// edis.usitc.gov, elaborates upon the Commission’s rules with respect to electronic filing. Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission’s rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff. In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service. Authority: These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: October 23, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2017–23363 Filed 10–26–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–388, 389, and 391 and 731–TA–817, 818, and 821 (Third Review)] Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From India, Indonesia, and Korea; Revised Schedule for the Subject Reviews AGENCY : International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. DATES : October 20, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Celia Feldpausch ((202) 205–2387)), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for this proceeding may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : On August 4, 2017, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of full reviews (82 FR 37465, August 10, 2017). In light of overlapping Commission commitments, the Commission is revising its schedule in this proceeding. The Commission’s new schedule for the full reviews is as follows: The prehearing staff report will be placed in the nonpublic record on December 12, 2017; the deadline for filing prehearing briefs is December 21, 2017; requests to appear at the hearing must be filed with the Secretary to the Commission not later than December 22, 2017; the prehearing conference will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building on January 3, 2018, if deemed necessary; the hearing will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on January 4, 2018; the deadline for filing posthearing briefs is January 12, 2018; the Commission will make its final release of information on February 5, 2018; and final party comments are due on February 7, 2018. For further information concerning the full reviews see the Commission’s notice cited above and the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:54 Oct 26, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC Determination - Final === 16382 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 73 / Monday, April 16, 2018 / Notices 3 Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From the Republic of South Africa: Affirmative Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Finding of Critical Circumstances, 83 FR 2141, January 16, 2018. 4 Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Ukraine: Affirmative Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 83 FR 2135, January 16, 2018. 5 See generally 83 FR 13228–13254, March 28, 2018 (Commerce’s final affirmative determinations of sales at less than fair value of carbon and alloy steel wire rod from Italy, Korea, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, and Commerce’s final affirmative determinations regarding countervailable subsidies by the governments of Italy and Turkey). 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). Africa 3 and Ukraine 4 and, most recently, {3} Italy, Korea, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. 5 The Commission, therefore, is issuing a supplemental schedule for its investigations on imports of carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Italy, Korea, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. The Commission’s supplemental schedule is as follows: The deadline for filing supplemental party comments on Commerce’s final determinations is April 13, 2018. The staff report in the final phase of these investigations will be placed in the nonpublic record and a public version will be issued thereafter. Supplemental party comments may address only Commerce’s final determinations regarding imports of carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Italy, Korea, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. These supplemental final comments may not contain new factual information and may not exceed five (5) pages in length. For further information concerning these investigations see the Commission’s notice cited above and the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). Authority: These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: April 11, 2018. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2018–07890 Filed 4–13–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–567–569 and 731–TA–1343–1345 (Final)] Silicon Metal From Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway Determinations On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International Trade Commission (‘‘Commission’’) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’), that an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury, and the establishment of an industry in the United States is not materially retarded by reason of imports of silicon metal (provided for in subheadings 2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States) from Australia, Brazil, and Norway, that have been found by the U.S. Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), and from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan that have been found by Commerce to be subsidized by the governments of those countries. Background The Commission, pursuant to sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)), instituted these investigations effective March 8, 2017, following receipt of petitions filed with the Commission and Commerce by Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., Beverly, Ohio. The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan were subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)) and that imports of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway were sold at LTFV within the meaning of 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission’s investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on October 27, 2017 (82 FR 49848). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on February 15, 2018, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. The Commission made these determinations pursuant to sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on April 10, 2018. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4773 (April 2018), entitled Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway: Investigation Nos. 701–TA– 567–569 and 731–TA–1343–1345 (Final). By order of the Commission. Issued: April 10, 2018. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2018–07806 Filed 4–13–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division United States v. Knorr-Bremse AG and Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), that a proposed Final Judgment, Stipulation and Order, and Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in United States of America v. Knorr-Bremse AG and Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:18–cv–00747. On April 3, 2018, the United States filed a Complaint alleging that Knorr-Bremse AG (‘‘Knorr’’) and Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation (‘‘Wabtec’’) entered into unlawful agreements not to poach employees in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. The proposed Final Judgment, filed at the same time as the Complaint, requires Knorr and Wabtec to refrain from entering into, maintaining, or enforcing unlawful agreements not to compete for employees. Copies of the Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, and Competitive Impact Statement are available for inspection on the Antitrust Division’s website at http://www.justice.gov/atr and at the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Copies of these materials may be obtained from the Antitrust Division upon request and payment of the copying fee set by Department of Justice regulations. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:42 Apr 13, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16APN1.SGM 16APN1 srobinson on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC PUB 4773 === U.S. International Trade Commission Publication 4773 April 2018 Washington, DC 20436 Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway Investigation Nos. 701-TA-567-569 and 731-TA-1343-1345 (Final) U.S. International Trade Commission COMMISSIONERS Rhonda K. Schmidtlein, Chairman David S. Johanson, Vice Chairman Irving A. Williamson Meredith M. Broadbent Catherine DeFilippo Staff assigned Address all communications to Secretary to the Commission United States International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 Director of Operations Lawrence Jones, Investigator David Guberman, Industry Analyst Jonathan Ruder, Economist David Boyland, Accountant Mara Alexander, Statistician Carolyn Holmes, Statistical Assistant Heng Loke, Attorney Mary Messer, Supervisory Investigator U.S. International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 www.usitc.gov Publication 4773 April 2018 Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway Investigation Nos. 701-TA-567-569 and 731-TA-1343-1345 (Final) Determin Views of IntPart I: Backgr Statuto Statu Orga Market Summa Previou Nature Subs Sales The su Com Tarif The pro Desc Man Domes Prev Curr Part II: Co U.S. ma U.S. pu Channe Geogra Supply U.S. ........nations the Commis troduction .. ound ........... ory criteria an utory criteria anization of r t summary ... ary data and us and relate e and extent sidies ............ s at LTFV ...... bject mercha mmerce’s scop ff treatment . oduct ........... cription and a nufacturing p stic like produ vious and rela ent investiga onditions of c arket charact urchasers...... els of distribu aphic distribu and demand supply ......... ................... ............ssion ................... ..................... nd organizat a ................... report........... ..................... data source ed investigati of subsidies ..................... ..................... andise .......... pe ................ ..................... ..................... applications . process ......... uct issues..... ated proceed ations ........... competition i teristics ....... ..................... ution ............ ution ............ d considerati ..................... CO ................... ................... ................... ..................... ion of the re ..................... ..................... ..................... s................... ions .............. and sales at ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... dings............. ..................... n the U.S. ma ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ions .............. ..................... ONTENTS i ................... ................... ................... .................... port ............ .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... LTFV ........... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... arket.…………… .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ................... ................... ................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ………………..… .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ……………………… .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ................... ................... ................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... …………………… ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... Page ...... 1 ...... 3 .... I‐1 .....I‐1 .....I‐2 .....I‐2 .....I‐4 .....I‐4 .....I‐5 .....I‐6 .....I‐7 .....I‐7 .....I‐9 ...I‐10 ...I‐10 ...I‐11 ...I‐11 ...I‐11 ...I‐15 ...I‐19 ...I‐19 ...I‐20 ….II‐1 ....II‐1 ....II‐1 ....II‐2 ....II‐2 ....II‐3 ....II‐3 CONTENTS Page ii Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market .................................................... ‐‐Continued U.S. demand ................................................................................................................................II‐7 Substitutability issues...................................................................................................................... II‐9 Lead times ...................................................................................................................................II‐9 Knowledge of country sources .................................................................................................. II‐10 Factors affecting purchasing decisions ..................................................................................... II‐10 Comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports .......................II‐13 Comparison of U.S.‐produced and imported silicon metal....................................................... II‐15 Elasticity estimates ........................................................................................................................ II‐19 U.S. supply elasticity.................................................................................................................. II‐19 U.S. demand elasticity ............................................................................................................... II‐19 Substitution elasticity ................................................................................................................ II‐19 Part III: U.S. producers’ production, shipments, and employment ............................................. III‐1 U.S. producers ................................................................................................................................III‐3 Related firms .............................................................................................................................. III‐4 Changes in operations ................................................................................................................ III‐4 U.S. production, capacity, and capacity utilization ........................................................................ III‐4 Alternative products .................................................................................................................. III‐5 U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and exports .................................................................................. III‐5 U.S. producers’ inventories ............................................................................................................ III‐6 U.S. producers’ imports and purchases ......................................................................................... III‐7 U.S. employment, wages, and productivity ................................................................................... III‐7 Captive consumption ..................................................................................................................... III‐8 Transfers and sales ..................................................................................................................... III‐8 First statutory criterion in captive consumption ....................................................................... III‐9 Second statutory criterion in captive consumption ................................................................... III‐9 Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent U.S. consumption, and market shares .......................................IV‐1 U.S. importers ............................................................................................................................... IV‐1 U.S. imports ................................................................................................................................... IV‐3 CONTENTS Page iii Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent U.S. consumption, and market shares ......................... ‐‐Continued Critical circumstances ................................................................................................................... IV‐6 Timing and volume of imports .................................................................................................. IV‐7 Inventories of imports ............................................................................................................... IV‐8 Negligibility.................................................................................................................................... IV‐8 Cumulation considerations ......................................................................................................... IV‐10 Fungibility ................................................................................................................................ IV‐10 Geographical markets ............................................................................................................. IV‐12 Channels of distribution .......................................................................................................... IV‐13 Presence in the market ........................................................................................................... IV‐14 Apparent U.S. consumption (total market) ................................................................................ IV‐16 Market shares (total market) ...................................................................................................... IV‐18 Apparent U.S. consumption (merchant market) ........................................................................ IV‐18 Market shares (merchant market) .............................................................................................. IV‐19 Part V: Pricing data .....................................................................................................................V‐1 Factors affecting prices .................................................................................................................. V‐1 Raw material costs ..................................................................................................................... V‐1 U.S. inland transportation costs ................................................................................................. V‐2 Exchange rates ........................................................................................................................... V‐3 Pricing practices ............................................................................................................................. V‐3 Pricing methods.......................................................................................................................... V‐3 Sales terms and discounts .......................................................................................................... V‐6 Price leadership .......................................................................................................................... V‐6 Price data ....................................................................................................................................... V‐6 Import purchase costs ................................................................................................................ V‐8 Price trends ................................................................................................................................ V‐8 Price comparisons ...................................................................................................................... V‐8 Lost sales and lost revenue ............................................................................................................ V‐9 Additional comments from purchasers ....................................................................................... V‐11 CONTENTS Page iv Part VI: Financial experience of U.S. producers ..........................................................................VI‐1 Background ................................................................................................................................... VI‐1 Operations on silicon metal .......................................................................................................... VI‐2 Net sales ........................................................................................................................................ VI‐2 Cost of goods sold and gross profit ........................................................................................... VI‐4 SG&A expenses and operating income or loss ......................................................................... VI‐6 Interest expense, other expenses, and next income or loss..................................................... VI‐7 Capital expenditures and research and development expenses .................................................. VI‐8 Assets and return on assets .......................................................................................................... VI‐8 Capital and investment ................................................................................................................. VI‐9 Part VII: Threat considerations and information on nonsubject countries .................................VII‐1 The industry in Australia .............................................................................................................. VII‐2 Changes in operations .............................................................................................................. VII‐3 Operations on silicon metal ..................................................................................................... VII‐3 Alternative products ................................................................................................................ VII‐4 Exports...................................................................................................................................... VII‐5 The industry in Brazil .................................................................................................................... VII‐6 Changes in operations .............................................................................................................. VII‐7 Operations on silicon metal ..................................................................................................... VII‐7 Alternative products ................................................................................................................ VII‐9 Exports...................................................................................................................................... VII‐9 The industry in Kazakhstan ........................................................................................................ VII‐11 Changes in operations ............................................................................................................ VII‐12 Operations on silicon metal ................................................................................................... VII‐12 Alternative products .............................................................................................................. VII‐13 Exports.................................................................................................................................... VII‐14 The industry in Norway .................................................................................................... VII‐15 Changes in operations ............................................................................................................ VII‐16 Operations on silicon metal ................................................................................................... VII‐16 CONTENTS Page v Part VII: Threat considerations and information on nonsubject countries .................. ‐‐Continued Alternative products .............................................................................................................. VII‐17 Exports.................................................................................................................................... VII‐18 The industries in subject countries ............................................................................................ VII‐19 Operations on silicon metal ................................................................................................... VII‐19 Alternative products .............................................................................................................. VII‐21 U.S. inventories of imported merchandise ................................................................................ VII‐21 U.S. importers’ outstanding orders............................................................................................ VII‐23 Antidumping or countervailing duty orders in third‐country markets ...................................... VII‐24 Information on nonsubject countries ........................................................................................ VII‐25 World production ................................................................................................................... VII‐25 Global exports ........................................................................................................................ VII‐25 Canada .................................................................................................................................... VII‐28 South Africa ............................................................................................................................ VII‐29 Major nonsubject countries ................................................................................................... VII‐31 Appendixes A. Federal Register notices ......................................................................................................... A‐1 B. Hearing witnesses ................................................................................................................... B‐1 C. Summary data ......................................................................................................................... C‐1 D. U.S. shipments, by type .......................................................................................................... D‐1 E. Nonsubject country price data ............................................................................................... E‐1 F. Previous and related investigations…………………………………………………………………………………….F‐1 Note.—Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be published and therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by asterisks ***. 1 UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Investigation Nos. 701‐TA‐567‐569 and 731‐TA‐1343‐1345 (Final) Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway DETERMINATIONS On the basis of the record1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury, and the establishment of an industry in the United States is not materially retarded by reason of imports of silicon metal (provided for in subheadings 2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States) from Australia, Brazil, and Norway, that have been found by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), and from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan that have been found by Commerce to be subsidized by the governments of those countries. BACKGROUND The Commission, pursuant to sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)), instituted these investigations effective March 8, 2017, following receipt of petitions filed with the Commission and Commerce by Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., Beverly, Ohio. The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan were subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)) and that imports of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway were sold at LTFV within the meaning of 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission’s investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on October 27, 2017 (82 FR 49848). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on February 15, 2018, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). 3 Views of the Commission Based on the record in the final phase of these investigations, we determine that an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway that are sold in the United States at less than fair value and imports of silicon metal that are subsidized by the governments of Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan. 1 I. Background The petitioner is Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. (“Globe” or “Petitioner”), a domestic producer of silicon metal. Representatives appeared at the hearing accompanied by counsel and submitted prehearing and posthearing briefs. A number of respondent entities (collectively “Respondents”) participated in these investigations: Dow Silicones Corporation 2 (“Dow”), a U.S. producer and importer of subject merchandise;3 Simcoa Operations Pty. (“Simcoa”), a producer of subject merchandise from Australia; Ligas de Aluminio S.A. (“LIASA”) and Companhia Ferroligas Minas‐Gerais (“MINASLIGAS”), both producers of subject merchandise from Brazil; Elkem Silicon Materials (“Elkem”), a producer of subject merchandise from Norway; Tau‐Ken‐Temir (“TKT”), a producer of subject merchandise from Kazakhstan; Wacker Chemicals Norway (“Wacker Chemicals”), a producer of subject merchandise from Norway, Wacker Polysilicon North America (“WPNA”), a U.S. purchaser of subject merchandise, and Wacker Chemie AG, the parent company of Wacker Chemicals and WPNA (collectively “Wacker”); MPM Holdings Inc. (“MPM”), a U.S. importer of subject merchandise; and REC Silicon Inc., REC Solar Grade Materials LLC, and REC Advanced Silicon Materials LLC. (collectively “REC”), U.S. purchasers or importers of subject merchandise. Representatives from Simcoa, Wacker, LIASA, MINASLIGAS, MPM, REC, and Dow appeared at the hearing. Five sets of prehearing briefs were filed by respondent parties: one each from Dow, Elkem, and REC; one filed jointly by LIASA and MINASLIGAS (“LIASA’s Prehearing Brief”); and one filed jointly by Simcoa and Wacker (“Wacker’s Prehearing Brief”). Seven sets of posthearing briefs were filed by respondent parties: one each from Dow, Elkem, REC, MPM, and TKT; one filed jointly by LIASA and MINASLIGAS (“LIASA’s Posthearing Brief”); and one filed jointly by Simcoa and Wacker (“Wacker’s Posthearing Brief”). 1 Whether establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded is not an issue in these investigations. 2 During the preliminary phase of these investigations, Dow was known as Dow Corning Corporation. It changed its name in February 2018. Confidential Report (INV‐QQ‐031, March 14, 2018) (“CR”) at I‐5, Public Report (“PR”) at I‐4. 3 During the preliminary phase of these investigations, Dow did not submit a U.S. producers’ questionnaire and was identified as a U.S. importer. In the final phase of these investigations, Dow submitted a U.S. producers’ questionnaire and identified Dow Corning Alabama Inc. (“DC Alabama”) and WVA Manufacturing (“WVA”) as part of its production locations. CR/PR at Table III‐2. 4 U.S. industry data are based on the questionnaire responses from three domestic producers that accounted for all known domestic production of silicon metal in 2016. 4 U.S. import data are based on official import statistics and questionnaire responses. Importer questionnaire responses were received from 24 companies, representing virtually all subject imports from Australia, virtually all subject imports from Brazil, virtually all subject imports from Kazakhstan, 96.7 percent of subject imports from Norway, and virtually all imports of silicon metal from nonsubject countries in 2016. Foreign industry data are based on questionnaire responses of one firm in Australia whose exports accounted for *** subject imports from Australia, four firms in Brazil whose exports accounted for *** subject imports from Brazil, one firm in Kazakhstan whose exports accounted for *** percent of subject imports from Kazakhstan, and two firms in Norway whose exports accounted for *** percent of subject imports from Norway in 2016. 5 II. Domestic Like Product In determining whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of subject merchandise, the Commission first defines the “domestic like product” and the “industry.”6 Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Tariff Act”), defines the relevant domestic 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.” 7 In turn, the Tariff Act defines “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.” 8 The decision regarding the appropriate domestic like product in an investigation is a factual determination, and the Commission has applied the statutory standard of “like” or “most similar in characteristics and uses” on a case‐by‐case basis. 9 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the 4 CR/PR at Table III‐2. 5 CR at I‐7, PR at I‐5. 6 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 7 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 8 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). 9 See, e.g., Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp. v. Department of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 749 n.3 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“every like product determination ‘must be made on the particular record at issue’ and the ‘unique facts of each case’”). The Commission generally considers a number of factors, including the following: (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4) customer and producer perceptions of the products; (5) common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees; and, where appropriate, (6) price. See Nippon, 19 CIT at 455 n.4; Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996). 5 facts of a particular investigation. 10 The Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations. 11 Although the Commission must accept the Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) determination as to the scope of the imported merchandise that is subsidized or sold at less than fair value,12 the Commission determines what domestic product is like the imported articles Commerce has identified.13 Commerce defined the imported merchandise within the scope of these investigations as: . . . {A}ll forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded from the scope of these investigations. Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive. 14 10 See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 96‐249 at 90‐91 (1979). 11 Nippon, 19 CIT at 455; Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748‐49; see also S. Rep. No. 96‐249 at 90‐91 (Congress has indicated that the like product standard should not be interpreted in “such a narrow fashion as to permit minor differences in physical characteristics or uses to lead to the conclusion that the product and article are not ‘like’ each other, nor should the definition of ‘like product’ be interpreted in such a fashion as to prevent consideration of an industry adversely affected by the imports under consideration.”). 12 See, e.g., USEC, Inc. v. United States, 34 Fed. Appx. 725, 730 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“The ITC may not modify the class or kind of imported merchandise examined by Commerce.”); Algoma Steel Corp. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), aff’d, 865 F.3d 240 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 919 (1989). 13 Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs., 85 F.3d 1561, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (the Commission may find a single like product corresponding to several different classes or kinds defined by Commerce); Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1298 n.1 (“Commerce’s {scope} finding does not control the Commission’s {like product} determination.”); Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748‐52 (affirming the Commission’s determination defining six like products in investigations in which Commerce found five classes or kinds). 14 Silicon Metal from Australia: Affirmative Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part, 83 Fed. Reg. 9839 (Mar. 8, 2018); Silicon Metal From Brazil: Affirmative Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 83 Fed. Reg. 9835 (Mar. 8, 2018); Silicon Metal From Norway: Affirmative Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Final Determination of No Sales, and Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 83 Fed. Reg. 9829 (Mar. 8, 2018); Silicon Metal from the Republic of Kazakhstan: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 83 Fed. Reg. 9831‐9833 (Mar. 8, 2018); Silicon Metal From Australia: (Continued...) 6 Silicon metal is normally composed entirely of elemental silicon, along with small amounts of other elements, such as iron, aluminum, and calcium. It is used as an alloying agent in the production of both primary aluminum (produced from ore) and secondary aluminum (produced from scrap). It is used by the chemical industry as an input in the production of silicones and polysilicon. 15 Silicon metal is manufactured and sold in various degrees of purity and it is usually sold in lump or powder form. It can be categorized as semiconductor grade,16 chemical grade, metallurgical grade used to produce primary aluminum, and metallurgical grade used to produce secondary aluminum.17 Silicon metal is produced by combining silica, in the form of high purity quartz, to a “charge” that includes low‐ash coal, charcoal, or petroleum coke, and a bulking agent, usually in the form of wood chips. This mix is heated in a submerged electric arc furnace to approximately 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit, at which point off‐gas escapes the furnace leaving liquid state silicon metal.18 The molten silicon metal is often refined by oxygen injection to remove impurities, principally aluminum and calcium.19 Some impurities, such as boron, cannot be removed from the liquid state and must be controlled by raw material selection. 20 The molten silicon metal is then poured into molds or onto beds of silicon fines to create ingot or billets, and is subsequently crushed to customer specification. 21 In the preliminary determinations, the Commission found a single domestic like product coextensive with the scope.22 It found that silicon metal of all grades have the same physical appearance and share largely the same manufacturing facilities, production process, and employees. It also found that all domestically produced silicon metal shares the same channel of distribution (end users), and that silicon metal is interchangeable within any given grade. It observed that producers and customers perceive all silicon metal within the scope to be a (…Continued) Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 83 Fed. Reg. 9834 (Mar. 8, 2018); Silicon Metal from Brazil: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 83 Fed. Reg. 9838 (Mar. 8, 2018). 15 CR at I‐14 to I‐18, PR at I‐11 to I‐I3. Aluminum producers consume silicon metal in lump form and chemical producers consume silicon metal in powder form, but some of these producers have grinding facilities. CR at I‐15 to I‐16, PR at I‐12 to I‐13. 16 Semiconductor grade is a high‐purity product generally containing over 99.99 percent silicon, which is outside the scope of these investigations. CR at I‐18 n.46, PR at I‐14 n.46. 17 CR at I‐18 to I‐19, PR at I‐14. The type and level of impurities and the silicon content are the principal factors that determine if the silicon metal product can be used in a given application. It is not an indicator of the quality of the silicon metal product. CR at I‐19 n.48, PR at I‐14 n.48. 18 CR at I‐20 to I‐21, PR at I‐15 to I‐16. 19 CR at I‐21, PR at I‐16. 20 CR at I‐21, PR at I‐16. ***. Id. 21 CR at I‐20 to I‐22, PR at I‐16. 22 Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway, Inv. No. 701‐TA‐567‐569 and 731‐TA‐1343‐1345 (Preliminary),USITC Pub. 4685 at 8 (May 2017) (“Preliminary Determinations”). 7 single product. It also observed that the three domestically produced pricing product prices fell within a fairly narrow range.23 In the final phase of these investigations, Petitioner states that the Commission should again define a single domestic like product coextensive with the scope.24 None of the respondents contests the domestic like product definition. There is no new information in the final phase of these investigations about the characteristics of silicon metal being different from that in the preliminary phase of the investigations. 25 Accordingly, we define a single domestic like product coextensive with Commerce’s scope. III. Domestic Industry The domestic industry is defined as the domestic “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.” 26 In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to include in the industry producers of all domestic production of the like product, whether toll‐produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market. We must determine whether any producer of the domestic like product should be excluded from the domestic industry pursuant to section 771(4)(B) of the Tariff Act. This provision allows the Commission, if appropriate circumstances exist, to exclude from the domestic industry producers that are related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise or which are themselves importers.27 Exclusion of such a producer is within the Commission’s discretion based upon the facts presented in each investigation. 28 In the preliminary 23 Preliminary Determinations, USITC Pub. 4685 at 7‐8. 24 Globe’s Prehearing Brief at 3‐4. 25 CR at I‐14 to I‐27, PR at I‐11 to I‐19. No party requested that the Commission collect data concerning other possible domestic like products in their comments on the Commission’s draft questionnaires. 26 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 27 See Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161, 1168 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), aff’d without opinion, 991 F.2d 809 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Sandvik AB v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 1322, 1331‐32 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989), aff’d mem., 904 F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Empire Plow Co. v. United States, 675 F. Supp. 1348, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1987). 28 The primary factors the Commission has examined in deciding whether appropriate circumstances exist to exclude a related party include the following: (1) the percentage of domestic production attributable to the importing producer; (2) the reason the U.S. producer has decided to import the product subject to investigation (whether the firm benefits from the LTFV sales or subsidies or whether the firm must import in order to enable it to continue production and compete in the U.S. market); (3) whether inclusion or exclusion of the related party will skew the data for the rest of the industry; (4) the ratio of import shipments to U.S. production for the imported product; and (Continued...) 8 determinations, the Commission defined the domestic industry to include all U.S. producers of silicon metal except DC Alabama.29 Two domestic producers qualify as related parties. DC Alabama is wholly owned by Dow, which also wholly owns Brazilian producer ***, which exports subject merchandise to the United States. 30 Dow also imported subject merchandise from Brazil during the January 2014 to September 2017 period of investigation (“POI”).31 Consequently, DC Alabama is a related party under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B)(ii)(III). Domestic producer MS Silicon ***, a Brazilian exporter of subject merchandise, and ***, an importer of subject merchandise.32 While the record does not contain sufficient information to demonstrate clearly a direct or indirect controlling relationship among MS Silicon, ***, we assume arguendo for purposes of our analysis that a control relationship exists between MS Silicon and *** or MS Silicon and *** under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B)(ii), and that MS Silicon therefore would be a related party. Arguments of the Parties. Petitioner argues that DC Alabama should be excluded from the domestic industry because corporate entity Dow’s interest is in the importation of subject merchandise based on its *** subject import to domestic production ratio. 33 Petitioner also argues that any production by WVA, Dow’s joint venture with Globe, should not be attributed to Dow because WVA is a *** and Dow has only a *** WVA’s output. 34 Respondents argue that the domestic industry consists of all domestic producers of silicon metal.35 While Dow recognizes that it imported subject merchandise *** at levels *** than that of DC Alabama’s domestic production, Dow claims that this importation was only necessary because of the domestic industry’s inability to supply *** and the domestic industry lacks the capacity to satisfy demand.36 Dow and Wacker also contend that the Commission should attribute Dow’s *** percent share of WVA output as part of Dow’s domestic production. They assert that Dow acquired a *** percent interest in WVA in 2009, and under the ***.37 They claim that once Dow’s ***, the final figure exceeds its import volume of subject merchandise from *** throughout the POI. 38 (…Continued) (5) whether the primary interest of the importing producer lies in domestic production or importation. Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. USITC, 100 F. Supp.3d 1314, 1326‐31 (Ct. Int’l. Trade 2015); see also Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. at 1168. 29 Preliminary Determinations, USITC Pub. 4685 at 11. 30 CR/PR at Table III‐2. 31 CR/PR at Table III‐8. 32 CR/PR at Table III‐3. 33 Globe’s Posthearing Brief at 2. 34 Globe’s Prehearing Brief at 7‐8; Globe’s Posthearing Brief at 1‐2, Attachment A at 2‐3, 7‐8. 35 Dow’s Prehearing Brief at 5‐16; Dow’s Posthearing Brief at 3‐8; Wacker’s Prehearing Brief at 14‐16. 36 Dow’s Prehearing Brief at 7‐9, 11‐12; Dow’s Posthearing Brief at 4, Exhibit 1 at 10‐11 37 Dow’s Prehearing Brief at 14; Wacker’s Prehearing Brief at 15. 38 Dow’s Prehearing Brief at 14; Wacker’s Prehearing Brief at 15. 9 The parties agree that MS Silicon should be included in the domestic industry, consistent with the Commission’s preliminary determination. 39 Analysis. DC Alabama/Dow. We first discuss Dow’s contention that, for purposes of a related parties analysis, the firm’s domestic production is not merely what DC Alabama produces, but also includes a portion of WVA’s output. Although Dow has some equity and revenue interest in WVA and it ***, its stake is ***.40 Furthermore, while Dow ***, Globe is the *** relating to WVA’s operations. 41 Additionally, Dow’s use of its portion of WVA production is ***, which suggests that Dow ***.42 Therefore, based on the information available in the record, we do not attribute any of WVA’s domestic production to the Dow corporate entity and instead use the data in Table III‐9 of the Commission Report, which is based on Dow’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response. 43 We find that appropriate circumstances exist to exclude DC Alabama from the domestic industry. DC Alabama is the *** of the three domestic producers, accounting for *** percent of domestic production in 2016. 44 It opposes the petitions. 45 Dow imported ***. The ratio of Dow’s subject imports to DC Alabama’s domestic production was ***.46 Dow states that it imports subject merchandise because ***.47 DC Alabama was ***.48 The *** ratio of Dow’s subject imports to DC Alabama’s domestic production suggests that the primary interest of Dow as a corporate entity is importation rather than domestic production. Accordingly, we find that appropriate circumstances exist to exclude DC Alabama from the domestic industry. MS Silicon. MS Silicon is the *** of the three domestic producers, accounting for *** percent of domestic production in 2016. 49 It ***.50 MS Silicon’s related importer, ***, imported ***.51 The ratio of ***’s subject imports to MS Silicon’s domestic production was ***.52 MS Silicon’s capital expenditures were $***, $***, 39 Globe’s Prehearing Brief at 8; Wacker’s Prehearing Brief at 14‐15. 40 Dow’s Posthearing Brief, Attachment A. *** Dow’s Posthearing Brief, Attachment B at 5. 41 Globe’s Posthearing Brief, Attachment 8 at 2‐3. ***. Id. We also observe that Dow has treated the WVA as if it is a separate supplier that is operated by Globe. See, e.g., Dow’s Prehearing Brief, Exhibit 2 at 5‐6; Dow’s Posthearing Brief, Exhibit 1 at 10‐11. 42 Dow’s Posthearing Brief, Attachment B at 3. *** 43 We observe that Dow’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire reports ***. See generally Dow’s U.S. Producers’ Questionnaire. Nonetheless, Dow did not comment on the questionnaire format with respect to the collection of joint venture data in its comments on the draft questionnaires in the final phase of these investigations. 44 CR/PR at Table III‐2. 45 CR/PR at Table III‐2. 46 CR/PR at Table III‐9. 47 See CR at III‐13 to III‐14, PR at III‐7. 48 CR/PR at Table VI‐3. 49 CR/PR at Table III‐3. 50 CR/PR at Table III‐2. 51 ***’s U.S. Importer’s Questionnaire at II‐6b. 52 MS Silicon *** in 2014. Calculated from CR/PR at Table III‐5. 10 $***, and *** in 2014, 2015, 2016, and interim 2017 respectively.53 Its capital expenditures accounted for the *** of the domestic industry’s capital expenditures in 2014 and 2015. 54 MS Silicon was the *** domestic producer, with *** operating margins throughout the POI. 55 We find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude MS Silicon from the domestic industry. In 2014, MS Silicon *** any domestic production and *** imported subject merchandise from Brazil through related importer ***. MS Silicon *** domestic production in late 2015 and the volume of its domestic production *** increased the following year, while its subject import volume correspondingly decreased. Therefore, MS Silicon’s primary interest appears to be in domestic production. Furthermore, its financial performance indicates that it has not benefitted from its affiliate’s importation of subject merchandise. No party argued for its exclusion from the domestic industry. Accordingly, we define the domestic industry to include all U.S. producers of silicon metal except Dow/DC Alabama. IV. Cumulation56 For purposes of evaluating the volume and effects for a determination of material injury by reason of subject imports, section 771(7)(G)(i) of the Tariff Act requires the Commission to cumulate subject imports from all countries as to which petitions were filed and/or investigations self‐initiated by Commerce on the same day, if such imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product in the U.S. market. In assessing whether subject 53 CR/PR at Table VI‐7. 54 CR/PR at Table VI‐7. 55 CR/PR at Table VI‐3. 56 Pursuant to Section 771(24) of the Tariff Act, imports from a subject country of merchandise corresponding to a domestic like product that account for less than 3 percent of all such merchandise imported into the United States during the most recent 12 months for which data are available preceding the filing of the petition shall be deemed negligible. 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a), 1677(24)(A)(i), 1677(24)(B); see also 15 C.F.R. § 2013.1 (developing countries for purposes of 19 U.S.C. § 1677(36)). The statute further provides that subject imports from a single country which comprise less than 3 percent of total such imports of the product may not be considered negligible if there are several countries subject to investigation with negligible imports and the sum of such imports from all those countries collectively accounts for more than 7 percent of the volume of all such merchandise imported into the United States. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(A)(ii). In the case of countervailing duty investigations involving developing countries (as designated by the United States Trade Representative), the statute indicates that the negligibility limits are 4 percent and 9 percent, rather than 3 percent and 7 percent. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(B). According to official import statistics, during March 2016 to February 2017, the 12‐month period prior to the filing of the petitions, subject imports from Australia accounted for 10.6 percent of total imports, subject imports from Brazil accounted for 46.0 percent, subject imports from Kazakhstan accounted for 5.9 percent, and subject imports from Norway accounted for 8.5 percent. CR/PR at Table IV‐4. Because subject imports from each of the four subject countries exceed the pertinent statutory negligibility threshold, we find that imports from each subject country are not negligible. 11 imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product, the Commission generally has considered four factors: (1) the degree of fungibility between subject imports from different countries and between subject imports and the domestic like product, including consideration of specific customer requirements and other quality related questions; (2) the presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographic markets of subject imports from different countries and the domestic like product; (3) the existence of common or similar channels of distribution for subject imports from different countries and the domestic like product; and (4) whether the subject imports are simultaneously present in the market.57 While no single factor is necessarily determinative, and the list of factors is not exclusive, these factors are intended to provide the Commission with a framework for determining whether the subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.58 Only a “reasonable overlap” of competition is required.59 A. Petitioner’s Arguments Petitioner contends that the Commission should cumulate imports from all four subject countries. Petitioner claims that silicon metal is a commodity product that is “entirely interchangeable” within a given specification and higher purity silicon metal may be used for lower purity applications. 60 Petitioner maintains that the *** silicon metal from Brazil that *** is fungible with imports from other subject countries and the domestic like product.61 It further argues that subject imports and the domestic like product are sold through the same channels 57 See Certain Cast‐Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731‐TA‐278‐280 (Final), USITC Pub. 1845 (May 1986), aff’d, Fundicao Tupy, S.A. v. United States, 678 F. Supp. 898 (Ct. Int’l Trade), aff’d, 859 F.2d 915 (Fed. Cir. 1988). 58 See, e.g., Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989). 59 The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), expressly states that “the new section will not affect current Commission practice under which the statutory requirement is satisfied if there is a reasonable overlap of competition.” H.R. Rep. No. 103‐ 316, Vol. I at 848 (1994) (citing Fundicao Tupy, S.A. v. United States, 678 F. Supp. at 902; see Goss Graphic Sys., Inc. v. United States, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1087 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998) (“cumulation does not require two products to be highly fungible”); Wieland Werke, AG, 718 F. Supp. at 52 (“Completely overlapping markets are not required.”). 60 Globe’s Prehearing Brief at 28; Globe’s Posthearing Brief, Attachment A at 15. 61 Globe’s Prehearing Brief at 30‐32; Globe’s Posthearing Brief at 6‐7, Attachment A at 10‐23. 12 of distribution, are present in the same geographic markets, and are simultaneously present in the U.S. market.62 B. Respondents’ Arguments Brazil. Dow, LIASA, and Wacker argue that there is a limited degree of fungibility between subject imports from Brazil and imports from other subject sources and the domestic like product because a *** of U.S. shipments of subject imports from Brazil were of low‐boron silicon metal while the domestic industry and other subject countries reported no or few shipments of low‐boron silicon metal.63 They also argue that subject imports from Brazil and imports from the other subject sources do not share the same channels of distribution. 64 Wacker and LIASA also contend that there is limited geographic overlap between subject imports from Brazil and the domestic like product and silicon metal from other subject sources.65 Kazakhstan. Wacker argues that imports from Kazakhstan should not be cumulated with other subject imports because the imports from Kazakhstan *** segment and the subject producer in Kazakhstan is incapable of supplying the polysilicon and chemicals segment, which is the predominant end user market in the United States. It also argues that subject imports from Kazakhstan serve *** channel of distribution and are available *** form under ***. It further contends that subject imports from Kazakhstan were not present at all times in the U.S. market during the POI. 66 67 62 Globe’s Prehearing Brief at 32‐33; Globe’s Posthearing Brief at 7‐8, Attachment A at 17‐19. 63 Hearing Tr. at 167 (Brown); Dow’s Prehearing Brief at 18‐19; Dow’s Posthearing Brief, Exhibit 1 at 17; LIASA’s Prehearing Brief at 3‐4, 6; LIASA’s Posthearing Brief at 2‐3; Wacker’s Prehearing Brief at 19. LIASA also contends that the bulk of *** silicon metal involved a unique product supplied by *** to ***, which limits its fungibility with silicon metal from other subject countries and the domestic like product. LIASA’s Prehearing Brief at 7; LIASA’s Posthearing Brief at 4‐5. 64 Dow’s Prehearing Brief at 19‐21; LIASA’s Prehearing Brief at 9‐12; LIASA’s Posthearing Brief at 6‐7. LIASA asserts that although a *** portion of subject imports from Norway were to *** in 2014, the absolute volume of such imports was much smaller than that of subject imports from Brazil. LIASA’s Prehearing Brief at 10 65 Wacker’s Prehearing Brief at 20; LIASA’s Prehearing Brief at 15; LIASA’s Posthearing Brief at 11‐12. 66 Wacker’s Prehearing Brief at 21‐23. 67 Respondents additionally asserted that subject imports from Norway should not be cumulated with other subject imports, but did not provide substantive arguments in support of the contention. Wacker’s Prehearing Brief at 23. 13 C. Analysis The statutory threshold for cumulation is satisfied in these investigations because Petitioners filed the antidumping and countervailing duty petitions with respect to all four subject countries on the same day, March 8, 2017. 68 Fungibility. The record indicates that the domestic like product and subject imports from each of the four countries are generally interchangeable. A majority of market participants reported that the domestic like product and subject imports from each of the four subject countries are “always” or “frequently” interchangeable.69 With few exceptions, a majority of U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers reported that subject imports from different subject countries are “always” or “frequently” interchangeable.70 In comparisons with the domestic like product on 17 non‐price purchasing factors, pluralities or majorities of purchasers found the domestic like product comparable with subject imports from Australia on 15 factors, subject imports from Brazil on 12 factors, subject imports from Kazakhstan on 10 factors, and subject imports from Norway on 13 factors.71 Notably, majorities of purchasers found the domestic like product comparable with imports from each of the subject countries with respect to the factors of low‐boron content and whether quality meets industry standards.72 We acknowledge that in 2016 a *** of U.S. shipments of subject imports from Brazil were low‐boron content silicon metal, while the other subject countries had *** U.S. shipments of this product type and only *** percent of U.S. shipments of the domestic like product was of 68 None of the statutory exceptions to cumulation apply. We observe that these investigations involve dumping findings regarding silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway and subsidy findings regarding silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan. Consequently, any decision to cumulate imports from all subject sources in these investigations will involve “cross‐cumulating” dumped imports with subsidized imports. Wacker argues against cross‐cumulation. Wacker’s Prehearing Brief at 16‐18. We have previously explained why we are continuing our longstanding practice of cross‐cumulating. See Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin from Canada, China, India, and Oman, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐531‐532 and 731‐TA‐1270‐1273 (Final), USITC Pub. 4604 at 9‐11 (April 2016); Circular Welded Carbon‐Quality Steel Pipe from India, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐482 to 484 (Final), USITC Pub. 4362 at 12 n.59 (Dec. 2012); Softwood Lumber from Canada, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐414 and 731‐ TA‐928 (Final), USITC Pub. 3509 at 29‐31 (May 2009); Bingham & Taylor v. United States, 815 F.2d 982 (Fed. Cir. 1987). 69 CR/PR at Table II‐10. The two reporting U.S. producers were evenly divided between finding the domestic like product and subject imports from Kazakhstan as “always” and “sometimes” interchangeable. Id. 70 CR/PR at Table II‐10. The two reporting U.S. producers were evenly divided in finding subject imports from Kazakhstan as “always” or “sometimes” interchangeable with subject imports from each of the subject countries. Id. Among the six U.S. purchasers comparing subject imports from Brazil and Norway, three reported that they are “always” interchangeable and three reported they are “sometimes” interchangeable. Id. 71 CR/PR at Table II‐9. 72 CR/PR at Table II‐9. 14 this type.73 However, U.S. shipments of subject imports from Brazil of metallurgical grade silicon metal in 2016 were *** in volume, and this product type comprised a *** of U.S. shipments of the domestic like product and between *** percent of shipments of subject imports from Australia, Kazakhstan, and Norway.74 Consequently, the record indicates that both the domestic like product and appreciable quantities of imports from each of the four subject countries are of metallurgical grade silicon metal, notwithstanding the arguments of Respondents that subject imports from Brazil and Kazakhstan are unique products. In light of this, and the general perceptions of interchangeability and comparability between and among the domestic like product and imports from each of the four subject countries, the record indicates that there is sufficient fungibility among and between the domestic like product and subject imports from each subject country to meet the reasonable overlap standard. Channels of Distribution. *** of U.S. commercial shipments by U.S. producers and importers were to end users.75 However, the record indicates that there are differences in the end users to which these products were shipped. The domestic like product and subject imports from Brazil were shipped *** to polysilicon and other chemical producers, subject imports from Australia and Kazakhstan were shipped *** to secondary aluminum producers, and subject imports from Norway were shipped primarily to a mix of *** and ***.76 Despite these differences, the record indicates an overlap in shipments to secondary aluminum producers. The share of subject imports from Brazil that was shipped to secondary aluminum producers, in terms of percentage, was *** when compared to that of other subject imports and the domestic like product, but the absolute volume of these shipments was *** 73 CR/PR at Table IV‐5. We observe that Dow was the only *** in 2016. Compare Dow’s U.S. Importers’ Questionnaire at II‐6c with CR/PR at Table IV‐5. Petitioner asserts that the domestic industry is capable of producing low‐boron silicon metal. Hearing Tr. at 40 (Huck); Globe’s Posthearing Brief, Attachment A at 12. 74 CR/PR at Table IV‐5. In 2016, the U.S. shipment volume of metallurgical grade subject imports was *** for Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway, respectively. The volume of U.S. shipments in this product segment by U.S. producers was ***. Id. As a share of U.S. shipment volume of silicon metal, metallurgical grade silicon metal accounted for *** of the domestic industry’s shipments, *** percent of subject imports from Australia, *** percent of subject imports from Brazil, *** percent of subject imports from Kazakhstan, and *** percent of subject imports from Norway. Id. 75 CR/PR at Table II‐1. 76 CR/PR at Tables II‐1, IV‐7. In 2016, *** percent of the domestic like product was shipped to polysilicon and other chemical producers, *** percent to primary aluminum producers, and *** percent to secondary aluminum producers; *** percent of subject imports from Australia were shipped to polysilicon and other chemical producers, *** percent to primary aluminum producers, and *** percent to secondary aluminum producers; *** percent of subject imports from Brazil were shipped to polysilicon and other chemical producers, *** percent to primary aluminum producers, and *** percent to secondary aluminum producers; *** percent of subject imports from Kazakhstan were shipped to primary aluminum producers and *** percent to secondary aluminum producers; and *** percent of subject imports from Norway were shipped to polysilicon and other chemical producer, *** percent to secondary aluminum producers, and *** percent to other end users. Id. 15 compared to other subject sources.77 Consequently, the record indicates an overlap of channels of distribution between the domestic like product and subject imports from all sources, including Brazil and Kazakhstan. We also observe that the record contains numerous pricing observations furnished by importers of subject imports from Brazil.78 Indeed, several purchasers identified instances where subject imports from Brazil competed directly with the domestic like product.79 Therefore, although Respondents argue that subject imports from Brazil serve a unique channel of distribution because the majority of these imports are internally consumed by Dow, this argument does not address the substantial volume of subject imports from Brazil that are sold in the merchant market with the domestic like product and other subject imports. Geographic Overlap. Domestically produced silicon metal is sold nationwide. The record indicates that subject imports from each of the four subject countries serve the Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, and Pacific Coast regions. Additionally, the Central Southwest region was served by subject imports from Brazil and Kazakhstan, and the Mountains region was served by subject imports from Brazil.80 The record thus establishes that subject imports from all sources and the domestic like product serve overlapping geographic regions. Simultaneous Presence in Market. The domestic like product was present in the U.S. market throughout the POI. 81 Subject imports from Australia, Brazil, and Norway were present in the U.S. market in every month of the POI. Subject imports from Kazakhstan were not present in the U.S. market during the entirety of 2014 and four months in 2015, but were present for all but one of the last 31 months (entirety of 2016 and interim 2017) of the POI. 82 Consequently, the domestic like product and imports from each subject country were simultaneously present in the U.S. market throughout the bulk of the POI. Conclusion. As the prior discussion indicates, notwithstanding Respondents’ arguments, the record supports a finding that imports from each subject country and the domestic like product are sufficiently fungible, serve overlapping channels of distribution and geographic regions, and were simultaneously present in the market such that they meet the reasonable overlap standard. Accordingly, we cumulate imports from all four subject countries for our analysis of material injury by reason of subject imports. 77 Compare CR/PR at Table II‐1 with CR/PR at Table IV‐10. See also CR/PR at Table IV‐7. For this reason, we are not persuaded by Respondents’ argument that subject imports from Brazil or Kazakhstan do not share the same channels of distribution with subject imports from Australia or Norway based on the type of end user to which those subject imports are primarily shipped. 78 CR/PR at Tables V‐3 to V‐5. 79 CR/PR at Table V‐11. 80 CR/PR at Table II‐2. 81 CR/PR at Table III‐7. 82 CR/PR at Table IV‐8. 16 V. No Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports A. Legal Standards In the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, the Commission determines whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of the imports under investigation. 83 In making this determination, the Commission must consider the volume of subject imports, their effect on prices for the domestic like product, and their impact on domestic producers of the domestic like product, but only in the context of U.S. production operations. 84 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.” 85 In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject imports, we consider all relevant economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United States.86 No single factor is dispositive, and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.” 87 Although the statute requires the Commission to determine whether the domestic industry is “materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of” unfairly traded imports, 88 it does not define the phrase “by reason of,” indicating that this aspect of the injury analysis is left to the Commission’s reasonable exercise of its discretion.89 In identifying a causal link, if any, between subject imports and material injury to the domestic industry, the Commission examines the facts of record that relate to the significance of the volume and price effects of the subject imports and any impact of those imports on the condition of the domestic industry. This evaluation under the “by reason of” standard must ensure that subject imports are more than a minimal or tangential cause of injury and that there is a sufficient causal, not merely a temporal, nexus between subject imports and material injury.90 83 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b), 1673d(b). The Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114‐27, amended the provisions of the Tariff Act pertaining to Commission determinations of material injury and threat of material injury by reason of subject imports in certain respects. We have applied these amendments here. 84 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B). The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the determination” but shall “identify each {such} factor ... and explain in full its relevance to the determination.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B). 85 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A). 86 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). 87 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). 88 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(a), 1673d(a). 89 Angus Chemical Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478, 1484‐85 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“{T}he statute does not ‘compel the commissioners’ to employ {a particular methodology}.”), aff’g, 944 F. Supp. 943, 951 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996). 90 The Federal Circuit, in addressing the causation standard of the statute, observed that “{a}s long as its effects are not merely incidental, tangential, or trivial, the foreign product sold at less than fair value meets the causation requirement.” Nippon Steel Corp. v. USITC, 345 F.3d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003). This was further ratified in Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867, 873 (Fed. (Continued...) 17 In many investigations, there are other economic factors at work, some or all of which may also be having adverse effects on the domestic industry. Such economic factors might include nonsubject imports; changes in technology, demand, or consumer tastes; competition among domestic producers; or management decisions by domestic producers. The legislative history explains that the Commission must examine factors other than subject imports to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other factors to the subject imports, thereby inflating an otherwise tangential cause of injury into one that satisfies the statutory material injury threshold. 91 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports. 92 Nor does the “by reason of” standard require that unfairly traded imports be the “principal” cause of injury or contemplate that injury from unfairly traded imports be weighed against other factors, such as nonsubject imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.93 It is clear (…Continued) Cir. 2008), where the Federal Circuit, quoting Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997), stated that “this court requires evidence in the record ‘to show that the harm occurred “by reason of” the LTFV imports, not by reason of a minimal or tangential contribution to material harm caused by LTFV goods.’” See also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 91 SAA at 851‐52 (“{T}he Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.”); S. Rep. 96‐249 at 75 (1979) (the Commission “will consider information which indicates that harm is caused by factors other than less‐ than‐fair‐value imports.”); H.R. Rep. 96‐317 at 47 (1979) (“in examining the overall injury being experienced by a domestic industry, the ITC will take into account evidence presented to it which demonstrates that the harm attributed by the petitioner to the subsidized or dumped imports is attributable to such other factors;” those factors include “the volume and prices of nonsubsidized imports or imports sold at fair value, contraction in demand or changes in patterns of consumption, trade restrictive practices of and competition between the foreign and domestic producers, developments in technology and the export performance and productivity of the domestic industry”); accord Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877. 92 SAA at 851‐52 (“{T}he Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfair imports.”); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n, 266 F.3d at 1345 (“{T}he Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfair imports ... . Rather, the Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.” (emphasis in original)); Asociacion de Productores de Salmon y Trucha de Chile AG v. United States, 180 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1375 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“{t}he Commission is not required to isolate the effects of subject imports from other factors contributing to injury” or make “bright‐line distinctions” between the effects of subject imports and other causes.); see also Softwood Lumber from Canada, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐414 and 731‐TA‐928 (Remand), USITC Pub. 3658 at 100‐01 (Dec. 2003) (Commission recognized that “{i}f an alleged other factor is found not to have or threaten to have injurious effects to the domestic industry, i.e., it is not an ‘other causal factor,’ then there is nothing to further examine regarding attribution to injury”), citing Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722 (the statute “does not suggest that an importer of LTFV goods can escape countervailing duties by finding some tangential or minor cause unrelated to the LTFV goods that contributed to the harmful effects on domestic market prices.”). 93 S. Rep. 96‐249 at 74‐75; H.R. Rep. 96‐317 at 47. 18 that the existence of injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination. 94 Assessment of whether material injury to the domestic industry is “by reason of” subject imports “does not require the Commission to address the causation issue in any particular way” as long as “the injury to the domestic industry can reasonably be attributed to the subject imports” and the Commission “ensure{s} that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.” 95 Indeed, the Federal Circuit has examined and affirmed various Commission methodologies and has disavowed “rigid adherence to a specific formula.” 96 The Federal Circuit’s decisions in Gerald Metals, Bratsk, and Mittal Steel all involved cases where the relevant “other factor” was the presence in the market of significant volumes of price‐competitive nonsubject imports. The Commission interpreted the Federal Circuit’s guidance in Bratsk as requiring it to apply a particular additional methodology following its finding of material injury in cases involving commodity products and a significant market presence of price‐competitive nonsubject imports. 97 The additional “replacement/benefit” test looked at whether nonsubject imports might have replaced subject imports without any benefit to the U.S. industry. The Commission applied that specific additional test in subsequent cases, including the Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago determination that underlies the Mittal Steel litigation. Mittal Steel clarifies that the Commission’s interpretation of Bratsk was too rigid and makes clear that the Federal Circuit does not require the Commission to apply an additional test nor any one specific methodology; instead, the court requires the Commission to have “evidence in the record” to “show that the harm occurred ‘by reason of’ the LTFV imports,” and requires that the Commission not attribute injury from nonsubject imports or other factors to subject imports. 98 Accordingly, we do not consider ourselves required to apply the replacement/benefit test that was included in Commission opinions subsequent to Bratsk. 94 See Nippon Steel Corp., 345 F.3d at 1381 (“an affirmative material‐injury determination under the statute requires no more than a substantial‐factor showing. That is, the ‘dumping’ need not be the sole or principal cause of injury.”). 95 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877‐78; see also id. at 873 (“While the Commission may not enter an affirmative determination unless it finds that a domestic industry is materially injured ‘by reason of’ subject imports, the Commission is not required to follow a single methodology for making that determination ... {and has} broad discretion with respect to its choice of methodology.”) citing United States Steel Group v. United States, 96 F.3d 1352, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and S. Rep. 96‐249 at 75. In its decision in Swiff‐Train v. United States, 793 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s causation analysis as comporting with the Court’s guidance in Mittal. 96 Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331, 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 879 (“Bratsk did not read into the antidumping statute a Procrustean formula for determining whether a domestic injury was ‘by reason’ of subject imports.”). 97 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 875‐79. 98 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873 (quoting from Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722), 875‐79 & n.2 (recognizing the Commission’s alternative interpretation of Bratsk as a reminder to conduct a non‐ attribution analysis). 19 The progression of Gerald Metals, Bratsk, and Mittal Steel clarifies that, in cases involving commodity products where price‐competitive nonsubject imports are a significant factor in the U.S. market, the Court will require the Commission to give full consideration, with adequate explanation, to non‐attribution issues when it performs its causation analysis. 99 The question of whether the material injury threshold for subject imports is satisfied notwithstanding any injury from other factors is factual, subject to review under the substantial evidence standard.100 Congress has delegated this factual finding to the Commission because of the agency’s institutional expertise in resolving injury issues.101 B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle The following conditions of competition inform our analysis of whether there is material injury by reason of subject imports.102 99 To that end, after the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Bratsk, the Commission began to present published information or send out information requests in the final phase of investigations to producers in nonsubject countries that accounted for substantial shares of U.S. imports of subject merchandise (if, in fact, there were large nonsubject import suppliers). In order to provide a more complete record for the Commission’s causation analysis, these requests typically seek information on capacity, production, and shipments of the product under investigation in the major source countries that export to the United States. The Commission plans to continue utilizing published or requested information in the final phase of investigations in which there are substantial levels of nonsubject imports.100 We provide in our discussion below a full analysis of other factors alleged to have caused any material injury experienced by the domestic industry. 101 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873; Nippon Steel Corp., 458 F.3d at 1350, citing U.S. Steel Group, 96 F.3d at 1357; S. Rep. 96‐249 at 75 (“The determination of the ITC with respect to causation is ... complex and difficult, and is a matter for the judgment of the ITC.”). 102 We find that the captive production provision at 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iv) does not apply in these investigations in the context of transfers from ***. Both the Petitioner and Respondents state that the captive production provision does not apply on the bases that the transfers are not internal transfers and silicon metal is not a predominant material input in downstream production. Hearing Tr. at 97 (Schaefermeir), 174 (Bay). We agree with the parties’ contentions. Notwithstanding the issue of whether the transfer between *** is an internal transfer, the second statutory criterion is not met. Silicon metal is used in a wide array of products and silicon metal accounts for a wide—and frequently low—range of the share of cost of the end use products. See CR at III‐19, PR at III‐9 (silicon metal accounts for approximately five percent of the finished cost in a wide range of end‐use products, including electronics, solar panels, adhesives, resins, lubricants, plastomers, anti‐foaming agents, and water‐repellent compounds), CR at II‐15, PR at II‐ 7 (reported cost shares for producers of downstream products); ***’s U.S. Purchasers’ Questionnaire at III‐3 (***). Therefore, the record does not contain sufficient information to support a conclusion that silicon metal is the “predominant” material input in the downstream products in which it is used. 20 1. Demand Conditions Demand for silicon metal is a function of the demand for the downstream products that use silicon metal as an input for production. The primary users of silicon metal are chemical and polysilicon producers, and primary and secondary aluminum producers. Chemical end uses include chlorosilanes, polysilicon, sealants, silicones, and silicone adhesive sealants. Aluminum end uses include aluminum alloys, aluminum castings, and various foundry ingots. 103 Market participants had mixed perspectives on demand trends during the POI. A *** of U.S. producers reported that U.S. demand for silicon metal decreased, while a plurality of importers and purchasers reported U.S. demand increased.104 Apparent U.S. consumption of silicon metal declined overall by *** percent from 2014 to 2016. It declined by *** percent between 2014 and 2015, from *** short tons in 2014 to *** short tons in 2015, and increased *** in 2016 to *** short tons. Apparent U.S. consumption was *** higher in interim 2017 (*** short tons) than in interim 2016 (*** short tons). 105 2. Supply Conditions The U.S. market is supplied by the domestic industry, the excluded U.S. producer DC Alabama, subject imports, and nonsubject imports. The domestic industry was the largest source of supply to the U.S. market during the POI. Its share of apparent U.S. consumption, as measured by quantity, increased in every year during the POI and was relatively stable between interim periods. It increased from *** percent in 2014 to *** percent in 2015 and *** percent in 2016; it was *** percent in interim 2016 and *** percent in interim 2017. DC Alabama’s market share increased overall during the POI, it was *** percent in 2014, *** percent in 2015, *** percent in 2016, *** percent in interim 2016, and *** percent in interim 2017. 106 The domestic industry consists of two producers, Globe and MS Silicon. MS Silicon is a recent entrant to the U.S. market. Its decision to enter the market was made prior to the beginning of the POI, as it closed on its financial commitments on ***. The Mississippi facility began production on *** and it started a ***.107 In December 2015, Globe merged with Spain‐ based Grupo FerroAtlántica to form Ferroglobe PLC. 108 As indicated in Section III, Dow and Globe entered into a joint venture agreement in 2009 to form WVA. 109 103 CR at II‐15, PR at II‐7. 104 CR/PR at Table II‐4. Almost as many importers stated U.S. demand was unchanged or had decreased as stated it had increased. Id. 105 CR/PR at Table IV‐10. 106 CR/PR at Table C‐3. 107 CR/PR at Tables III‐1 and III‐4. MS Silicon’s production spiked from *** short tons in 2015 to *** short tons in 2016; its production was *** short tons in interim 2017 and *** short tons in 2016. CR/PR at Table III‐5. 108 CR/PR at Table III‐1. 109 Dow’s Prehearing Brief at 14; Wacker’s Prehearing Brief at 15. 21 The domestic industry’s production capacity increased from *** short tons in 2014 to *** short tons in 2015 and *** short tons in 2016. 110 Petitioner asserts that silicon metal production is capital intensive and domestic producers must maintain high levels of capacity utilization. 111 In addition to the changes in MS Silicon’s capacity described above, Globe shut down its ***.112 Cumulated subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption fluctuated from 2014 to 2016 with little overall change and was higher in interim 2017 than interim 2016. The subject imports’ share of the market declined from *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2014 to *** percent in 2015, and subsequently increased to *** percent in 2016. It was *** percent in interim 2016 and *** percent in interim 2017. 113 As mentioned in Section III, certain subject producers are affiliated with domestic producers.114 Nonsubject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption declined overall during the POI. It increased from *** percent in 2014 to *** percent in 2015 and subsequently declined to *** percent in 2016. It was *** percent in interim 2016 and lower, at *** percent, in interim 2017. South Africa and Canada were the leading nonsubject sources of U.S. silicon metal imports in 2016. 115 Global producer FerroGlobe has subsidiary producers in Canada, China, France, South Africa, and Spain. 116 We also observe that there are two outstanding U.S. antidumping duty orders against silicon metal imports from China and Russia.117 3. Substitutability and Other Conditions The record indicates a high degree of substitutability between domestically produced silicon metal and subject imports, but chemical characteristics and supplier reliability may affect 110 CR/PR at Table C‐3. Capacity was *** short tons in interim 2016, and higher, at *** short tons, in interim 2017. Id. 111 Hearing Tr. at 23 (Huck); Globe’s Prehearing Brief at 16; Globe’s Posthearing Brief at 4. 112 CR/PR at Table III‐4. Several purchasers reported that Globe’s closure of production sites and *** conversion to ferrosilicon production reduced supplies and sometimes disrupted deliveries that had been contractually agreed upon. *** reported that Globe was unable to fulfill contracted volumes in 2015 and that deliveries were delayed until 2016. U.S. purchasers *** reported that U.S. producer MS Silicon either missed shipments in 2017 or was unable to supply silicon metal in required volumes. CR at II‐13, PR at II‐6. 113 CR/PR at Table C‐3. 114 CR/PR at Table III‐3. Subject producer in Brazil *** shares common ownership with MS Silicon, and subject producer in Brazil *** is wholly owned by Dow. Id. 115 CR at VII‐49 to VII‐50, VII‐52, PR at VII‐31 to VII‐32, VII‐34. The market share of nonsubject imports from South Africa increased from *** percent in 2014 to *** percent in 2015, and subsequently declined to *** percent in 2016, and *** percent in interim 2017; and nonsubject imports from Canada increased from *** percent in 2014 to *** percent in 2015 and *** percent in 2016, and it was *** percent in interim 2017. CR/PR at Table C‐1. 116 CR/PR at Table III‐3. 117 CR at I‐8, PR at I‐6. The order on silicon metal from China is currently the subject of a five‐ year review. See Silicon Metal from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐472 (Fourth Review). 22 the level of substitutability.118 Generally speaking, the majority of market participants reported that domestically produced silicon metal and imports from each of the subject countries are “always” or “frequently” interchangeable.119 The record indicates that price was the factor most frequently ranked as one of the top three purchasing factors, and over half of reporting purchasers rated price as a “very important” factor. Nevertheless, quality was the factor most frequently named as the most important purchasing factor and more purchasers rated availability, product consistency, quality meets industry standards, and reliability of supply than price as “very important” factors.120 Consequently, while price is an important factor in purchasing decisions, other factors are important as well. Silicon metal is produced from mined quartz with other inputs including coal or charcoal, woodchips, and electrodes. 121 From 2015 to 2016, reported unit raw material costs declined for the domestic industry; these costs were higher in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. 122 Nevertheless, *** in the domestic industry stated that raw material price changes did not affect silicon metal prices.123 Electricity is also a significant input cost. 124 Retail electricity prices decreased overall (when compared to the same month in the prior year) during 2014 to 2016, but increased in interim 2017. 125 A *** of the domestic industry’s U.S. commercial shipments and the *** of U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports in 2016 were based on annual contracts; *** percent of the domestic industry’s U.S. commercial shipments and 18.2 percent of subject import U.S. commercial shipments were spot sales.126 Contracts are generally negotiated or competitively bid during a “mating season” that occurs in the fourth quarter of the calendar year for shipments in the following year.127 Contract prices are sometimes determined based on a formula that accounts for data from published price indices, which are readily available to purchasers.128 While these published indexes primarily reflect product sold to secondary aluminum producers, purchasers in all sectors reference these indices.129 118 CR at II‐19, PR at II‐9. 119 CR/PR at Table II‐10. The two reporting U.S. producers were evenly divided between finding the domestic like product and subject imports from Kazakhstan as “always” and “sometimes” interchangeable. Id. 120 CR/PR at Table II‐6, II‐7. 121 CR/PR at V‐1. 122 CR/PR at Table VI‐3. 123 CR at V‐2, PR at V‐1. 124 See CR/PR at Table VI‐3. 125 CR at V‐2, PR at V‐1. 126 CR/PR at Table V‐2. 127 Hearing Tr. at 35 (Perkins). 128 CR/PR at V‐4. *** and seven out of 13 responding importers reported that some of their contract prices are based on silicon price indexes published by Platts or CRU. CR at V‐7, PR at V‐5. 129 CR at V‐5, PR at V‐4. 23 C. Volume of Subject Imports Section 771(7)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act provides that the “Commission shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States, is significant.” 130 The absolute volume of cumulated subject imports decreased overall from 2014 to 2016. The volume decreased from 118,454 short tons in 2014 to 91,381 short tons in 2015, and subsequently increased to 111,597 short tons in 2016; the volume was 80,866 short tons in interim 2016 and 101,253 short tons in interim 2017. 131 Subject import market share fluctuated from 2014 to 2016 with little overall change and was higher in interim 2017 than interim 2016. The market penetration of cumulated subject imports declined from *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2014 to *** percent in 2015 before increasing to *** percent in 2016, and their market share was *** percent and *** percent in interim 2016 and interim 2017, respectively.132 Although subject imports gained market share over the POI, particularly later in the period, the domestic industry’s market share increased from 2014 to 2016 and showed relatively minor fluctuations between the interim periods. Therefore, the subject imports’ market share gains in 2016 and interim 2017 came overwhelmingly at the expense of nonsubject imports. 133 In light of the above, we find the volume of subject imports to be significant in absolute terms and relative to consumption in the United States. However, for the reasons we discuss below, we do not find that the subject imports caused significant price effects or had a significant impact on the domestic industry. D. Price Effects of the Subject Imports Section 771(7)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act provides that, in evaluating the price effects of the subject imports, the Commission shall consider whether (I) there has been significant price underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the price of domestic like products of the United States, and 130 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i). 131 CR/PR at Table IV‐2. 132 CR/PR at Table C‐3. 133 See CR/PR at Table C‐3. Nonsubject import market share was *** percent in 2014, *** percent in 2015, and *** percent in 2016; it was *** percent and *** percent in interim 2016 and interim 2017, respectively. The domestic industry’s market share was *** percent in 2014, *** percent in 2015, and *** percent in 2016; it was *** percent and *** percent in interim 2016 and interim 2017, respectively. 24 (II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree.134 As explained above, there is a high degree of substitutability between domestically produced silicon metal and the subject imports, but chemical characteristics and supplier reliability may affect the level of interchangeability.135 Additionally, price is one of several important factors in purchasing decisions. 136 The Commission collected quarterly pricing data from U.S. producers and importers for three silicon metal products.137 The pricing data accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. commercial shipments of silicon metal in 2016. Pricing data reported by importers accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports from Australia, *** percent of U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports from Brazil, *** U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports from Kazakhstan, and *** percent of U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports from Norway in 2016. 138 Pricing Product 2, the product sold to secondary aluminum producers, had the largest number of importer pricing observations and accounted for the vast majority of shipments reported in connection with such pricing observations. 139 By contrast, pricing Product 3, the product sold to chemical and polysilicon producers, had the largest quantity of shipments of domestic product reported in connection with pricing observations. There were few reported pricing observations for imported Product 3; the record, however, contains landed duty‐paid values and quantities for direct imports used for internal consumption for Product 3 that encompass substantial quantities for every quarter of the POI. 140 The record as a whole indicates mixed instances of overselling and underselling by the cumulated subject imports. Comparisons based on the available importer pricing data indicate predominant underselling. Cumulated subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 66 of 88 quarterly price comparisons (98,913 short tons) at margins ranging from *** to *** 134 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii). 135 CR at II‐19, PR at II‐9. 136 CR/PR at Tables II‐6 to II‐7. 137 The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers to provide quarterly pricing data for the following product types: Product 1—Sold to primary aluminum producers; silicon metal less than 99.99% pure that contains a minimum of 98.5% silicon, a maximum of 1.00% iron, a maximum of 0.07% calcium, and no restriction of the aluminum content. Product 2—Sold to secondary aluminum producers; silicon metal less than 99.99% pure that contains a minimum of 97.0% silicon, a maximum of 2.00% iron, a maximum of 0.4% calcium, and no restriction of the aluminum content. Product 3—Sold to chemical and/or polysilicon manufacturers; silicon metal less than 99.99% pure that contains a minimum of 98.0% silicon, a maximum of 1.50% iron, a maximum of 0.2% calcium, and a maximum of 0.4% aluminum. CR at V‐9, PR at V‐6. 138 CR at V‐10, PR at V‐7. 139 See CR/PR at Table V‐8. 140 See CR/PR at Tables V‐3 to V‐6. Only *** quantities of direct imports of Products 1 and 2 were reported. CR at V‐19 n.15, PR at V‐8 n.15. 25 percent, and oversold the domestic product in the remaining 22 comparisons (31,316 short tons), with margins ranging from *** percent. By volume, most of the underselling was in Product 2, the product with the largest volume of subject import shipments reported in pricing comparisons. 141 Given the significant volume of subject imports accounted for in the direct import data, we also examined direct imports of Product 3 in our pricing analysis.142 Among 33 quarterly comparisons between Product 3 direct import costs and Product 3 prices for the domestic like product, the direct import purchase costs were higher in 24 quarters (*** short tons), and were lower in 9 quarters (*** short tons). 143 We recognize that the direct import purchase cost data and U.S. producer pricing data may not be directly comparable because the direct import purchase cost data do not necessarily capture the total cost associated with importing; thus, if anything, direct import purchase cost data may understate the total cost to the purchaser.144 In light of this, we find that the data indicating that direct import costs were more frequently higher than U.S. producer prices for Product 3—the pricing product that accounts for the *** of shipments of both subject imports and the domestic like product—militate against any finding of predominant underselling based solely on the pricing data and instead the record supports a finding of mixed overselling and underselling.145 This finding is also supported by information in the record that most purchasers reported that the domestic like product and imports from each 141 CR/PR at Table V‐8. Subject imports undersold the domestic like product for Product 1 in all 29 quarterly comparisons (25,050 short tons). Subject imports undersold the domestic like product for Product 2 in 32 out of 53 quarterly comparisons (72,325 short tons). Subject imports undersold the domestic like product for Product 3 in five out of six quarterly comparisons (1,538 short tons). Id. 142 In prior investigations, we have examined direct import data in our underselling analysis when we find it important to understanding pricing in the market as a whole. See, e.g., Tool Chests and Cabinets from China, Inv. No. 701‐TA‐575 (Final), USITC Pub. 4753 at 40 n.149 (Jan. 2018). 143 Derived from CR/PR at Table V‐6. 144 See Tool Chests and Cabinets, USITC Pub. 4753 at 40 n.149. Consequently, we are not persuaded by Dow’s argument that direct imports and sales to unrelated parties are not comparable due to any differences in the level of trade. As is our customary practice, we asked the importer to provide additional costs that would be associated with importing but may not be reflected in direct import costs. We observe that costs associated with Dow’s direct imports were relatively small, at *** percent of landed duty‐paid value. See Dow’s U.S. Importers’ Questionnaire at III‐3f(i). 145 Petitioner argues that Dow’s reported direct import cost data is based on its own purchase price from unrelated suppliers during the prior year, and therefore, due to a decline in prices from 2015 to 2016, as reflected in the published price index, the reported purchase cost data for 2016 into 2017 are overvalued when comparing same quarterly prices. Globe’s Posthearing Brief, Attachment A at 37‐ 39. We are not persuaded that Dow’s direct import cost is overvalued for 2016 and 2017. We observe that the prices for the direct imports from Brazil show a similar trend as most of the other pricing products—with price declines starting in 2015 and a prominent drop in the first quarter of 2016. See generally CR/PR at Tables V‐3 to V‐6. Thus, the quarterly direct import costs of subject imports from Brazil do not deviate from prices for those products. Moreover, there is no indication in the record that the reported values are inaccurate or misreported. Therefore, we find that direct import pricing data from Dow are probative for our analysis. 26 of the four subject countries are comparable in terms of price.146 Hence, we do not find that the underselling by subject imports was significant. We also examined pricing trends, including the extent to which they correlated with subject import volumes. Prices for the domestic like product generally increased in 2014, began to decline in 2015, sustained particularly steep declines in 2016, and generally increased in interim 2017. 147 In 2015, when prices for the domestic like product started to decline, the volume of cumulated subject imports declined by *** percent. 148 Declines in subject import shipments during 2015 were largely a function of declining shipments of direct imports of Product 3 from Brazil, which were valued lower than domestic Product 3 prices in all quarters of that year.149 In 2016, when prices for the domestic like product fell to their lowest levels, cumulated subject imports increased in volume and market share.150 Similar to the decline in subject import volume in 2015, the increase in cumulated subject import volume in 2016 was largely a function of shipments of direct imports of Product 3 from Brazil, which increased in 2016 and had higher purchase costs than U.S. producer prices in the last three quarters of that year.151 Consequently, the record does not indicate any correlation between subject import volumes or price levels and the declines in prices for the domestic like product during 2015 and 2016. Moreover, only *** reported that U.S. producers reduced prices in order to compete with subject imports. 152 We therefore find that the cumulated imports did not depress prices of the domestic like product to a significant degree. 146 CR/PR at Table II‐9. 147 Domestic Product 1 prices peaked in the first quarter of 2016 at $*** per short ton, declined sharply in the third quarter of that year at $*** per short ton and continued to decline to a period low of $*** per short ton in the first quarter of 2017. Domestic Product 2 prices peaked in the third quarter of 2014 at $*** per short ton, with consistent declines until the fourth quarter of 2015 at $*** per short ton, declined sharply in the first quarter of 2016 at $*** per short tons, and continued to decline to a period low of $*** per short ton in the fourth quarter of 2016. Similar to Product 2, domestic Product 3 prices peaked in the fourth quarter of 2014 at $*** per short ton, with consistent declines until the fourth quarter of 2015 at $*** per short ton, declined sharply in the first quarter of 2016 at $*** per short ton, and continued to decline to a period‐low of $*** per short ton in the first quarter of 2017. Prices for all three products increased in interim 2017. CR/PR at Tables V‐3 to V‐5. 148 CR/PR at Table IV‐9. 149 CR/PR at Tables IV‐9 and V‐6. The cumulated volume of subject imports decreased in 2015 by *** short tons while direct imports of Product 3 from Brazil decreased by *** short tons. 150 CR/PR at Table C‐3. As explained above, however, the subject imports’ gain in market share did not come at the expense of the domestic industry, which also increased its market share during this time. 151 CR/PR at Table V‐6. In 2016, direct imports from Brazil of Product 3 increased by *** short tons while the cumulated volume of subject imports increased by *** short tons. See CR/PR at Tables V‐ 6 and IV‐11. 152 CR/PR at Table V‐13. Seven purchasers reported that U.S. producers did not reduce prices to compete with subject imports while the majority of reporting purchasers reported that they did not know whether U.S. producers had reduced prices to compete with subject imports. CR at V‐33, PR at V‐ 11. 27 Instead, other conditions of competition in the market correspond more closely with the price declines that occurred during the POI. Initially, apparent U.S. consumption declined by *** percent in 2015 and remained relatively flat in 2016. 153 Moreover, the steep declines in prices for the domestic like product during 2016 came during a period of increased intra‐ industry competition in the U.S. market. MS Silicon had not started production in 2014 when U.S. prices, as well as the volume of subject imports, were generally at their highest levels.154 MS Silicon began making U.S. commercial shipments when it entered the U.S. market in the fourth quarter of 2015, which was right before the sharp U.S price declines that generally started in the first quarter of 2016. 155 MS Silicon’s U.S. commercial shipments also substantially increased in the first quarter of 2016 and remained at substantial levels for the remaining quarters in that year.156 During 2016, MS Silicon also cut prices from previous levels, and specifically offered products at lower prices than Globe. 157 As MS Silicon cut prices, so did Globe. 158 Consequently, the record indicates that that there is a correlation between: (a) MS Silicon’s entry into the U.S. market in 2015 and its increased presence in 2016, and (b) the decline in prices for the domestic like product during that period, particularly in 2016. 159 153 CR/PR at Table C‐1. 154 CR/PR at Tables III‐4, III‐5, and IV‐9. While U.S. producer prices for Product 1 peaked in the first quarter of 2016, U.S. producer prices for both Product 2 and Product 3 peaked in the fourth quarter of 2014. Product 1 by far had the least quantity of shipments of the domestic product among the three pricing products. See generally CR/PR at Tables V‐3 to V‐5. 155 Data Spreadsheets with Summation and Company‐Specific Data, Tab 102 at 31, EDIS Doc. No. 639254. U.S. producer prices for Product 2 and Product 3 started to decline sharply in the first quarter of 2016 while U.S. producer prices for Product 1 started to decline sharply in the third quarter of 2016. CR/PR at Tables V‐3 to V‐5. As indicated in section V.B.2., the market was aware of MS Silicon’s entry into the U.S. market because the decision was made prior to the beginning of the POI and the construction of its production facility started in ***. See CR/PR at Tables III‐1 and III‐4. 156 Data Spreadsheets with Summation and Company‐Specific Data, Tab 102 at 31, EDIS Doc. No. 639254; CR/PR at Table VI‐6. MS Silicon’s net sales, by quantity, were *** short tons in 2015 and *** short tons in 2016. CR/PR at Table VI‐6. MS Silicon overall had very minimal shipments of Product 1. For Product 2, MS Silicon had *** short tons of shipments in the fourth quarter of 2015 and *** short tons in the first quarter of 2016, which increased to *** short tons by the fourth quarter of 2016. For Product 3, MS Silicon had *** short tons of shipments in the fourth quarter of 2015 and *** short tons in the first quarter of 2016, which declined to *** short tons by the fourth quarter of 2016. EDIS Doc. No. 639254, Tab 102 at 31. 157 In 2016, MS Silicon offered lower prices than Globe in *** quarters for Product 2 and *** quarters for Product 3. Derived from Data Spreadsheets with Summation and Company‐Specific Data, Tab 102 at 31 and Tab 101 at 13, EDIS Doc. No. 639254. There were very minimal shipments of subject imports of Product 3 in 2016. CR/PR at Table V‐5. 158 Data Spreadsheets with Summation and Company‐Specific Data, Tab 102 at 31 and Tab 101 at 13, EDIS Doc. No. 639254. 159 While we acknowledge Petitioner’s contention that prices were already declining prior to MS Silicon’s entry in 2015, the degree of decline was not as sharp as that in 2016. Prices declined precipitously in 2016 when MS Silicon substantially increased its shipments. See Globe’s Posthearing Brief at 17‐18; EDIS Doc. No. 639254, Tab 102 at 31. In addition, apparent U.S. consumption decreased (Continued...) 28 With regard to price suppression, we acknowledge that the domestic industry’s ratio of cost of goods sold (“COGS”) to net sales increased from *** percent in 2014 to *** percent in 2015 and *** percent in 2016. 160 The domestic industry’s unit COGS, however, declined in 2016, when domestic producers experienced the most significant increase in the COGS‐to‐net‐ sales ratio. 161 Additionally, demand for silicon metal declined after 2014, so the industry could not realistically expect to institute price increases over this period.162 Therefore, we find that subject imports did not have the effect of preventing price increases that would otherwise have occurred to a significant degree. In view of the foregoing, we find that the subject imports did not have the effect of depressing prices or preventing price increases for the domestic like product that would otherwise have occurred to a significant degree. While there was mixed underselling and some confirmed lost sales, 163 the domestic industry gained or maintained market share throughout the POI. Accordingly, we do not find that the subject imports caused significant price effects. (…Continued) significantly in 2015, which likely contributed to the price declines that occurred in that year. CR/PR at Table IV‐9. Furthermore, Petitioner’s argument does not establish a causal link between subject imports and price depression in 2015, as subject imports declined in 2015 while instances of subject import underselling were no more pervasive than in 2014, when U.S. prices were high. CR/PR at Tables IV‐9 and V‐3 to V‐5. Petitioner also argues that Globe changed its pricing practice for a few sales to be based on index pricing to avoid losing business to subject imports in 2016 because subject producers were offering prices at below benchmark by including discounts on the index price in their annual contracts. Hearing Tr. at 36‐37 (Perkins); Globe’s Prehearing Brief at 43. While we do not dispute that Globe may have offered discounts on the index price for certain sales, see Wacker’s Posthearing Brief, Exh. 6. (Globe CEO, Pedro Larrea, statements at Globe’s third quarter 2016 earnings call), the record does not suggest that subject producers offered such discounts. Furthermore, the record indicates that all U.S. producers and all but *** reported having no discount policy. CR at V‐8 to V‐9, PR at V‐6. Moreover, while purchasers in all sectors may reference these indices, the published index prices pertain only to secondary aluminum while the majority of domestic industry and subject imports’ sales and shipments are to chemical and/or polysilicon producers. See CR at V‐5, PR at V‐4; CR/PR at Tables IV‐7, V‐3 to V‐6. 160 CR/PR at Table C‐3. 161 Unit COGS declined from $*** per short ton in 2015 to $*** per short ton in 2016, a *** percent decline, while the COGS‐to‐net‐sales ratio increased by *** percentage points. CR/PR at Table C‐3. 162 CR/PR at Table C‐3. 163 CR/PR at Table V‐12. Twenty‐five out of 31 responding purchasers reported that they purchased subject imports instead of the domestic like product on at least one occasion for a total quantity of *** short tons. Fifteen reported that imports were priced lower and 11 reported that price was a primary reason for purchasing subject imports instead of the domestic like product. Id. 29 E. Impact of the Subject Imports164 Section 771(7)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act provides that examining the impact of subject imports, the Commission “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on the state of the industry.” 165 These factors include output, sales, inventories, capacity utilization, market share, employment, wages, productivity, gross profits, net profits, operating profits, cash flow, return on investment, return on capital, ability to raise capital, ability to service debts, research and development, and factors affecting domestic prices. No single factor is dispositive and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.” 166 Most of the domestic industry’s trade and employment figures increased or remained neutral over the POI. By contrast, the domestic industry’s financial indicators deteriorated.167 The domestic industry’s capacity and production increased during the POI, while capacity utilization fluctuated within a relatively narrow range.168 Its U.S. shipments increased 164 The statute instructs the Commission to consider the “magnitude of the dumping margin” in an antidumping proceeding as part of its consideration of the impact of imports. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii)(V). In its final antidumping duty determinations, Commerce found weighted‐average dumping margins of 41.73 percent to 51.28 percent for subject imports from Australia, 68.97 percent to 134.92 percent for subject imports from Brazil, and 3.22 percent for all subject imports from Norway. Silicon Metal from Australia: Affirmative Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part, 83 Fed. Reg. 9839 (Mar. 8, 2018); Silicon Metal From Brazil: Affirmative Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 83 Fed. Reg. 9835 (Mar. 8, 2018); Silicon Metal From Norway: Affirmative Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Final Determination of No Sales, and Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 83 Fed. Reg. 9829 (Mar. 8, 2018). We take into account in our analysis the fact that Commerce has made final findings that all subject producers in Australia, Brazil, and Norway are selling subject imports in the United States at less than fair value. In addition to this consideration, our impact analysis has considered other factors affecting domestic prices. Our analysis of the lack of significant underselling and price effects of subject imports, described in both the price effects discussion and below, is particularly probative to an assessment of the impact of the subject imports. 165 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851 and 885 (“In material injury determinations, the Commission considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they also may demonstrate that an industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.”). 166 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). This provision was amended by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114‐27. 167 Petitioner contends that Globe and MS Silicon were impacted in different ways. Therefore, Petitioner argues that the Commission should take into account the context of each individual U.S. producer when assessing the condition of the domestic industry. Hearing Tr. at 69‐70 (Lutz); Globe’s Posthearing Brief at 17‐18. However, as summarized above, Petitioner did not object to MS Silicon’s inclusion in the domestic industry. Moreover, the Commission is required to focus on injury incurred by the domestic industry “as a whole,” and not on injury to specific firms. See Comm. for Fair Coke Trade v. United States, 28 CIT 1140, 1167‐68 (2004). Therefore, we do not analyze the impact of subject imports on a firm‐specific basis. 30 overall during the POI, and its market share also increased, notwithstanding that its market share was *** lower in interim 2017 than interim 2016. 169 Its inventories increased from 2014 to 2016, and were lower in interim 2017 than interim 2016. 170 The number of production related workers, hours worked, and wages paid increased overall from 2014 to 2016 and were *** lower in interim 2017 than interim 2016. 171 By contrast, productivity declined from 2014 to 2016 and was higher in interim 2017 than interim 2016. 172 The domestic industry’s financial indicators deteriorated overall during the POI and declined sharply in 2016 coincident with the price declines that year. The quantity of net sales increased overall throughout the POI. 173 Sales revenues rose in 2015, declined in 2016, and were lower in interim 2017 than interim 2016 on an aggregate basis; average unit sales values followed the same trend. 174 Average unit COGS showed the same trends as unit sales values, but increased more rapidly from 2014 to 2015 and declined more sharply from 2015 to 2016. 175 (…Continued) 168 The domestic industry’s capacity was *** short tons in 2014, *** short tons in 2015, and *** short tons in 2016; it was *** short tons in interim 2016 and *** short tons in interim 2017. Its production was *** short tons in 2014, *** short tons in 2015, and *** short tons in 2016; it was *** short tons in interim 2016 and *** short tons in interim 2017. The domestic industry’s capacity utilization rate was *** percent in 2014, *** percent in 2015, *** percent in 2016; it was *** percent in interim 2016 and *** percent in interim 2017. CR/PR at Table C‐3. 169 U.S. shipments declined from *** short tons in 2014 to *** short tons in 2015, and subsequently increased to *** short tons in 2016; they were *** short tons in interim 2016 and *** short tons in interim 2017. The domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption increased from *** percent in 2014 to *** percent in 2015 to *** percent in 2016; it was *** percent in interim 2016 and *** percent in interim 2017. CR/PR at Table C‐3. 170 Ending inventories were *** short tons in 2014, *** short tons in 2015, and *** short tons in 2016; they were *** short tons in interim 2016 and *** short tons in interim 2017. CR/PR at Table C‐3. 171 The number of production related workers was *** in 2014, *** in 2015, and *** in 2016; it was *** in interim 2016 and *** in interim 2017. Total hours worked was *** hours in 2014, *** hours in 2015, and *** hours in 2016; these were *** hours in interim 2016 and *** hours in interim 2017. Wages paid was $*** in 2014, $*** in 2015, $*** in 2016, $*** in interim 2016, and $*** in interim 2017. CR/PR at Table C‐3. 172 Productivity declined from *** short tons per 1,000 hours in 2014 to *** short tons per 1,000 hours in 2015, and increased to *** short tons per 1,000 hours in 2016; it was *** short tons per 1,000 hours in interim 2016 and *** short tons per 1,000 hours in interim 2017. CR/PR at Table C‐3. 173 The quantity of net sales was *** short tons in 2014, *** short tons in 2015, and *** short tons in 2016; it was *** short tons in interim 2016 and *** short tons in interim 2017. CR/PR at Table C‐ 3. 174 Sales revenues were $*** in 2014, $*** in 2015, and $*** in 2016; they were $*** and $*** in interim 2016 and interim 2017, respectively. Average unit sales values were *** in 2014, *** in 2015, *** in 2016, *** in interim 2016, and *** in interim 2017. CR/PR at Table C‐3. 175 Unit COGS increased from $*** in 2014 to $*** in 2015, and declined to $*** in 2016; it was $*** in interim 2016 and $*** in interim 2017. The domestic industry’s COGS to net sales ratio (Continued...) 31 The domestic industry had yearly declines in gross profit, operating income, and net income, and losses in each of these indicators in 2016 and interim 2017. 176 Operating margins declined throughout the POI. 177 178 Capital expenses rose in 2015, when MS Silicon was opening its new production facility, fell in 2016, and were *** lower in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. 179 During a period of overall falling demand, the domestic industry increased its production and shipments throughout the POI, and its market share and employment were higher at the conclusion of the POI than at its beginning. By contrast, the industry’s financial results declined, most notably during 2016 when sales revenues fell more quickly than costs and remained poor in interim 2017 when average unit sales values remained well below those earlier in the period. As we explained above, however, the price declines that began in in 2015 and accelerated in 2016 were not due to subject imports. Consequently, the decline in the industry’s financial performance during the latter portion of the POI, when its shipments and market share were rising or essentially stable was also not a function of the subject imports. In view of the foregoing, we find that subject imports have not had a significant impact on the domestic industry. (…Continued) increased over the POI, particularly with respect to the period from 2015 to 2016 when it increased from *** percent in 2015 to *** percent in 2016. CR/PR at Table C‐3. 176 Gross profit declined from $*** in 2014 to $*** in 2015, and then fell to a loss of $*** in 2016; the industry reported gross losses of $*** and $*** in interim 2016 and interim 2017, respectively. Operating income fell from $*** in 2014 to $*** in 2015, and then fell to an operating loss of $*** in 2016. The industry sustained an operating loss of $*** in both interim 2016 and interim 2017. Net income fell from $*** in 2014 to $*** in 2015, and then fell to a net loss of $*** in 2016; the industry reported net losses of $*** and $*** in interim 2016 and interim 2017, respectively. CR/PR at Table C‐3. 177 The industry’s ratio of operating income to net sales declined from *** percent in 2014 to *** percent in 2015, and then subsequently to *** percent in 2016. The ratio was *** percent in interim 2016 and *** percent in interim 2017. CR/PR at Table C‐3. 178 While Respondents have questioned the accuracy of the financial data provided by Globe, see Dow’s Prehearing Brief at 40‐45; Dow’s Posthearing Brief at 9; Wacker’s Posthearing Brief at 12, Exhibit 1 at 19‐20, 28, the firm’s data were independently verified by Commission staff. CR/PR at VI‐1 n.1. Moreover, Respondents’ reservations about the data do not affect the underlying trends with respect to the data. 179 See CR/PR at Table VI‐7. While *** reported that the subject imports had negative effects on investment, growth, and development, *** did not. CR/PR at Tables VI‐9 to VI‐10. Moreover, *** indicated that these negative effects were due to *** which we found above were not a function of the subject imports. We also observe that ***, indicated that Globe ***. Nearly all of Globe’s reported ***. CR/PR at Table III‐4. 32 VI. No Threat of Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports A. Legal Standard Section 771(7)(F) of the Tariff Act directs the Commission to determine whether the U.S. industry is threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports by analyzing whether “further dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would occur unless an order is issued or a suspension agreement is accepted.”180 The Commission may not make such a determination “on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition,” and considers the threat factors “as a whole” in making its determination whether dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of subject imports would occur unless an order is issued.181 In making our determination, we consider all statutory threat factors that are relevant to these investigations. 182 180 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii). 181 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii). 182 These factors are as follows: (I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may be presented to it by the administering authority as to the nature of the subsidy (particularly as to whether the countervailable subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement) and whether imports of the subject merchandise are likely to increase, (II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial increase in production capacity in the exporting country indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject merchandise into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional exports, (III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of imports of the subject merchandise indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports, (IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices that are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices and are likely to increase demand for further imports, (V) inventories of the subject merchandise, (VI) the potential for product‐shifting if production facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products, … (VIII) the actual and potential negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product, and (IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the probability that there is likely to be material injury by reason of imports (or sale for importation) of the subject merchandise (whether or not it is actually being imported at the time). 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i). To organize our analysis, we discuss the applicable statutory threat factors using the same volume/price/impact framework that applies to our material injury analysis. Statutory threat factors (I), (II), (III), (V), and (VI) are discussed in the analysis of likely subject import volume. Statutory threat factor (IV) is discussed in the analysis of likely subject import price effects. (Continued...) 33 B. Cumulation for Threat Under section 771(7)(H) of the Tariff Act, the Commission may “to the extent practicable” cumulatively assess the volume and price effects of subject imports from all countries as to which petitions were filed on the same day if the requirements for cumulation in the material injury context are satisfied.183 Respondents contend that the Commission should exercise its discretion not to cumulate subject imports from Norway for purposes of threat analysis.184 Elkem argues that subject imports from Norway show volume and pricing trends distinct from those of the other subject countries.185 We found in our discussion of cumulation above that there is a reasonable overlap of competition among subject imports from all four countries and between subject imports from each country and the domestic like product. The considerations discussed above apply to our decision to cumulate subject imports for the purposes of our threat analysis. The record does not indicate that there would likely be any significant difference in the conditions of competition between subject imports from the four countries. We recognize that some potential differences exist between the import trends from and industries in these subject countries, particularly with respect to Brazil and Norway,186 but after examining these differences, we find that they do not warrant a determination to not cumulate all subject imports. Therefore, we conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway for the purposes of our threat analysis. (…Continued) Statutory factors (VIII) and (IX) are discussed in the analysis of impact. Statutory factor (VII) concerning agricultural products is inapplicable to these investigations. 183 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(H). 184 Wacker’s Prehearing Brief at 102. Respondents also contend that the Commission should exercise its discretion not to cumulate subject imports from Australia for threat analysis but do not make specific arguments to support the contention. Id. As summarized above, Respondents argues against cumulation of subject imports from Brazil and Kazakhstan for present material injury analysis, which we would also consider with respect to threat. 185 Elkem’s Prehearing Brief at 8‐9. Petitioner’s threat arguments assume cumulation. Nevertheless, petitioner asserted no arguments specifically addressing why the Commission should exercise its discretion to cumulate imports from all four subject countries for purposes of any threat analysis.186 We observe that the volume of subject imports from Norway during interim 2017 was 9.1 percent lower than interim 2016 while the volume of subject imports from the other subject countries in interim 2017 were 28.3 percent to 36.7 percent higher than interim 2016. CR/PR at C‐3. Additionally, in section V.D. above, we found that the decrease in subject import volume in 2015 and the subsequent increase in 2016 was largely a function of subject imports from Brazil. See CR/PR at Tables IV‐9 and V‐6. 34 C. Analysis 1. Likely Volume In section V.C. above, we found the volume of cumulated subject imports to be significant during the POI absolutely and relative to consumption in the United States. We did not find a significant increase in subject import volume during the POI. Indeed, the absolute volume of cumulated subject imports was lower in 2016 than in 2014. 187 While subject imports’ market share increased during the latter portion of the POI, these gains came at the expense of nonsubject imports as the domestic industry increased its market share over the POI. 188 The record indicates that the capacity of the subject industries is high both absolutely and relative to apparent U.S. consumption. 189 However, producers in the subject countries increased their capacity utilization to a very high level over the POI, particularly in 2016 when there was an increase in the volume of cumulated subject imports. 190 Thus, subject producers have limited ability to increase production. 191 While the record indicates that subject producers are highly export oriented, export shipments to the United States as a ratio of all export shipments declined over the POI, and the ratio is projected to increase *** in 2017 from the 2016 level but to decline *** in 2018. 192 This is consistent with the response by a majority of market participants reporting that demand outside the United States is increasing; by contrast, the market participants had mixed perceptions regarding U.S. demand as well as the fluctuations in apparent U.S. consumption during the POI. 193 Consequently, the record does not indicate that any efforts by subject 187 CR/PR at Table IV‐9. 188 CR/PR at Table C‐3. 189 Compare CR/PR at Table VII‐21 with CR/PR at Table IV‐9. Subject producers’ capacity was *** short tons in 2014, *** short tons in 2015, and *** short tons in 2016; the capacity was *** short tons and *** short tons in interim 2016 and interim 2017, respectively. CR/PR at Table VII‐21. 190 CR/PR at Table VII‐21. Subject producers’ capacity utilization was *** percent in 2014, *** percent in 2015, *** percent in 2016, and it was *** percent in interim 2016 and *** percent in interim 2017. Subject producers’ capacity utilization is projected to remain at high levels at *** percent in 2017 and *** percent in 2018. Id. Additionally, the potential for product shifting is limited. Only the producer *** reported production of out‐of‐scope products on the same equipment used to produce silicon metal. This production was ***. CR/PR at Tables VII‐4, VII‐9, VII‐14, and VII‐19. 191 Subject producers’ production was *** short tons in 2014, *** short tons in 2015, and *** short tons in 2016; it was *** short tons and *** short tons in interim 2016 and interim 2017, respectively. Their production is projected to be *** and *** short tons in 2017 and 2018, respectively. CR/PR at Table VII‐21. 192 CR/PR at Table VII‐21. The ratio of export shipment to total shipments was *** percent in 2014, *** percent in 2015, *** percent in 2016, *** percent in interim 2016, and *** percent in interim 2017. The ratio of export shipments to the U.S. market to total shipments was *** percent in 2014, *** percent in 2015, *** percent in 2016, *** percent in interim 2016, and *** percent in interim 2017. This ratio is projected to increase *** to *** percent in 2017 but decline *** to *** percent in 2018. Id. 193 CR/PR at Table II‐4; see also CR/PR at Table IV‐3. 35 producers to utilize excess capacity and increase export shipments will focus on the U.S. market. Indeed, subject producers’ home market shipments and shipments to other export markets are both projected to increase in 2017 and 2018, while export shipments to the United States are expected to decline.194 Moreover, the record also indicates that there are no outstanding antidumping or countervailing duty orders in other countries. 195 U.S. importer inventories were relatively flat from 2014 to 2016 and the inventory level in interim 2017 was lower than interim 2016. 196 Inventories in the subject countries declined in both absolute and relative terms from 2014 to 2016 and were lower in interim 2017 than interim 2016. 197 As stated above, the record does not indicate that there has been a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of imports of the subject merchandise during the POI. Nor are substantially increased imports likely in the imminent future in light of the lack of existing excess capacity with which to increase production, the likely growth and availability of other export markets, lack of growth in inventories, and lack of potential for product shifting. Additionally, in light of the experience during the POI, any potential increase in subject import volume is unlikely to cause any appreciable decline in the market share of the domestic industry given that increases in subject import volumes came at the expense of nonsubject imports. 198 2. Likely Price Effects In section V.D. above, we found mixed instances of underselling and overselling by the subject imports. We also found that notwithstanding the increasing volume of subject imports during the latter part of the POI, the subject imports did not have significant effects on prices for the domestic like product. With respect to likely price levels during the imminent future, we observe that Petitioner has been publicly optimistic about rising silicon metal prices going into 2017 as Globe 194 CR/PR at Tables VII‐21, VII‐22 and VII‐23. Arranged imports of subject merchandise are *** short tons in the fourth quarter of 2017, *** short tons in the first quarter of 2018, *** short tons in the second quarter of 2018, and *** short tons in the third quarter of 2018. CR/PR at Table VII‐24. 195 CR at VII‐39 to VII‐41, PR at VII‐24 to VII‐25. We observe that there is an ongoing antidumping investigation in the European Union on imports of silicon metal from Brazil and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Id. 196 U.S. importer inventories of subject imports were *** short tons in 2014, *** short tons in 2015, *** short tons in 2016s *** short tons in interim 2016 and *** short tons in interim 2017. CR/PR at Table VII‐23. 197 CR/PR at Table VII‐21. 198 In our analysis, we have considered the nature of the subsidies Commerce has found to be countervailable, particularly whether the countervailable subsidies are ones described in Articles 3 or 6.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, and whether imports of the subject merchandise are likely to increase. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i)(I). We observe that Commerce found one export subsidy program in the form of tax forgiveness provided by the government of Brazil. See Silicon Metal from Brazil: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative Determination of the Countervailing Duty Investigation (Feb. 27, 2018); Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Affirmative Determination: Countervailing Duty Investigation of Silicon Metal from Brazil (August 7, 2017) at 14‐17. 36 will no longer be discounting prices based on index prices.199 Therefore, even if there is some increase in the volume of cumulated subject imports entering the U.S. market in the imminent future, in light of the forecasted improving prices and the lack of causal relationship between increasing subject import volumes and prices of the domestic like product during the POI, nothing in the record indicates that subject imports will likely depress or suppress domestic prices. We consequently find that imports of the subject merchandise are unlikely to enter at prices that would be likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices or that would be likely to increase demand for further subject imports. 3. Likely Impact We found in section V.E. above that during the POI the domestic industry increased output and shipments, but experienced declines in financial performance. We further found that the declines in financial performance were not a result of the subject imports. In light of our findings that there is not likely to be a significant increase in subject import volume during the imminent future that will result in an appreciable decline in the domestic industry’s market share and that subject imports will not likely have significant price effects, the record does not indicate a probability that material injury by reason of subject imports is imminent.200 VII. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, we determine that an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway that are sold in the United States at less than fair value and subject imports of silicon metal that are subsidized by the governments of Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan. 199 Wacker’s Posthearing Brief, Exh. 6. Globe CEO Pedro Larrea stated during Globe’s third quarter 2016 earnings call that Globe is “beginning to see indications of meaningful price improvements for 2017 negotiations . . . there is overall consensus in the market that {Globe} products are set for significant price recovery in 2017 . . . .” Lerrea further stated that Globe will no longer be offering or accepting discounts for 2017 prices. See id. We are thus not persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that prices rose as a result of the filing of the petition because Globe publicly stated that prices had been improving in November 2016 before it filed the petition. Globe’s Posthearing Brief, Attachment A at 51; CR/PR at Figure V‐3. 200 Given that the domestic industry reported *** research and development expenses during the POI, CR/PR at Table VI‐7, the record contains no indication that subject imports will have negative effect on the development and production efforts of the domestic industry. I‐1 PART I: INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND These investigations result from petitions filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC” or “Commission”) by Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. (“GSM”), Beverly, Ohio, on March 8, 2017, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized silicon metal1 from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan and less‐than‐fair‐value (“LTFV”) imports of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway. The following tabulation provides information relating to the background of these investigations. 2 3 1 See the section entitled “The Subject Merchandise” in Part I of this report for a complete description of the merchandise subject in this proceeding. 2 Pertinent Federal Register notices are referenced in appendix A, and may be found at the Commission’s website (www.usitc.gov). 3 A list of witnesses that appeared at the hearing is presented in appendix B of this report. I‐2 Effective date Action March 8, 2017 Petitions filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of the Commission's investigations (82 FR 13653, March 14, 2017) March 28, 2017 Commerce’s notice of initiation of antidumping duty investigations (82 FR 16352, April 4, 2017) and countervailing duty investigations (82 FR 16356, April 4, 2017) April 24, 2017 Commission’s preliminary determinations (82 FR 19383, April 27, 2017) August 14, 2017 Commerce’s preliminary affirmative countervailing duty determinations and alignment of final determinations with final antidumping duty determinations concerning silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan (82 FR 37841-37844 and 37847-37849, August 14, 2017) October 12, 2017 Commerce’s preliminary affirmative determinations of sales at LTFV, postponement of final determinations, and extension of provisional measures concerning silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway; preliminary negative determination of critical circumstances and preliminary no shipments concerning Norway; preliminary affirmative determination of critical circumstances concerning Australia (82 FR 47466-47469, 47471-47473, and 47475-47477, October 12, 2017); Scheduling of final phase of Commission investigations (82 FR 49848, October 27, 2017) February 15, 2018 Commission’s hearing March 8, 2018 Commerce’s final affirmative countervailing duty determinations concerning silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan; (83 FR 9834-9835, 9838-9839, and 9831-9833, March 8, 2018); final affirmative determinations of sales at LTFV concerning silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway; final affirmative determination of critical circumstances in part concerning silicon metal from Australia; final determination of no sales, and final negative determination of critical circumstances concerning silicon metal from Norway (83 FR 9839-9842, 9835-9838, and 9829-9831, March 8, 2018) March 23, 2018 Commission’s vote April 10, 2018 Commission’s views STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT Statutory criteria Section 771(7)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”) (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)) provides that in making its determinations of injury to an industry in the United States, the Commission‐‐ I‐3 shall consider (I) the volume of imports of the subject merchandise, (II) the effect of imports of that merchandise on prices in the United States for domestic like products, and (III) the impact of imports of such merchandise on domestic producers of domestic like products, but only in the context of production operations within the United States; and. . . may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the determination regarding whether there is material injury by reason of imports. Section 771(7)(C) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)) further provides that‐‐4 In evaluating the volume of imports of merchandise, the Commission shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States is significant.. . .In evaluating the effect of imports of such merchandise on prices, the Commission shall consider whether. . .(I) there has been significant price underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the price of domestic like products of the United States, and (II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree.. . . In examining the impact required to be considered under subparagraph (B)(i)(III), the Commission shall evaluate (within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry) all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to. . . (I) actual and potential decline in output, sales, market share, gross profits, operating profits, net profits, ability to service debt, productivity, return on investments, return on assets, and utilization of capacity, (II) factors affecting domestic prices, (III) actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment, (IV) actual and potential negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product, and (V) in {an antidumping investigation}, the magnitude of the margin of dumping. In addition, Section 771(7)(J) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(J)) provides that—5 4 Amended by PL 114‐27 (as signed, June 29, 2015), Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. 5 Amended by PL 114‐27 (as signed, June 29, 2015), Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. I‐4 (J) EFFECT OF PROFITABILITY.—The Commission may not determine that there is no material injury or threat of material injury to an industry in the United States merely because that industry is profitable or because the performance of that industry has recently improved. Organization of report Part I of this report presents information on the subject merchandise, subsidy and dumping margins, and domestic like product. Part II of this report presents information on conditions of competition and other relevant economic factors. Part III presents information on the condition of the U.S. industry, including data on capacity, production, shipments, inventories, and employment. Parts IV and V present the volume of subject imports and pricing of domestic and imported products, respectively. Part VI presents information on the financial experience of U.S. producers. Part VII presents the statutory requirements and information obtained for use in the Commission’s consideration of the question of threat of material injury as well as information regarding nonsubject countries. MARKET SUMMARY Silicon metal is composed almost exclusively of elemental silicon with a small amount of impurities such as iron, calcium, and aluminum.6 It is generally used as an alloying agent in aluminum production and by the chemical industry as an input in the production of silicones and polysilicon. Silicon metal is also used in a variety of applications which include aluminum (auto/commercial), chemicals (silicones), and polysilicon (solar and electronics).7 The three U.S. producers of silicon metal are Globe Metallurgical Inc. (“Globe”),8 Dow Corning Alabama (“DC Alabama”), 9 and Mississippi Silicon LLC (“Mississippi Silicon”). Leading producers of silicon metal in countries subject to this proceeding include *** of Australia, *** of Brazil, *** of Kazakhstan, and *** of Norway. Leading producers of silicon metal in other nonsubject countries include *** of South Africa, *** of Canada, and *** of Spain. 10 The leading U.S. importer of silicon metal from Australia includes ***. The leading importers of silicon metal from Brazil include ***. The leading importer of silicon metal from Kazakhstan includes ***. The leading importers of silicon metal from Norway include ***. 6 Conference transcript, pp. 10 (Kramer), 18 (Perkins). 7 Staff field trip and interview notes ***. 8 Globe Metallurgical Inc. is 100 percent wholly owned by Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. and Ferroglobe PLC is the direct parent company of Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. Petitions, Exhibit I‐1. 9 Dow Corning Corporation became a wholly‐owned subsidiary of Dow Chemical in 2016. Dow Chemical and DuPont subsequently merged to form DowDuPont on September 1, 2017. Dow Corning Corporation changed its name to the Dow Silicones Corporation, effective February 1, 2018. Dow Corning Alabama is a subsidiary of the Dow Silicones Corporation. 10 The leading nonsubject producers are ***. *** U.S. producer questionnaire, section I‐6. I‐5 Leading importers of silicon metal from nonsubject nountries (primarily South Africa, Canada, and Thailand) include ***. Purchasers of silicon metal include primary and secondary aluminum producers and silicon‐based chemical producers. Leading purchasers, include ***. Apparent U.S. consumption of silicon metal totaled approximately *** short tons contained silicon 11 ($***) in 2016. Currently, three firms are known to produce silicon metal in the United States. U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of silicon metal totaled *** short tons contained silicon ($***) in 2016, and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2016 by quantity and *** percent by value. U.S. imports from subject sources totaled 111,597 short tons contained silicon ($240.7 million) in 2016 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2016 by quantity and *** percent by value. U.S. imports from nonsubject sources totaled 55,090 short tons contained silicon ($126.8 million) in 2016 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2016 by quantity and *** percent by value. SUMMARY DATA AND DATA SOURCES A summary of data collected in these investigations is presented in appendix C, table C‐ 1. Except as noted, U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of three firms that accounted for all known U.S. production of silicon metal during 2016. U.S. imports are based on official import statistics12 and on questionnaire responses from 24 U.S. importers that are believed to account for virtually all subject imports from Australia, virtually all subject imports from Brazil, virtually all subject imports from Kazakhstan, 96.7 percent of subject imports from Norway, and virtually all imports of silicon metal from nonsubject sources in 2016. Foreign industry data are based on questionnaire responses of one firm in Australia whose exports accounted for *** U.S. imports of silicon metal from Australia, four firms in Brazil whose exports accounted for *** U.S. imports of silicon metal from Brazil, two firms in Kazakhstan whose exports accounted for *** percent of U.S. imports of silicon metal from Kazakhstan, and two firms in Norway whose exports accounted for *** percent of U.S. imports of silicon metal from Norway in 2016. 11 In general, quantities of silicon metal in this report are stated in terms of contained weight rather than gross weight. For example, 50,000 short tons of silicon metal with a 98 percent silicon content would be described as 49,000 short tons of silicon metal. Under the scope of this proceeding, silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Petitions, Vol. I, p. 1, n.2. 12 Official import statistics are based on General Imports using statistical reporting numbers 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000, which measure the total physical arrivals of merchandise from foreign countries, whether such merchandise enters the U.S. customs territory immediately or is entered into bonded warehouses or free trade zones (“FTZs”) under Customs custody. I‐6 PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS Silicon metal has been the subject of several prior import injury proceedings in the United States. The following tabulation presents information regarding previous antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. A detailed discussion of these proceedings appears in Appendix F. Year petition filed Inv. number Country Current status 1990 731-TA-470 Argentina1 ITA revoked effective 1/1/01 (66 FR 10669, 2/16/2001) 1990 731-TA-471 Brazil1 ITA revoked effective 2/16/06 (71 FR 76635, 12/21/2006) 1990 731-TA-472 China ITC fourth review ongoing 2002 731-TA-991 Russia Continuation of order effective 7/2/2014 (79 FR 37718, 7/2/2014) 2004 701-TA-441 Brazil Petitions withdrawn on 4/16/2004 (69 FR 23213, 4/28/2004) 2004 731-TA-1081 South Africa Petitions withdrawn on 4/16/2004 (69 FR 23213, 4/28/2004) 2017 731-TA-1343 and 701-TA-567 Australia 2 Final phase investigations ongoing 2017 731-TA-1344 and 701-TA-568 Brazil2 Final phase investigations ongoing 2017 701-TA-569 Kazakhstan 2 Final phase investigation ongoing 2017 731-TA-1345 Norway2 Final phase investigation ongoing 1 Petitions were filed concurrently with the underlying petition related to the current fourth review concerning China (731-TA-472). 2 Commerce made its final determinations on March 8, 2018. Source: Silicon Metal From Russia: Investigation No. 731-TA-991 (Second Review), USITC Publication 4471, June 2014 and cited FR notices. I‐7 NATURE AND EXTENT OF SUBSIDIES AND SALES AT LTFV Subsidies On March 8, 2018, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register the final determinations of its countervailing duty investigations on silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan.13 Commerce determined the following subsidy programs in Australia: 14 A. Payments Under the Ancillary Service (Spinning Reserve) Scheme B. Payments Under the Demand Side Management Scheme C. Renewable Energy Target Program D. Research and Development Tax Incentive E. State Agreement and Loan Grant Commerce determined the following subsidy programs in Brazil:15 A. Domestic Programs 1. Tax Incentives Provided By The Amazon Region Development Authority and Northeast Region Development Authority (SUDAM and SUDENE) 2. Tax Incentives in the State of Para for Dow Corning Brazil 3. Forest Fee Reductions in Minas Gerais B. Export Subsidies 1. Reintegra Commerce determined the following subsidy programs in Kazakhstan:16 A. Provision of Electricity for LTAR B. Corporate Income Tax Exemption C. Property Tax Exemption D. Land Tax and Land Use Fee Exemption E. Customs Duty Exemption 13 Silicon Metal From Australia: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 83 FR 9834, March 8, 2018; Silicon Metal From Brazil: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 83 FR 9838, March 8, 2018; Silicon Metal From Kazakhstan: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 83 FR 9831, March 8, 2018. 14 Silicon Metal from Australia: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation, February 27, 2018. 15 Silicon Metal from Brazil: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation, February 27, 2018. 16 Silicon Metal from Kazakhstan: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation, February 27, 2018. I‐8 On March 8, 2018, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of its final affirmative determinations of countervailable subsidies for producers and exporters of silicon metal from Australia,17 Brazil, 18 and Kazakhstan.19 Tables I‐1, I‐2, and I‐3 present Commerce’s final findings of subsidization of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan. Table I-1 Silicon metal: Commerce’s final subsidy determination with respect to imports from Australia Entity Final countervailable subsidy rate (percent) Simcoa Operations Pty Ltd. 1 14.78 All others 14.78 1 The following companies are cross-owned with Simcoa: Silicon Metal Co. of Australia Pty Ltd., Microsilica Pty Ltd., and Simcoa International Pty Ltd. Source: 83 FR 9834, March 8, 2018. Table I-2 Silicon metal: Commerce’s final subsidy determination with respect to imports from Brazil Entity Final countervailable subsidy rate (percent) Palmyra do Brasil Indústria e Comércio de Silício Metálico e Recursos Naturais Ltda. (formerly known as Dow Corning Silício do Brasil Indústria e Comércio Ltda.) (“Dow Corning Brazil”)1 2.44 Ligas de Aluminio S.A. (“LIASA”) 52.51 All others 2.44 1 The following companies are cross-owned with Dow Corning Brazil: Palmyra Recursos Naturais Exploracão e Comerciao Ltda. and Dow Corning Metais do Para IND. Dow Corning Brazil changed its name to Palmyra do Brasil Indústria e Comércio de Silício Metálico e Recursos Naturais Ltda. on June 30, 2017. Source: 83 FR 9838, March 8, 2018. 17 Silicon Metal From Australia: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 83 FR 9834, March 8, 2018. 18 Silicon Metal From Brazil: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 83 FR 9838, March 8, 2018. 19 Silicon Metal From Kazakhstan: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 83 FR 9831, March 8, 2018. I‐9 Table I-3 Silicon metal: Commerce’s final subsidy determination with respect to imports from Kazakhstan Entity Final countervailable subsidy rate (percent) Tau-Ken Temir LLP1 100.0 All others 100.0 1 The following companies are cross-owned with Tau-Ken Temir LLP: JSC NMC Tau-Ken Samruk and LLP Silicon Mining. Source: 83 FR 9831, March 8, 2018. Sales at LTFV On April 4, 2017, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of the initiation of its antidumping duty investigations on silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway.20 On March 8, 2018, Commerce published notices in the Federal Register of its final determinations of sales at LTFV with respect to imports from Australia,21 Brazil, 22 and Norway.23 Tables I‐4, I‐5, and I‐6 present Commerce’s final dumping margins with respect to imports of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway. Table I-4 Silicon metal: Commerce’s final weighted-average LTFV margins with respect to imports from Australia Exporter/producer Final weighted-average dumping margin (percent) Simcoa Operations Pty Ltd. 51.28 All others 41.73 Source: 83 FR 9839, March 8, 2018. 20 Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil and Norway: Initiation of Less‐Than‐Fair‐Value Investigations, 82 FR 16352, April 4, 2017. 21 Silicon Metal From Australia: Affirmative Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part, 83 FR 9839, March 8, 2018. 22 Silicon Metal From Brazil: Affirmative Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 83 FR 9835, March 8, 2018. 23 Silicon Metal From Norway: Affirmative Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Final Determination of No Sales, and Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 83 FR 9829, March 8, 2018. I‐10 Table I-5 Silicon metal: Commerce’s final weighted-average LTFV margins with respect to imports from Brazil Exporter/producer Final weighted-average dumping margin (percent) Cash deposit rate (percent) Palmyra do Brasil Indústria e Comércio de Silício Metálico e Recursos Naturais Ltda. (formerly known as Dow Corning Silício do Brasil Indústria e Comércio Ltda.) (“Dow Corning Brazil”) 68.97 68.87 Ligas de Aluminio S.A.—LIASA 134.92 133.49 All others 68.97 68.87 Source: 83 FR 9835, March 8, 2018. Table I-6 Silicon metal: Commerce’s final weighted-average LTFV margins with respect to imports from Norway Exporter/producer Final weighted-average dumping margin (percent) Elkem AS 3.22 All others 3.22 Source: 83 FR 9829, March 8, 2018. THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE Commerce’s scope In the current proceeding, Commerce has defined the scope as follows: 24 …all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 24 Silicon Metal From Australia: Affirmative Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part, 83 FR 9839, March 8, 2018; Silicon Metal From Brazil: Affirmative Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 83 FR 9835, March 8, 2018; Silicon Metal From Norway: Affirmative Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Final Determination of No Sales, and Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 83 FR 9829, March 8, 2018; Silicon Metal From Australia: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination 83 FR 9834, March 8, 2018; Silicon Metal From Brazil: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 83 FR 9838, March 8, 2018; Silicon Metal From Kazakhstan: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 83 FR 9831, March 8, 2018. I‐11 United States (“HTSUS”) {statistical reporting number} 2804.61.0000) is excluded from the scope of these investigations. Silicon metal is currently classifiable under {statistical reporting numbers} 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive. Tariff treatment Based upon the scope set forth by Commerce, information available to the Commission indicates that the merchandise subject to these investigations is imported under subheadings 2804.69.10 (covering shipments of silicon containing, by weight, less than 99.99 percent silicon but not less than 99 percent silicon) and 2804.69.50 (for other silicon, not including high‐silicon‐ content shipments of subheading 2804.61.00). The column 1‐general rates of duty are 5.3 percent and 5.5 percent ad valorem, respectively. Silicon metal that is the product of Kazakhstan and classified in HTS subheading 2804.69.10 is eligible for duty‐free entry under the Generalized System of Preferences, but not under subheading 2804.69.50. 25 Decisions on the tariff classification and treatment of imported goods are within the authority of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. THE PRODUCT Description and applications26 Silicon is a light chemical element with metallic and nonmetallic characteristics. It is a semiconductor, meaning it does not conduct electricity at room temperature, but does so when it is heated. Silicon is rarely found free in nature; it combines with oxygen and other elements to form silicates, which compose more than 25 percent of the Earth’s crust. Silica in the form of quartz 27 or quartzite is used to produce silicon ferroalloys for the iron and steel industries, while silicon metal is primarily used by the aluminum and chemical industries. 28 Silicon metal is a product normally composed almost entirely of elemental silicon, along with small amounts of 25 USITC, “General Notes, Products of Countries Designated Beneficiary Developing Countries for Purposes of the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP),” HTSUS (2018) Basic Edition, January 2018, pp. GN 15‐GN 16. See HTS general note 4. 26 Unless otherwise indicated, information in this section was taken from the Petitions, Vol. I, pp. 6–9; and Silicon Metal From Russia: Investigation No. 731‐TA‐991 (Second Review), USITC Publication 4471, June 2014, pp. I‐18‐21. 27 Quartz is a chemical compound consisting of one part silicon and two parts oxygen, also known as silicon dioxide (SiO 2 ). 28 USGS, 2015 Minerals Yearbook, Silicon Chapter, p. 67.1, https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/silicon/myb1‐2015‐simet.pdf, retrieved January 11, 2018. I‐12 other elements, such as iron, aluminum, and calcium.29 It is manufactured and sold in various degrees of purity. Whether domestic or imported, it is usually sold in lump form, typically ranging from 6 inches x ½ inch to 4 inches x ¼ inch, or in powder form.30 Silicon metal is principally used as an alloying agent in aluminum production by the aluminum industry, as an input in the production of silicones, and to produce polycrystalline silicon (“polysilicon”). According to Ferroglobe, the petitioner’s parent company, the global distribution of silicon metal consumption in 2017, by major product categories was: metallurgical (primarily aluminum), 43 percent; chemical (silicones), 37 percent; and polysilicon (solar and semiconductors), 20 percent.31 According to Roskill Information Service LLC (“Roskill”), global silicon consumption was 3.1 million tons in 2016, and during 2010‐16, silicon consumption increased at an average annual rate of 5.8 percent.32 As an alloying agent, silicon metal is used in the production of both primary aluminum (produced from ore) and secondary aluminum (produced from scrap). Silicon is a necessary ingredient in aluminum casting alloys, where it improves fluidity, castability, strength, and weldability when added to aluminum.33 Aluminum producers add silicon in lump form to aluminum during the smelting process. Primary aluminum typically contains between 8‐12 percent silicon and is used in applications where appearance is important, such as wheels for automobiles. Secondary aluminum typically contains less silicon than primary and is used for internal automobile parts and applications where appearance is not significant. Roskill expects the amount of silicon metal used in aluminum to increase by an average annual rate of 3.4 percent from 2016 to 2026 owing to anticipated growth in aluminum consumption by the automotive sector.34 Other applications for silicon metal include the production of brass and bronzes, die casting, steel, copper alloys, ceramic powders, and refractory coatings. 29 Silicon metal can be further processed into ultra‐high‐purity semiconductor or solar grades whose silicon content is 99.99 percent or greater. Semiconductor‐grade silicon metal is not included within the scope of these investigations. However, subject silicon metal may be used as a starting material for the manufacture of semiconductor‐grade silicon metal. 30 These dimensions refer to the maximum and minimum sizes of the silicon metal lumps. 31Investor Day Presentation, Ferroglobe PLC, p. 30, http://investor.ferroglobe.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=AMDA‐ 5STP82&fileid=959959&filekey=DA15BBEE‐47D1‐4E92‐9FEF‐ EB22B3852278&filename=Ferroglobe_Investor_Day_Presentation_17_Oct_2017.pdf, retrieved January 11, 2018. 32 Outlook for silicon metal diverges sharply from that for ferrosilicon, Roskill Information Services Ltd., https://roskill.com/news/outlook‐silicon‐metal‐diverges‐sharply‐ferrosilicon/, retrieved January 11, 2018. 33 Many aluminum alloys are used by the transportation sector as a substitute for heavy metals to reduce weight and improve the efficiency of vehicles and aircraft. 34 Outlook for silicon metal diverges sharply from that for ferrosilicon, Roskill Information Services Ltd., https://roskill.com/news/outlook‐silicon‐metal‐diverges‐sharply‐ferrosilicon/, retrieved January 11, 2018. I‐13 Chemical manufacturers consume silicon metal in powder form to produce silicones and polysilicon. The chemical manufacturers that have their own grinding facilities purchase silicon metal in lump form and grind it into powder themselves. Firms that do not have grinding facilities purchase silicon metal as a powder.35 A lower grade of powder called fines, a by‐ product of the crushing and sizing process, is sold for ceramic and refractory applications. In the chemical industry, silicon metal is used as the basis for the production of silanes, which are used to produce a family of organic compounds known as silicones. Silicones are used for a variety of applications, including adhesives, resins, lubricants, plastomers, anti‐foaming agents, and water‐repellent compounds. 36 According to Roskill, there are an estimated 10,000 individual applications for silicones and many are in sectors that are driven by consumer spending and disposable income. As a consequence, the larger markets for silicone products are mature economies, such as North America, Western Europe, and Japan, although developing economies will drive future demand.37 Silicon metal that is included in these investigations is consumed as the base material for making polysilicon, a high‐purity form of silicon manufactured by chemical producers that is primarily used in semiconductors and solar cells.38 Polysilicon producers purchase in‐scope silicon metal and then further refine it into higher‐purity polysilicon that is not in the scope of these investigations. 39 Polysilicon producers typically have very stringent quality standards for silicon and sometimes require low‐boron silicon metal. 40 41 42 According to Roskill, silicon 35 Size consistency is important to chemical producers that purchase silicon metal in powder form. Suppliers to such customers must qualify their product before bidding to supply the chemical manufacturer. For that reason, there is no difference in terms of size consistency between qualified imports and domestic products. 36 The silicones production process involves reacting silicon metal with methyl chloride in the presence of a copper catalyst to produce a mixture of methylchlorosilanes. Certain of these silanes are then hydrolyzed to produce the basic methylsilicone building block for the various silicone products. 37 Outlook for silicon metal diverges sharply from that for ferrosilicon, Roskill Information Services Ltd., https://roskill.com/news/outlook‐silicon‐metal‐diverges‐sharply‐ferrosilicon/, retrieved January 11, 2018. 38 Polysilicon, which is not within the scope of these investigations, generally contains over 99.999 percent silicon and is made by reacting high purity metallurgical silicon with hydrogen chloride gas in the presence of catalysts, producing silicon tetrachloride, which is then purified by fractional distillation. The purified distillate is pyrotically decomposed to produce hyperpure metal and hydrochloric acid. 39 Hearing transcript, p. 204 (Orava). 40 ***. Staff fieldwork and interview with ***. 41 According to the Dow Silicones Corporation, although there is no “industry specification” for boron in many segments of the silicon metal market, there are boron specifications used specifically in the polysilicon segment. Within that segment, Dow Silicones has a “customer specification” with a specific boron requirement. Dow Silicones achieves this polysilicon customer specification by blending low‐ boron content silicon metal from Brazil with other sources of silicon metal produced in the United States and Canada to achieve the polysilicon specification of ***. The other sources of silicon metal from the United States and Canada used by Dow Silicones in this process also have a boron requirement, which allows Dow Silicones to make supply plans in order to have the appropriate amount of low‐boron (continued...) I‐14 consumption for use in solar cells has experienced the fastest growth of any market for silicon metal during the past decade and is expected to continue to grow, especially in Asia. According to the petitioner, although silicon metal is often described in terms of different grades, there is no uniformly accepted grade classification system. Silicon metal “grades” refer to ranges of specifications that are typically sold to particular types of customers.43 These specifications establish the minimum amounts of silicon and the maximum amounts of other elements, such as boron, iron, calcium, and aluminum that the silicon metal may contain. The ranges of specifications vary depending on the type of end use of the silicon metal and the differences between these ranges of specifications can be relatively small but important.44 45 There are four broadly defined categories, or grades, of silicon metal, which are generally ranked in descending order of purity as: (1) semiconductor grade;46 (2) chemical grade; (3) metallurgical grade used to produce primary aluminum; and (4) metallurgical grade used to produce secondary aluminum. U.S. producer Globe lists its silicon metal product specifications as: 47 48  Chemical grade: silicon 98.50 percent min., iron 0.50 percent max., calcium 0.07 percent max., aluminum 0.20 percent max.  Primary aluminum grade: silicon 98.50 percent min., iron 0.35 percent max., calcium 0.07 percent max. (…continued) product for blending. Currently, Dow Silicones requires *** of silicon metal per year from Brazil to meet its requirements for blending. ***. Dow Silicones Corporation’s prehearing brief, p. 8, Dow Silicones Corporation’s posthearing brief, pp. 16–17. 42 ***. Staff fieldwork and interview with ***. 43 Some suppliers, customers, and publications refer to numerical grade designations such as “Grade 553.” “Grade 553” is silicon metal with a maximum iron content of 0.5 percent, a maximum aluminum content of 0.5 percent, and a maximum calcium content of 0.3 percent. Such silicon metal normally has a minimum silicon content of 98.5 percent. 44 In some cases, higher grade silicon metal is shipped to a purchaser with a lower specification requirement. 45 According to respondent Wacker, chemical and polysilicon producers cannot tolerate high levels of aluminum, and primary aluminum producers cannot tolerate high levels of calcium in their products. Differences in ranges of specifications are not small, and differences in purity and the fineness of silicon metal powder can have an enormous impact on performance. Respondent Wacker’s prehearing brief, p. 25. 46 Semiconductor grade silicon, used in the electronics industry, is not covered by the scope of these investigations. It is a high‐purity product generally containing over 99.99 percent silicon. 47 Globe Chemical and Metallurgical Grade Silicon product information sheets, Globe Specialty Metals Inc., http://www.glbsm.com/product‐information/Globe‐Silicon‐Metal.pdf, retrieved March 22, 2017. 48 The type and level of impurities and the silicon content are the principal factors that determine if the silicon metal product can be used in a given application. As such, it is not possible to assume that silicon metal imported under HTS subheading 2804.69.10 (silicon containing by weight less than 99.99 percent but not less than 99.00 percent silicon) is necessarily better quality than silicon metal imported under HTS subheading 2804.69.50 (silicon containing by weight less than 99.00 percent silicon), even though the silicon content of the former is higher. I‐15  Secondary aluminum grade: silicon 98.50 percent min., iron 1.00 percent max., calcium 0.40 percent max.  High purity grade: silicon 98.50 percent min., iron 0.10 percent max., calcium 0.07 percent max., aluminum 0.20 percent max. Silicon specifications can be customer specific and some customers, such as certain polysilicon producers, require higher grades of silicon than the ones listed by Globe. 49 Some chemical and polysilicon producers require their suppliers to go through a qualification process and undergo subsequent monitoring of their manufacturing facilities to ensure that their products are consistent in size and grade and there are no changes to manufacturing location, process conditions, or raw materials 50 51 52 Manufacturing Process53 The basic process for producing silicon has been essentially unchanged for decades.54 With one exception,55 all silicon metal, regardless of specification, is produced using essentially the same process and inputs. Silica in the form of high purity quartz 56 57 is combined in a “charge” with a carbon source such as low‐ash coal, 58 charcoal, or petroleum coke, and a 49 Joint Respondents’ postconference brief, pp. 9‐10. 50 Joint Respondents’ postconference brief, pp. 9‐10. 51 Hearing transcript, p. 128 (Hudson). 52 ***. Staff fieldwork and interview with ***. 53 Unless otherwise indicated, information in this section was taken from the Petitions, Vol. I, pp. 9‐10. 54 Missisippi Silicon LLC website, http://www.missilicon.com/our‐process, retrieved March 22, 2017. 55 Elkem manufactures Silgrain –a high purity silicon powder produced by refining 90‐94 percent ferrosilicon using a proprietary chemical leaching process. Like silicon metal produced using the standard process, Silgrain is used in the production of polysilicon, silicones, and other specialized materials. 56 Silicon is one of the most common elements on the earth's surface. Silicon appears abundantly in combination with oxygen as “silica” ‐ a compound composed almost entirely of silicon dioxide (Si0 2) ‐ and as a component of many silicate minerals, such as quartzite (a rock composed principally of quartz), sand, and sandstone. These forms of silica are ubiquitous in the United States and throughout the world. However, only silica with silicon dioxide content in excess of 99 percent and a low iron content (less than one percent) can be used effectively in the production of silicon metal. 57 Some domestic silicon producers are vertically integrated and own suppliers of input materials. GSM owns Alabama Sand and Gravel Inc., a company that operates quarries in Alabama and produces metallurgical grade quartz gravel that is used for silicon production. Ferroglobe website, http://www.ferroglobe.com/business‐areas/mining/alabama‐sand‐gravel‐inc/?lang=en, retrieved January 11, 2018. 58 In the United States, silicon producers predominantly use a low‐ash bituminous coal for silicon production. The coal needs to be very low in ash because the compounds in the ash are co‐smelted into the silicon as impurities. GSM owns Alden Resources, LLC, a company that operates coal mines in (continued...) I‐16 bulking agent, usually wood chips made from hardwood trees. The charge is placed in a submerged electric arc furnace.59 A transformer system delivers high‐current, low‐voltage electricity to the furnace by electrodes made from pre‐baked or self‐baking amorphous carbon. The electrodes are slowly consumed during the production process. The charge is heated to approximately 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit, at which point the oxygen in the silica separates from the silicon and combines with the carbon in the reductant to form carbon monoxide gas. The simplified chemical reaction is summarized as SiO2 (silica) + 2C (carbon) → Si (silicon metal) + 2CO (carbon monoxide). This reaction requires substantial electricity, giving the transformation process its name of electrometallurgy.60 The off‐gas (primarily carbon dioxide and silicon dioxide) escapes from the furnace and into a baghouse for collection, leaving molten silicon. The liquid silicon is removed or “tapped” from the bottom of the furnace on either a continuous or an intermittent basis and collected in a refractory lined ladle. In the molten state, the silicon metal is often refined by oxygen injection to remove impurities, principally aluminum and calcium. Some impurities cannot be removed from the liquid silicon and, therefore, must be controlled by raw material selection.61 After tapping (or refining), the silicon metal is poured from the ladle into large flat iron molds or onto beds of silicon metal fines.62 The resulting ingot or billet is subsequently crushed to the desired size specification. It can be further ground into powder for some customers in the chemicals industry.63 The silicon is typically delivered to end users in 2,000 to 3,000 pound super sacks, wooden boxes, or (…continued) Kentucky and Tennessee and produces low‐ash coal for silicon production. GSM website, http://www.glbsm.com/aldenresources/, accessed January 11, 2018. 59 Smelting in an electric arc furnace is accomplished by the conversion of electrical energy to heat. An alternating current applied to the electrodes causes current to flow through the charge between the electrode tips. This provides a reaction zone at temperatures up to 3,632 degrees Fahrenheit. The tip of each electrode changes polarity continuously as the alternating current flows between the tips. To maintain a uniform electric load, electrode depth is continuously varied automatically by mechanical or hydraulic means. In a submerged arc electric furnace, metal is smelted in a refractory‐lined cup‐shaped steel shell by submerged graphite electrodes. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, pp. 12.4.1–12.4.3, https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch12/final/c12s04.pdf, retrieved March 24, 2017. 60 Silicon metal and ferrosilicon production, The European Association of Industrial Silica Producers, http://www.eurosil.eu/silicon‐metal‐and‐ferrosilicon‐production, retrieved March 23, 2017. 61 The quality of silicon metal is a function of the quality of the raw materials, production and furnace expertise, and refining processes. Silicon metal producers therefore generally specialize and aim to produce specific qualities for specific customers, and the production cost of each producer therefore depends also on the quality aimed to be produced by them. Joint Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 13. ***. Staff fieldwork and interview with ***. 62 ***. Staff fieldwork and interview with ***. 63 Conference transcript, p. 26 (Huck). I‐17 customer specific packaging. 64 65 Some customers elect to send their own trucks to the plant to take the silicon in bulk form.66 Figure I‐1 depicts the silicon metal production process (does not show steps after tapping molten silicon): Figure I‐1 Silicon metal: Production process Source: Simcoa Operations Pty. Ltd website, http://www.simcoa.com.au/process-diagram.html. Silica fume (microsilica) are small particles of unreduced silicon dioxide recovered from the off‐gases of silicon metal furnaces and are an important by‐product of silicon metal production. Silica fume is used in making concrete, oil well grouts, cementitious repair products, refractories and ceramics, and other products. 64 Globe Chemical and Metallurgical Grade Silicon product information sheets, Globe Specialty Metals Inc., http://www.glbsm.com/product‐information/Globe‐Silicon‐Metal.pdf, retrieved March 22, 2017. 65 ***. Staff fieldwork and interview with ***. 66 Staff fieldwork and interview with ***. I‐18 Silicon metal plants are typically located at sites that have access to a competitively priced and reliable source of electricity, an ample supply of raw materials, and an adequate labor pool. Given the large amounts of quartz required to produce silicon metal, plants are normally located near quartz sources. Silicon plants typically operate furnaces 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, to maximize efficiency,67 so they constantly consume raw materials. ***.68 Forty‐nine percent of the cost of silicon metal production is attributable to raw materials (coal, woodchips, quartz, and carbon electrodes),69 21 percent to energy, 18 percent to labor, and 12 percent to other costs.70 Submerged arc furnaces used for silicon production are relatively similar worldwide, but there are some physical differences in furnace designs and the electrodes. In some cases, newer furnaces are more energy efficient. Reportedly, Globe requires about 13,000 to 14,000 kilowatt hours of electricity to produce one short ton of silicon metal,71 but some plants with newer furnaces, like Mississippi Silicon, are able to produce the same quantity of silicon metal using only 9,500 to 10,000 kilowatt hours of electricity.72 Purities of the raw materials and the carbon sources used can vary widely. Some producers of silicon metal also produce ferrosilicon, for use in the production of steel (especially stainless and heat‐resisting steel) and cast iron.73 Ferrosilicon can be produced at lower temperatures than silicon because of the iron, resulting in less power consumed to produce ferrosilicon than silicon. In the United States, Globe produced both silicon metal and ferrosilicon, but did not use the same furnaces for both. Producers can switch production on a furnace between ferrosilicon and silicon metal with varying degrees of cost, downtime, and efficiency loss. It is generally easier for firms to switch from silicon metal production to ferrosilicon production than the reverse. Iron and other elements that may be contained in ferrosilicon tend to remain in a furnace lining and result in impurities intolerable in silicon metal production. 74 In addition, certain furnace designs are more efficient at producing one product than another, leading to possible efficiency loss when switching production. According to Globe, incentives for converting ferrosilicon furnaces to silicon metal furnaces may exist if the profit margins for silicon metal are sufficiently better than the profit margins for ferrosilicon. Globe indicated that conversion from ferrosilicon to silicon production can be conducted relatively quickly, easily, and “at a relatively moderate cost.” Such a conversion 67 Hearing transcript, p. 40 (Huck). 68 Staff fieldwork and interview with ***. 69 ***. Staff fieldwork and interview with ***. 70 Investor Day Presentation, Ferroglobe PLC, p. 40, http://investor.ferroglobe.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=AMDA‐ 5STP82&fileid=959959&filekey=DA15BBEE‐47D1‐4E92‐9FEF‐ EB22B3852278&filename=Ferroglobe_Investor_Day_Presentation_17_Oct_2017.pdf, retrieved January 11, 2018. 71 Conference transcript, p. 26 (Huck). 72 Conference transcript, p. 125 (Majumdar). 73 Ferrosilicon is a product used by the steel industry as an alloying agent. Ferrosilicon differs from silicon metal in that it has much lower silicon content and contains 4 percent or more of iron. 74 Conference transcript, pp. 40‐41 (Huck and Perkins). I‐19 would require removal of the material from the furnace, replacement of the electrodes and possibly the ceramic refractory lining in the furnace, and changing the raw materials used for production. 75 DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES Previous and related proceedings In its original determinations concerning silicon metal from Argentina, Brazil, and China, the Commission found the appropriate domestic like product to be all silicon metal, regardless of grade, having a silicon content of at least 96.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent of silicon by weight, and excluding semiconductor grade silicon; it found one domestic industry consistent with its domestic like product finding. In the first, second, and third five‐year review determinations, the Commission defined the domestic like product as all silicon metal, regardless of grade and corresponding to the scope of the orders, and it found the domestic industry to be all domestic producers of silicon metal.76 In its original determinations concerning silicon metal from Russia, the Commission found that there was one domestic like product consisting of all silicon metal, regardless of grade, based on shared physical characteristics, some overlapping uses, similar channels of distribution, some interchangeability, the same production processes and employees, and relatively minor difference in prices between the grade of silicon metal. In the first and second five‐year review determinations, the Commission determined that no new facts existed to warrant a conclusion different from that in the original investigation and again found one domestic like product consisting of all silicon metal, regardless of grade. 77 75 Conference transcript, pp. 40‐41 (Huck and Perkins). 76 Silicon Metal From Brazil and China: Investigation Nos. 731‐TA‐471 and 472 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3892, December 2006, pp. 4‐5; Silicon Metal From Brazil and China: Investigation Nos. 731‐ TA‐471 and 472 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3892, December 2006, pp. 4‐5. In 1993, in a response to a request by domestic interested parties for clarification of the scope of the antidumping duty order concerning China, Commerce determined that silicon metal containing between 89.00 percent and 99.00 percent silicon by weight, but which contains a higher aluminum content than the silicon metal containing at least 96.00 percent, but less than 99.99 percent silicon by weight, is the same class or kind of merchandise as the silicon metal described in the original order concerning China. Scope Rulings, 58 FR 27542, May 10, 1993. 77 Silicon Metal From Russia: Investigation No. 731‐TA‐991 (Second Review), USITC Publication 4471, June 2014, p. 7. I‐20 Current investigations Preliminary phase During the preliminary phase of these current investigations, the petitioner contended that silicon metal is a single domestic like product 78 and the respondents did not contest a single domestic like product that is coextensive with the scope of these investigations. 79 In its preliminary determinations, the Commission found that there does not appear to be any clear dividing line between domestically produced silicon metal products and defined a single domestic like product that is coextensive with the scope, consisting of silicon metal.80 Final phase The Commission reminded parties to identify in their comments on the draft questionnaires for the final phase of these investigations any arguments that would implicate data collection, such as requests to define the domestic like product in a different manner than was defined in the preliminary phase of these investigations. 81 No party requested in their comments on the Commission’s draft questionnaires in these final phase investigations that the Commission collect specific and comprehensive data from U.S. market participants concerning other possible domestic like products. 82 Therefore, the Commission collected data and other information based on a single domestic like product coextensive with Commerce’s scope. 78 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 4. The petitioner notes that Silgrain, a type of silicon metal imported from Norway, is the one type of silicon metal that is not manufactured by U.S. producers. However, the petitioner further explains that Silgrain is like other high purity silicon metal powder with respect to all other domestic like product factors. Conference transcript, p. 27 (Huck); petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 6. 79 Joint Respondents’ postconference brief, pp. 6‐7, exh. 2. 80 Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐567‐569 and 731‐ TA‐1343‐1345 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4685, May 2017, p. 8. 81 Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐567‐569 and 731‐ TA‐1343‐1345 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4685, May 2017, p. 8. 82 In its comments on the Commission’s draft questionnaires, Elkem requested that the Commission collect certain limited information from only purchasers and importers concerning the comparability of certain end uses of silicon metal (i.e. for polysilicon use and all other uses) in order “to determine whether silicon metal used for polysilicon production should be treated as a separate like product from other silicon metal.” But Elkem did not request a complete and comprehensive data collection for purposes of a domestic like product analysis. In addition, Elkem provided no clearly defined product specifications or definitions for the separate like products that go into the end uses that they identified, as is required for implementation of any orders. Elkem’s Comments Regarding Draft Questionnaires, September 29, 2017. Therefore, the Commission questionnaires included limited requests concerning silicon metal based on end use. II‐1 PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS Silicon metal has four broadly defined categories, or grades (in generally descending order of purity): semiconductor grade (out‐of‐scope product);1 chemical grade that is used in the production of polysilicon and other silicone chemical compounds; 2 metallurgical grade that is used to produce primary aluminum (aluminum produced from ore); and a metallurgical grade that is used to produce secondary aluminum (aluminum that may be produced from scrap).3 Primary and secondary aluminum producers use silicon metal as an alloying agent. 4 Silicon metal can also be used in the production of trichlorocyline and some gases. 5 Demand for silicon metal is derived from the demand for end uses, and is sold in lump and powder form. 6 Apparent U.S. consumption declined by *** percent from *** short tons in 2014 to *** short tons in 2016. Apparent consumption was *** percent higher at *** short tons in January‐ September 2017 compared to *** short tons in January‐September 2016. 7 U.S. PURCHASERS The Commission received 31 usable questionnaire responses from firms that have purchased silicon metal since 2014. 8 Fourteen responding purchasers are secondary aluminum producers, four are chemical and/or polysilicon producers, two are primary aluminum 1 Semiconductor‐grade silicon is a high purity product generally containing over 99.99 percent silicon and is used in the electronics industry. However, in‐scope silicon metal may be used as a starting material for the manufacture of semiconductor‐grade silicon metal. 2 Polysilicon is used in computer chips, solar panels, etc. Conference transcript, p. 56 (Perkins, Lutz). 3 There is no uniformly accepted grade classification system. Silicon metal “grades” refer to ranges of specifications that are typically sold to particular groups of customers. These specifications, which exist within narrow bands and are often proprietary, establish the minimum allowable amount of silicon and the maximum allowable amount of impurities such as iron, calcium, aluminum, or titanium. Chemical sector customers each have their own detailed specifications. Requirements may also vary widely among primary aluminum industry and secondary aluminum industry customers. The grade quality of silicon metal is highly dependent on the characteristics of raw material inputs, and can vary over large volumes. Silicon metal may require monitoring and testing to ensure product consistency and quality. 4 Conference transcript, p. 18 (Perkins). 5 Conference transcript, p. 56 (Perkins). 6 U.S. importers of silicon metal from *** reported that they primarily ship silicon metal in lump form, while importers of silicon metal from *** reported selling silicon metal primarily in powder form. 7 Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and official U.S. import statistics (see table C‐1). 8 Of the 31 responding purchasers, 28 purchased the domestic silicon metal, 27 purchased imports of the subject merchandise from subject countries, and 22 purchased imports of silicon metal from other sources. II‐2 producers, two are distributors, and nine firms reported producing other products such as brass and bronze ingots, refractory material, and nickel alloys, among others. In general, most responding U.S. purchasers were located in the Midwest and Eastern United States, with additional firms in the Western United States. The responding purchasers represented firms in a variety of domestic industries, including aluminum and metal alloy industries, chemical industries, and solar and electronic industries. The largest volume purchases of silicon metal are usually in the *** industries. CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION The vast majority of U.S. producers and importers sold silicon metal primarily to end users (table II‐1). In 2016, U.S. producers sold mainly to *** (about *** percent of U.S. commercial shipments) and, as a group, subject importers sold mainly to chemical users (approximately 60 percent of shipments, though shares varied by country). A large majority of shipments of Brazilian product was to chemical end users (approximately *** percent in 2016). The vast majority of silicon metal from Brazil was directly imported for internal consumption, and was not sold in the U.S. merchant market.9 Importers of Australian and Kazakh10 silicon metal sold most of their product to primary and secondary aluminum producers. Most shipments of Norwegian silicon metal were sold to ***. Respondents suggest that since *** are captively consumed, these imports enter a different channel of distribution than domestically produced silicon metal or other subject imports. 11 Table II-1 Silicon metal: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. commercial shipments, by sources and channels of distribution, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 * * * * * * * GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION U.S. producers and importers reported selling silicon metal to all regions in the contiguous United States (table II‐2). For U.S. producers, *** percent of sales were within 100 miles of their production facility, *** percent were between 101 and 1,000 miles, and *** percent were over 1,000 miles. Importers sold 13.0 percent within 100 miles of their U.S. point of shipment, 74.1 percent between 101 and 1,000 miles, and 12.9 percent over 1,000 miles. 9 Respondents LIASA and Minasligas’ posthearing brief, pp. 8‐9 and 13. 10 Respondents stated that Kazakh producers use a low‐quality coal and do not have access to woodchips and that this precludes these producers from producing silicon metal suitable for chemical or polysilicon use. Joint respondents’ postconference brief, pp. 13 and 28. 11 Dow Corning’s postconference brief, p. 8. II‐3 Table II-2 Silicon metal: Geographic market areas in the United States served by U.S. producers and importers Region U.S. producers Subject U.S. importers Subject importersAustralia Brazil Kazakhstan Norway Northeast 2 2 7 4 2 10 Midwest 3 3 12 4 2 14 Southeast 3 1 10 4 3 13 Central Southwest 2 --- 2 1 --- 2 Mountains 2 --- 1 1 --- 2 Pacific Coast 3 2 2 2 1 5 Other (AK, HI, PR, VI, etc.) --- --- 1 1 --- 1 All regions 2 --- --- --- --- --- Reporting firms 3 4 13 4 6 17 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS U.S. supply Domestic production Based on available information, U.S. producers of silicon metal have a limited ability to respond to changes in demand with relatively small‐to‐moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.‐produced silicon metal to the U.S. market. The factors contributing to this degree of responsiveness include some available capacity (mostly consisting of furnaces that were idled during the period of investigation), limited inventories, and limited production alternatives. Industry capacity Domestic capacity utilization decreased slightly from *** percent to *** percent during 2014‐16, driven by ***.12 Unscheduled downtimes typically result in a loss of production that cannot be compensated for by extra production at a later date. This moderately‐high level of capacity utilization suggests that U.S. producers have some ability to increase production of silicon metal in response to an increase in prices. Future production increases would likely require large capital expenditures in the form of additional furnaces.13 12 Overall production capacity of the three U.S. producers in 2016 was approximately *** short tons, and actual production was approximately *** short tons. 13 Staff field trip report, ***. II‐4 Alternative markets During 2014‐16, U.S. producers’ export shipments fluctuated between *** percent and *** percent of total shipments, indicating that U.S. producers have a limited ability to shift shipments between the U.S. market and other markets in response to price changes.14 Inventory levels U.S. producers’ inventories fluctuated during 2014‐16, but remained relatively unchanged overall. Relative to total shipments, U.S. producers’ inventories increased from *** percent in 2014 to *** percent in 2015, and fell to *** percent in 2016. These inventory levels suggest that U.S. producers have a limited ability to respond to changes in demand with changes in the quantity shipped from inventories. Production alternatives *** responding U.S. producers, ***, stated that they could theoretically switch production from silicon metal to ferrosilicon, but that this production switch has never been made. U.S. producer *** reported having the ability to switch production from silicon metal to ferrosilicon or magnesium ferrosilicon, after equipment modifications have been implemented. 15 Subject imports 16 Production capacity, capacity utilization, inventory ratios, and shipments to non‐U.S. markets are shown in table II‐3. Table II-3 Silicon metal: Industry factors that affect ability to increase shipments to the United States * * * * * * * 14 In questionnaire responses, U.S. producer *** and purchaser *** reported that silicon metal prices outside of the United States are often lower than U.S. prices, making U.S. exports uncompetitive. 15 Changing products or silicon metal grades may require downtime for extensive cleaning of machinery, and also the testing of products to ensure that impurities have been removed from the production process. 16 For data on the number of responding foreign firms and their share of U.S. imports from subject sources, please refer to Part I, “Summary Data and Data Sources.” II‐5 Subject imports from Australia Based on available information, producers of silicon metal from Australia have the ability to respond to changes in demand with small‐to‐moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of silicon metal to the U.S. market. The main contributing factor to this degree of responsiveness is an ability to shift shipments from alternate markets. The factors reducing responsiveness of supply are a lack of unused capacity and an ***.17 Importer *** reported that its ability to supply silicon metal to the U.S. market is constrained by ***. Subject imports from Brazil Based on available information, producers of silicon metal from Brazil have the ability to respond to changes in demand with small to moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of silicon metal to the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to this degree of responsiveness of supply are some availability of unused capacity and inventories and an ability to shift shipments from alternate markets. U.S. producer *** reported that ***.18 Subject imports from Kazakhstan19 Based on available information, producers of silicon metal from Kazakhstan have the ability to respond to changes in demand with small‐to‐moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of silicon metal to the U.S. market. The main contributing factor to this degree of responsiveness is the ability to shift some shipments from alternate markets. The factors restraining responsiveness of supply are a lack of unused capacity in the latter part of the period of investigation and an inability to shift production from alternate products. Subject imports from Norway Based on available information, producers of silicon metal from Norway have the ability to respond to changes in demand with small‐to‐moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of silicon metal to the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to this degree of responsiveness are some available inventories and an ability to shift shipments from alternate markets. The factors restraining responsiveness of supply are a lack of unused capacity, existing supply commitments to European buyers, and an inability to shift production from alternate products. 17 Generally, firms have indicated an ability to switch production from silicon metal to ferrosilicon. See Part I. ***. 18 ***. Staff field trip report, ***. 19 ***. II‐6 Nonsubject imports Nonsubject imports accounted for *** percent of total U.S. consumption in 2016, and approximately *** percent of total U.S. imports. The majority of nonsubject imports during 2014‐16 were from South Africa and Canada.20 Supply constraints Respondents reported numerous supply constraints, citing producers’ failures to deliver silicon metal, and supply disruptions related to these antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. 21 Several purchasers reported that the closure or partial closure of U.S. producer Globe’s silicon metal production sites, 22 or *** conversion to ferrosilicon production, reduced supplies and sometimes disrupted deliveries that had been contractually agreed upon. The *** U.S. purchaser, ***, reported that producer Globe was unable to fulfill contracted volumes in 2015, that deliveries were delayed until 2016, and that U.S. producers do not have enough capacity to meet domestic demand for silicon metal.23 U.S. purchasers *** reported that U.S. producer Mississippi Silicon either missed shipments in 2017 or was unable to supply silicon metal in required volumes. Eight purchasers (***) reported that antidumping and countervailing duty investigations disrupted shipments from subject country suppliers and decreased the number of available suppliers. Some purchasers reported that in 2017, U.S. producers were said to be less willing to sign purchase agreements until later in the year, and stated that this was presumably in anticipation of higher prices resulting from the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. U.S. purchasers *** reported that domestic producers were unwilling to negotiate agreements or provide quotes during the usual fourth quarter negotiation period. Purchaser *** reported that producers aim to book the highest spec grades and value contracts in descending order with polysilicon, chemical, primary aluminum, and secondary aluminum producers, and that this resulted in a lack of supply of U.S.‐produced high‐grade silicon metal for secondary aluminum producers. 20 The petitioner shares common ownership with foreign producers from nonsubject country South Africa, and some of the nonsubject country producers in Canada. 21 Respondent REC silicon’s posthearing brief, pp. 2‐3. Respondent Wacker’s posthearing brief, pp. 2‐ 3. 22 MPM reported that *** Globe’s Niagara Falls plant, and that the plant was partially closed due to *** at ***. MPM further reported that when ***, Globe’s Niagara Falls plant resumed full operations. Respondent MPM’s posthearing brief, p. 5. 23 Purchasers *** reported that U.S. producers Mississippi Silicon and Globe and subject producers Elkem (Norway) and Simcoa (Australia) had insufficient quantities to meet purchasers’ needs. Purchaser *** reported that U.S. producer Globe and importer Polymet (Brazil) failed to meet timely shipment commitments. II‐7 Purchasers *** reported diminished diversity of supply related to the 2015 merger of FerroAtlantica and Globe, and that the market entry of Mississippi Silicon was not enough to mitigate the impact of the merger.24 New suppliers Twenty‐one purchasers reported that Mississippi Silicon entered the U.S. market as the third U.S. producer at the end of 2015. Canadian based producer HiTest Silicon has proposed construction of a new silicon metal plant in Washington State; silicon metal production is not expected to begin before ***.25 U.S. demand Based on available information, the overall demand for silicon metal is likely to experience relatively small changes in response to changes in price. Demand for the end‐use products is the underlying driver of demand for silicon metal. While silicon metal accounts for a varying share of the total cost of its end‐use products, demand responsiveness is constrained by the lack of substitute products. End uses and cost share Silicon metal is primarily used by chemical producers in the production of silicones and polysilicon, and by aluminum producers as an alloying agent.26 Chemical end uses identified by firms include chlorosilanes, polycrystalline silicon, polysilicon, sealants, silicones, and silicone adhesive sealants. Aluminum end uses include aluminum alloys, aluminum castings, and various foundry ingots. Silicon metal usually accounts for a small‐to‐moderate share of the cost of the end‐use products in which it is used. Reported cost shares for chemical producers ranged from 8 percent to 34 percent of total cost, and polysilicon producers reported silicon metal cost shares between 12 and 36 percent. Reported cost shares for primary and secondary aluminum applications were between 1 and 18 percent. Business cycles *** U.S. producers and 10 of 22 responding importers indicated that the market was subject to business cycles and/or changes in conditions of competition since 2014. Specifically, U.S. producers *** reported that the silicon metal market is subject to business cycles that are 24 Respondent MPM’s posthearing brief, p. 6; Respondent REC Silicon’s posthearing brief, pp. 1‐2; Hearing transcript, p. 142 (Armstrong). 25 Respondent Dow Corning’s posthearing brief, p. 14, Exhibit 6. 26 Petitions, p. 7; Conference transcript, p. 86 (Walters); Brazilian producers’ postconference brief, p. 11. II‐8 driven by the aluminum industry and by the many consumer products that use silicones. U.S. producer *** reported that supply increases tend to be “lumpier” (e.g. new production plants), or less smooth, than increases in demand, leading to a market that may fluctuate between over‐ and under‐supply. Importers mostly cited fluctuating demand for downstream products. Most responding purchasers (17 of 30) reported that the market was not subject to business cycles and/or changes in conditions of competition since 2014. Purchasers *** indicated that the business cycle can track automotive and/or aerospace demand. Many purchasers reported that the business cycle was influenced by new domestic producers, mergers, and antidumping investigations. Demand trends Most U.S. producers reported decreasing U.S. demand since 2014, while most importers and purchasers reported increasing or fluctuating U.S. demand (table II‐4). Table II-4 Silicon metal: Firms’ responses regarding U.S. demand and demand outside the United States Item Number of firms reporting Increase No change Decrease Fluctuate Demand inside the United States: U.S. producers *** *** *** *** Importers 8 3 4 6 Purchasers 9 5 4 7 Demand outside the United States: U.S. producers *** *** *** *** Importers 12 3 --- 3 Purchasers 12 5 1 4 Demand for purchasers’ final products: Purchasers 12 1 4 10 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Demand for silicon metal fluctuates with the demand for downstream products. 27 U.S. producer *** reported that U.S. demand for silicon metal has decreased due to decreased demand from U.S. polysilicon producers. U.S. producer *** attributed decreased demand to the closure of a number of aluminum smelters, as well as “trade conflict” with China hindering the growth of the U.S. polysilicon sector. U.S. producer *** reported that U.S. demand decreased in 2015 due to poor economic conditions, remained at similar levels in 2016, and began to increase in 2017. Purchaser responses varied regarding demand trends in the silicon metal market. U.S. purchasers attributed increases in demand for silicon metal to increased demand from the auto sector (partly due to manufacturers increasingly substituting aluminum for steel in order to 27 Conference transcript, p. 96 (Bednarczyk); Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 16; MPM’s postconference brief, p. 6. II‐9 meet emission requirements), aluminum sector, and chemical sector. Purchasers that reported decreased demand cited the closure of some aluminum facilities and weaker demand for aluminum products. 28 During the preliminary phase of these investigations, respondents stated that the market composition and demand for silicon metal have changed as the consumption of high quality, pure silicon metal for polysilicon has expanded, and that demand for silicon metal from polysilicon manufacturers is currently viewed as the biggest driver of demand growth in the U.S. market. 29 Substitute products Most responding U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers reported that there are no substitutes for silicon metal. However, three purchasers in the metallurgical sector (***) and one purchaser in the chemical sector (***) reported that aluminum scrap containing silicon metal can be recycled into other secondary aluminum products. Scrap aluminum containing silicon metal can thus contribute to the metallurgical‐grade silicon metal supply, and reduce the need for additional purchases of metallurgical‐grade silicon metal. SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES The degree of substitution between domestic and imported silicon metal depends upon such factors as relative prices, grade, sizing and packaging, reliability of supply, timeliness of delivery, and conditions of sale. Based on available data, staff believes that there is a high degree of substitutability between domestically produced silicon metal and silicon metal imported from subject sources, although silicon metal chemical characteristics and reliability of supply issues may affect levels of substitutability. Lead times U.S. producers *** reported that silicon metal is produced‐to‐order *** percent and *** percent of the time, respectively, with an average lead time of 30 days. The remaining *** percent and *** percent of their commercial shipments were shipped from inventories, with lead times of two to three days. U.S. producer *** reported that it ***.30 Importers of subject merchandise reported that 77.7 percent of their sales of silicon metal were sold from U.S. inventories in 2016, with an average lead time of 75 days. About 15 28 According to U.S. purchaser ***, demand increases were due to increased aluminum‐related consumption that was bolstered by auto production and strong domestic polysilicon production. However, increased availability of aluminum scrap with high silicon metal content may have been recycled and partly offset the increased demand from auto manufacturers. 29 ***. Joint respondents’ postconference brief, pp. 6, 11, 17, Exhibit 7. 30 If silicon metal produced for captive consumption does not meet the company’s quality standards, *** will occasionally sell low grade silicon metal on the spot market. II‐10 percent of shipments were produced‐to‐order with an average lead time of 70 days. The remaining share of subject imports was sold from foreign inventories with an average lead time of 75 days. Knowledge of country sources Twenty‐three purchasers indicated they had marketing or pricing knowledge of silicon metal produced in the United States. Many purchasers also reported knowledge of silicon metal from subject sources: Australia (13 purchasers), Brazil (16), Kazakhstan (8), and Norway (5). Seven purchasers reported market knowledge of silicon metal from nonsubject country Canada, and 12 purchasers reported knowledge of silicon metal from nonsubject country South Africa. Eight purchasers reported market knowledge of silicon metal from other nonsubject countries. As shown in table II‐5, relatively few purchasers or their customers make purchasing decisions based on the producer, and fewer make purchasing decisions based on the country of origin. Of the six purchasers that reported that they always make decisions based on the producer, primary reasons cited for doing so included product quality and/or chemical characteristics, shipment reliability, and long standing business relationships. Table II-5 Silicon metal: Purchasing decisions based on producer and country of origin Purchaser/Customer Decision Always Usually Sometimes Never Purchaser makes decision based on producer 6 2 9 14 Purchaser’s customers make decision based on producer --- --- 4 16 Purchaser makes decision based on country 3 2 5 19 Purchaser’s customers make decision based on country --- --- 1 16 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Factors affecting purchasing decisions The most often cited top three factors firms consider in their purchasing decisions for silicon metal were price (29 firms), quality (27 firms), and availability/supply (23 firms) as shown in table II‐6. Quality was the most frequently cited first‐most important factor (cited by 13 firms), followed by availability/supply/reliability (8 firms). Price, quality, and availability/supply/reliability were equally likely to be the second‐most important factor (9 firms each); and price was the most frequently reported third‐most important factor (14 firms). II‐11 Table II-6 Silicon metal: Ranking of factors used in purchasing decisions as reported by U.S. purchasers, by factor Item Ranking Total1st 2nd 3rd Number of firms (number) Price/cost 6 9 14 29 Quality 13 9 5 27 Availability/supply/reliability 8 9 6 23 All other factors 1 4 4 6 NA 1 Other factors include supplier relationships, terms of sale, and diversity of suppliers. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Factors cited as primary reasons for purchasing subject imports of silicon metal instead of domestic silicon metal included price, quality, diversity of supply, delivery time frame, business relationships, availability, and a lack of sufficient domestic supply to buy from domestic producers. Importance of specified purchase factors Purchasers were asked to rate the importance of 17 factors in their purchasing decisions (table II‐7). The factors rated as very important by more than half of responding purchasers were availability, reliability of supply, product consistency, quality meets industry standards, price, delivery time, and delivery terms. Table II-7 Silicon metal: Importance of purchase factors, as reported by U.S. purchasers, by factor Factor Very important Somewhat important Not important Availability 30 1 --- Delivery terms 17 10 3 Delivery time 22 9 --- Discounts offered 10 12 9 Diversity of supply sources 8 13 10 Extension of credit 8 16 7 Low boron content 8 9 14 Minimum quantity requirements 5 12 14 Packaging 12 17 2 Price 22 8 1 Product consistency 29 2 --- Product range 5 13 13 Quality meets industry standards 24 5 2 Quality exceeds industry standards 11 13 7 Reliability of supply 30 1 --- Technical support/service 7 18 6 U.S. transportation costs 10 14 7 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. II‐12 Supplier certification Most purchasers (22 of 31) require supplier certification, with some purchasers requiring stricter standards, certification processes, and multiple trial loads. Seven purchasers reported that one or more suppliers had failed to certify since 2014; most of these purchasers were chemical/polysilicon or alloy manufacturers. Both U.S. producers and foreign producers failed to certify. Failures were attributed to both chemical characteristics as well as packaging, which tends to be of greater importance for chemical manufacturers that use silicon metal with strict impurity requirements and usually require silicon metal in powder form. Most purchasers reported that the time to qualify a new supplier ranged from 30 to 180 days, although several firms reported less than 10 days and others reported between one to two years to qualify a new supplier. U.S. purchasers *** reported that U.S. producer *** failed certification standards due to poor quality. U.S. purchasers *** specified that U.S. producer *** either cannot produce the spec silicon metal that the firm requires, or failed in the certification/qualification requirements. U.S. purchasers *** reported that specific purity silicon metal grades or characteristics (***, ***, and ***,31 respectively), are more or only available from overseas suppliers, and that the specific grades or characteristics are necessary as high quality feedstocks of specialized products. U.S. purchasers *** identified various foreign producers that failed their silicon metal certification standards.32 Changes in purchasing patterns Purchasers were asked about changes in their purchasing patterns from different sources since 2014 (table II‐8); reasons reported for changes in sourcing included a need to maintain a diversity of suppliers, problems with failed deliveries or quality standards, the Globe and FerroAtlantica merger, the market entry of U.S. producer Mississippi Silicon, and supply and price pressures resulting from the silicon metal antidumping/countervailing duty investigations. Most responding purchasers (21 of 31) reported that they had changed suppliers since January 1, 2014. Generally, firms dropped or reduced purchases from suppliers because of issues with quality certification and/or reliability of shipment delivery. Firms added or increased purchases from other suppliers in order to maintain or grow their diversity of suppliers, to obtain specific silicon metal grades and/or qualities, to ensure necessary volumes for large orders, and to purchase at lower prices. 31 Respondent Dow Corning’s posthearing brief, Exhibit 5, paragraphs 7‐10, Attachment F. 32 ***. II‐13 Table II-8 Silicon metal: Changes in purchase patterns from U.S., subject, and nonsubject countries Source of purchases Did not purchase Decreased Increased Constant Fluctuated United States 2 9 11 1 5 Australia 10 3 9 2 3 Brazil 7 8 6 2 3 Kazakhstan 14 1 6 1 2 Norway 20 1 3 --- 1 All other sources 8 5 8 4 5 Sources unknown 10 --- 4 1 2 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Importance of purchasing domestic product Most purchasers reported that the country of origin of silicon metal purchases was not important, and some purchasers acknowledged occasions when they did not know the country of origin of their purchases until after the shipment arrived from a distributor or trader. Instead, purchasers more frequently reported the importance of the relationship with the supplier, whether domestic or foreign. Most purchasers reported that purchasing U.S.‐ produced silicon metal was not required by their customers, regulations, or for any other reason. However, some purchasers did state a preference for domestically produced silicon metal based on factors that included reliable quality, proximity of supply, and timeliness of delivery. Comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports Purchasers were asked a number of questions comparing silicon metal produced in the United States, subject countries, and nonsubject countries (table II‐9). The purchasers were asked for a country‐by‐country comparison on the same 17 factors for which they were asked to rate the importance. Most purchasers rated domestically produced silicon metal as comparable or superior to both subject and nonsubject silicon metal in most of the purchase factors with the exception of price and discounts offered, for which U.S. product most often was rated as comparable or inferior. Of the key factors rated as being very important in table II‐7 (availability, delivery terms, delivery time, price, product consistency, quality, and reliability of supply), domestically produced product usually rated as comparable or superior in all factors except for price. Within subject country comparisons and nonsubject country comparisons, most countries were rated as comparable, or had mixed ratings as purchasers provided contrasting answers about the superiority or inferiority of a given country’s product. Additionally, fewer firms reported familiarity or knowledge of silicon metal from both Kazakhstan and Norway. II‐14 Table II-9 Silicon metal: Purchasers’ comparisons between U.S.-produced and imported product Factor U.S. vs. Australia U.S. vs. Brazil U.S. vs. Kazakhstan U.S. vs. Norway S C I S C I S C I S C I Availability 7 7 5 9 6 4 6 6 1 2 5 1 Delivery terms 6 9 4 10 7 2 7 5 1 2 4 2 Delivery time 9 8 2 11 8 --- 7 5 1 5 2 1 Discounts offered 2 9 7 1 10 6 1 5 6 1 5 2 Diversity of supply sources 5 9 4 4 6 7 4 7 1 2 5 1 Extension of credit 2 10 6 3 10 3 3 8 1 2 2 4 Low boron content --- 12 1 --- 12 1 1 9 --- 1 4 --- Minimum quantity requirements 3 13 --- 2 13 1 3 9 --- 2 3 1 Packaging 5 14 --- 6 12 1 6 7 --- 3 5 --- Price 1 1 10 8 1 9 9 --- 7 6 1 5 2 Product consistency 3 13 1 5 10 2 6 6 --- 2 5 --- Product range 2 14 1 3 11 2 4 8 --- 1 5 1 Quality meets industry standards 2 15 1 4 11 2 6 7 --- 1 6 --- Quality exceeds industry standards --- 9 5 3 8 3 5 5 1 2 2 1 Reliability of supply 4 9 4 4 11 3 7 4 1 2 3 2 Technical support/service 3 10 2 5 9 2 6 4 1 1 2 4 U.S. transportation costs 1 3 8 5 3 8 5 3 4 4 2 4 2 Factor U.S. vs. Canada U.S. vs. South Africa U.S. vs. All other sources S C I S C I S C I Availability 4 3 2 7 8 3 6 3 2 Delivery terms 3 4 1 6 9 3 6 4 1 Delivery time 3 4 1 9 8 1 7 4 --- Discounts offered 1 6 --- 1 11 4 --- 3 7 Diversity of supply sources 4 3 1 5 8 3 1 3 5 Extension of credit 2 5 --- 1 12 2 3 4 2 Low boron content 1 6 --- --- 13 1 2 5 1 Minimum quantity requirements 3 6 --- 3 11 1 3 5 1 Packaging 4 5 --- 6 11 1 5 5 1 Price 1 1 7 1 2 12 4 1 6 4 Product consistency 5 4 --- 3 13 --- 5 4 --- Product range 4 4 --- 3 12 --- 2 7 --- Quality meets industry standards 4 4 --- 4 12 --- 4 6 --- Quality exceeds industry standards 2 5 --- 3 9 2 3 4 2 Reliability of supply 3 4 2 5 10 2 4 6 --- Technical support/service 4 5 --- 4 11 1 4 4 1 U.S. transportation costs 1 2 6 1 3 8 5 4 3 3 1 A rating of superior means that price/U.S. transportation cost is generally lower. For example, if a firm reported “U.S. superior,” it meant that the U.S. product was generally priced lower than the imported product. Note.--S=first listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first list country’s product is inferior. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. II‐15 Comparison of U.S.‐produced and imported silicon metal In order to determine whether U.S.‐produced silicon metal can generally be used in the same applications as imported silicon metal, U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked whether the silicon metal products can always, frequently, sometimes, or never be used interchangeably. While U.S. producers’ responses varied, importers and purchasers most frequently reported that domestically produced silicon metal is always interchangeable with imported silicon metal from subject countries (table II‐10). The extent of interchangeability tends to be greater for metallurgical end uses, and more limited for chemical and polysilicon end uses, which may require relatively specific chemical qualities and purity standards. Interchangeability of silicon metal depends mostly on a customer’s chemical requirements, and interchangeability may vary based on the producer within a given country.33 33 Based on data and narratives submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. II‐16 Table II-10 Silicon metal: Interchangeability between silicon metal produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pair Country pair U.S. Producers U.S. importers U.S. purchasers A F S N A F S N A F S N U.S. vs. Australia 2 1 --- --- 7 3 3 --- 11 6 3 --- U.S. vs. Brazil 1 1 1 --- 8 4 6 --- 11 7 4 --- U.S. vs. Kazakhstan 1 --- 1 --- 7 1 2 --- 8 3 2 --- U.S. vs. Norway 2 1 --- --- 7 4 5 --- 4 1 2 --- Australia vs. Brazil 1 1 1 --- 7 4 4 --- 6 4 4 --- Australia vs. Kazakhstan 1 --- 1 --- 6 1 3 --- 4 3 1 --- Australia vs. Norway 2 1 --- --- 7 2 4 --- 3 1 1 --- Brazil vs. Kazakhstan 1 --- 1 --- 6 2 3 --- 6 3 2 --- Brazil vs. Norway 1 1 1 --- 6 4 5 --- 3 --- 3 --- Kazakhstan vs. Norway 1 --- 1 --- 6 3 1 --- 2 --- --- --- U.S. vs. Canada 1 1 1 --- 6 2 4 --- 7 3 2 --- U.S. vs. South Africa 2 1 --- --- 5 2 4 --- 12 5 2 --- U.S. vs. Other 1 2 --- --- 6 2 4 --- 7 7 2 1 Australia vs. Canada 1 1 1 --- 6 3 3 --- 2 2 3 --- Australia vs. South Africa 2 1 --- --- 5 3 4 --- 6 3 2 --- Australia vs. Other 1 2 --- --- 6 3 3 --- 4 4 2 1 Brazil vs. Canada 1 1 1 --- 6 3 3 --- 3 3 2 --- Brazil vs. South Africa 1 1 1 --- 6 3 3 --- 11 3 2 --- Brazil vs. Other 1 1 1 --- 6 2 4 --- 6 5 3 1 Kazakhstan vs. Canada 1 --- 1 --- 6 2 1 --- 2 2 1 --- Kazakhstan vs. South Africa 1 --- 1 --- 5 2 1 --- 5 2 --- --- Kazakhstan vs. Other 1 1 --- --- 6 1 2 --- 3 3 1 1 Norway vs. Canada 1 1 1 --- 6 2 3 --- 1 2 2 --- Norway vs. South Africa 2 1 --- --- 5 2 4 --- 4 1 3 --- Norway vs. Other 1 2 --- --- 6 2 3 --- 1 5 2 1 Canada vs. South Africa 2 1 --- --- 5 2 3 --- 4 2 4 --- Canada vs. Other 1 1 --- --- 6 2 3 --- 2 5 2 1 South Africa vs. Other 1 1 --- --- 6 --- 4 --- 5 4 3 1 Note.-- A=Always, F=Frequently, S=Sometimes, N=Never. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. II‐17 Most responding purchasers generally reported that domestically produced silicon metal always or usually met minimum quality specifications (table II‐11). Table II-11 Silicon metal: Ability to meet minimum quality specifications, by source 1 Source Always Usually Sometimes Rarely or never Don’t know United States 19 6 2 --- 4 Australia 15 2 --- --- 13 Brazil 19 2 2 --- 5 Kazakhstan 6 5 1 1 14 Norway 5 1 2 --- 19 Other 11 4 2 --- 8 1 Purchasers were asked how often domestically produced or imported silicon metal meets minimum quality specifications for their own or their customers’ uses. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. In addition, producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to assess how often differences other than price were significant in sales of silicon metal from the United States, subject, or nonsubject countries. As seen in table II‐12, responses varied amongst producers, importers, and purchasers. Significant differences cited by firms included availability, predictability of supply, service, packaging, delivery/timeliness, terms, quality, and consistency. II‐18 Table II-12 Silicon metal: Significance of differences other than price between silicon metal produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pair Country pair U.S. producers U.S. importers U.S. purchasers A F S N A F S N A F S N U.S. vs. Australia 1 --- 1 1 5 1 3 3 8 2 6 3 U.S. vs. Brazil 1 --- 1 1 7 --- 4 4 5 2 8 7 U.S. vs. Kazakhstan --- --- 1 1 3 1 2 4 3 1 6 3 U.S. vs. Norway 1 --- 1 1 5 2 3 3 3 1 2 2 Australia vs. Brazil 1 --- 1 1 5 --- 3 4 4 1 5 3 Australia vs. Kazakhstan --- --- 1 1 3 1 2 4 1 1 4 2 Australia vs. Norway 1 --- 1 1 4 --- 3 3 2 --- 2 1 Brazil vs. Kazakhstan --- --- 1 1 4 1 2 4 2 1 4 4 Brazil vs. Norway 1 --- 1 1 6 --- 3 3 3 --- 2 2 Kazakhstan vs. Norway --- --- 1 1 3 1 2 3 --- --- 1 2 U.S. vs. Canada --- 1 1 1 4 1 3 4 2 3 4 4 U.S. vs. South Africa 1 --- 1 1 4 --- 3 3 3 1 8 6 U.S. vs. Other 1 --- 1 1 5 --- 3 4 5 1 6 4 Australia vs. Canada --- 1 1 1 3 1 3 4 2 1 3 2 Australia vs. South Africa --- --- 1 2 4 --- 3 3 2 --- 5 4 Australia vs. Other 1 --- 1 1 4 --- 3 4 3 --- 3 3 Brazil vs. Canada 1 --- 1 1 5 --- 3 4 3 1 2 4 Brazil vs. South Africa 1 --- 1 1 5 --- 3 3 4 --- 6 6 Brazil vs. Other 1 --- 1 1 5 --- 3 4 5 --- 4 4 Kazakhstan vs. Canada --- --- 1 1 3 1 2 4 --- 1 3 2 Kazakhstan vs. South Africa --- --- 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 --- 4 3 Kazakhstan vs. Other --- --- 1 1 3 1 2 4 2 --- 3 2 Norway vs. Canada 1 --- 1 1 4 --- 3 4 2 2 2 1 Norway vs. South Africa --- --- 1 2 3 --- 3 4 2 1 2 3 Norway vs. Other 1 --- 1 1 4 --- 3 4 3 1 2 1 Canada vs. South Africa --- 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 2 2 3 3 Canada vs. Other --- --- 2 1 3 --- 4 4 3 1 2 2 South Africa vs. Other --- --- 2 1 3 --- 3 4 3 1 3 4 Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. II‐19 ELASTICITY ESTIMATES This section discusses elasticity estimates; no parties suggested changes to these estimates in the prehearing or posthearing briefs. U.S. supply elasticity The domestic supply elasticity34 for silicon metal measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied by U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of silicon metal. The elasticity of domestic supply depends on several factors including the level of excess capacity, the ease with which producers can alter capacity, producers’ ability to shift to production of other products, the existence of inventories, and the availability of alternate markets for U.S.‐produced silicon metal. Analysis of these factors above indicates that the U.S. industry has relatively limited ability to increase or decrease shipments to the U.S. market; an estimate in the range of 1 to 3 is suggested. U.S. demand elasticity The U.S. demand elasticity for silicon metal measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of silicon metal. This estimate depends on factors discussed above such as the existence, availability, and commercial viability of substitute products, as well as the component share of silicon metal in the production of any downstream products. Based on the available information, the aggregate demand for silicon metal is likely to be highly inelastic; a range of ‐0.25 to ‐0.5 is suggested. Substitution elasticity The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the domestic and imported products. 35 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality (e.g., chemistry, appearance, etc.) and conditions of sale (e.g., availability, sales terms/ discounts/ promotions, etc.). Based on available information, the elasticity of substitution between U.S.‐produced silicon metal and imported silicon metal is high, and estimated in the range of 4 to 7. However, substitution elasticity is likely to have firm‐ specific variation, with firms requiring stricter impurity requirements having lower substitution elasticity. 34 A supply function is not defined in the case of a non‐competitive market. 35 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the subject imports and the domestic like products to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily purchasers switch from the U.S. product to the subject products (or vice versa) when prices change. III‐1 PART III: U.S. PRODUCERS’ PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, AND EMPLOYMENT The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making injury determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §§ 1677(7)(B) and 1677(7)(C)). Information on the subsidies and dumping margins was presented in Part I of this report and information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Part IV and Part V. Information on the other factors specified is presented in this section and/or Part VI and (except as noted) is based on the questionnaire responses of three firms that accounted for virtually all of U.S. production of silicon metal during 2016. Important industry events that have occurred in the silicon metal industry since January 1, 2014 are summarized in table III‐1. Table III-1 Silicon metal: Important industry events, since January 1, 2014 Date Company / Item Action Year Month 2015 September Mississippi Silicon Mississippi Silicon, LLC , a partnership between Rima Holdings USA Inc. and domestic investor group Clean Tech LLC, opened a new $200 million silicon metal plant in Burnsville, Mississippi. It was the first new silicon metal plant built in the United States in 40 years.1 2015 December Ferroglobe PLC The Spanish firm Grupo FerroAtlántica merged with Globe Specialty Metals (“GSM”) ( the parent company of Globe Metallurgical) to become Ferroglobe PLC, reportedly the leading producer of silicon metal and silicon-based alloys in the world. Collectively, Ferroglobe’s silicon metal production capacity was about 543,000 short tons per year and is distributed as follows: Europe, 40 percent; North America, 40 percent; Africa, 14 percent; and Asia, 7 percent. 2 3 2016 January *** ***. 4 2016 April Wacker Chemie AG Wacker Chemie AG opened a new $2.5 billion polysilicon 5 plant in Charleston, Tennessee. Wacker planned to gradually ramp up production and expected to reach full polysilicon production capacity of 22,000 short tons per year by the third quarter of 2016. 6 2016 October *** *** 7 Table continued on next page. III‐2 Table III-1--Continued Silicon metal: Important industry events, since January 1, 2014 Date Company / Item Action Year Month 2017 February The Canadian International Trade Tribunal (“CITT”) Issuance of AD/CVD investigation on silicon metal imported to Canada. CITT initiated a preliminary injury inquiry into a complaint by Québec Silicon Limited Partnership and its affiliate QSIP Canada ULC, of Bécancour, Quebec, that they have suffered injury as a result of the dumping of silicon metal from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Laos, Malaysia, Norway, Russia, and Thailand, and subsidizing of the above-mentioned goods from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Norway and Thailand. 8 2017 September Wacker Chemie AG A “technical defect” caused a chemical release and explosion at Wacker Chemie AG’s polysilicon plant in Charleston, Tennessee. The explosion damaged pipes and resulted in the closure of the plant. A spokesman from the company stated that “production will not start until a thorough inspection is completed and it is certain that the facility is safe.” The plant was expected to remain closed for several months. 9 10 2017 November Findings in AD/CVD investigation on silicon metal imported to Canada. The CITT concluded its AD/CVD investigations found that the dumping and/or subsidizing of silicon metal originating in or exported from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Laos, Malaysia, Norway, and Thailand did not cause injury and were not threatening to cause injury to the domestic industry. 11 2017 December The European Commission notice of initiation-antidumping proceeding The European Commission initiated an antidumping proceeding after receiving a complaint by FerroAtlántica and Ferropem alleging that imports of silicon originating from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Brazil, are being dumped and are thereby causing material injury to the Union (European Union) industry. 12 1 Mississippi Silicon opens new facility in Burnsville, Business Xpansion Journal, October 30, 2015, http://bxjmag.com/mississippi-silicon-opens-new-facility-in-burnsville/, retrieved May 11, 2017. 2 The other leading global silicon metal producers, in descending order of production capacity, were Dow Corning (228,000 short tons), Elkem (175,000 short tons), and Rima (114,000 short tons). Ferroglobe PLC, “Investor Presentation, January 2017,” p.,4. http://investor.ferroglobe.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=AMDA- 5STP82&fileid=890793&filekey=CFE050BE-EFCF-45C5-B36E-E2175021C697&filename=Ferroglobe_- _Investor_Presentation.pdf retrieved March 24, 2017. 3 Ferroglobe PLC, “Investor Presentation, January 2017,” p.7, http://investor.ferroglobe.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=AMDA- 5STP82&fileid=890793&filekey=CFE050BE-EFCF-45C5-B36E-E2175021C697&filename=Ferroglobe_- _Investor_Presentation.pdf retrieved March 24, 2017. 4 ***. 5 Polysilicon is a high-purity form of silicon made from subject silicon metal. 6 Wacker Chemie AG website, https://www.wacker.com/cms/en/wacker_group/wacker_facts/sites/charleston/charleston.jsp, retrieved May 11, 2017. 7 ***. 8 Government of Canada news release,”Tribunal Initiates Injury—Silicon Metal from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Laos, Malaysia, Norway, Russia, and Thailand,” February 21, 2017, https://www.canada.ca/en/international-trade- tribunal/news/2017/02/tribunal_initiatesinquirysiliconmetalfrombrazilkazakhstanlaosmal.html, retrieved February 20, 2018. Table continued on next page. III‐3 Table III-1--Continued Silicon metal: Important industry events, since January 1, 2014 9 “Technical Defect Caused Chemical Release and Explosion at US Site in Charleston.” Wacker Chemie AG, September 8, 2017. https://www.wacker.com/cms/en/press_media/press- releases/pressinformation-detail_84288.jsp?from_all_summary=true., retrieved February 13, 2018. 10 “Root-cause investigation at Wacker’s Charleston plant underway.” Wacker Chemie AG, September 20, 2017. https://www.wacker.com/cms/en/press_media/press-releases/pressinformation- detail_84544.jsp?from_all_summary=true., retrieved February 13, 2018. 11 The Canadian International Trade Tribunal, “Silicon Metal Inquiry No. NQ-2017-001” Anti-Dumping Injury Inquiries Inquiries (section 42) Findings and Reasons, November 17, 2017, http://www.citt.gc.ca/en/node/8185, retrieved February 15, 2018. 12 Office Journal of the European Union, The European Commission, “Case AD645-Silicon” Notice of initiation of antidumping proceedings for Bosnia and Herzegovina and Brazil, December 19, 2017, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/tdi/case_details.cfm?id=2309, retrieved March 7, 2018. Source: Various cited articles and websites. U.S. PRODUCERS The Commission issued a U.S. producer questionnaire to three firms based on information contained in the petitions, and other available industry resources. Three firms provided usable data on their productive operations, and account for all known domestic production of silicon metal.1 Table III‐2 lists U.S. producers of silicon metal, their production locations, positions on the petitions, and shares of total production. Table III-2 Silicon metal: U.S. producers of silicon metal, their positions on the petitions, production locations, and shares of reported production, 2016 Firm Position on petitions Production locations Share of production (percent) Dow Corning *** Dow Corning Alabama Inc., Mt. Meigs, Alabama; WVA Manufacturing, Alloy, West Virginia (joint venture with Globe) *** Globe Petitioner Beverly, Ohio; Niagara Falls, New York; Selma, Alabama; and Alloy, West Virginia *** Mississippi Silicon *** 1 Burnsville, Mississippi *** Total *** 1 ***. *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, section I-3. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 1 Mississippi Silicon started production in late 2015, and therefore did not provide data for 2014. III‐4 Related firms Table III‐3 presents information on U.S. producers’ ownership, related and/or affiliated firms of silicon metal. Two U.S. producers, DC Alabama and Mississippi Silicon, are related to foreign producers in subject countries (both are related to Brazilian producers).2 These U.S. producers are also related to U.S. importers (***) of the subject merchandise. In addition, as discussed in greater detail below, these U.S. producers directly import the subject merchandise and one (***) purchases the subject merchandise from U.S. importers. Table III-3 Silicon metal: U.S. producers’ ownership related and/or affiliated firms * * * * * * * Changes in Operations Table III‐4 presents U.S. producers’ reported changes in operations since January 1, 2014. Table III-4 Silicon metal: U.S. producers’ reported changes in operations, since January 1, 2014 * * * * * * * U.S. PRODUCTION, CAPACITY, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION Table III‐5 and figure III‐1 present U.S. producers’ production, capacity, and capacity utilization. Domestic producers’ capacity (for silicon metal production) increased by *** percent from 2014 to 2016. Total production increased by *** percent from 2014 to 2016. 3 The main reason for these increases in capacity and production is ***. Capacity utilization decreased from *** percent in 2014 to *** percent in 2015, and further decreased to *** percent in 2016. Table III-5 Silicon metal: U.S. producers’ production, capacity, and capacity utilization, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 * * * * * * * 2 Hearing transcript, pp. 23‐24 (Kramer). 3 Despite this overall increase, ***. Staff field trip report, ***. III‐5 Figure III-1 Silicon metal: U.S. producers’ production, capacity, and capacity utilization, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 * * * * * * * Alternative products As shown in table III‐6, U.S. producers reported that a majority of their production consisted of silicon metal. Production of in‐scope silicon metal accounted for *** percent of total production during 2016. Two firms, ***, reported that they do not produce alternative products on the same equipment or using the same employees, while *** reported producing out‐of‐scope items on the same equipment as in‐scope silicon metal. Production of out‐of‐ scope products accounted for *** percent of total U.S. production during 2016. These out‐of‐ scope products include ***.4 Producers were also asked to describe the constraints that set the limits of their production capacity. ***. 5 *** noted production constraints included ***. 6 ***. 7 Table III-6 Silicon metal: U.S. producers’ overall plant capacity and production on the same equipment as subject production, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 * * * * * * * U.S. PRODUCERS’ U.S. SHIPMENTS AND EXPORTS Table III‐7 presents U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, export shipments, and total shipments. Globe and Mississippi Silicon are merchant market producers while DC Alabama is a captive supplier for use of silicon metal in its own production processes. 8 From 2014 to 2016, the quantity of U.S. producers’ total shipments, increased by *** percent. The value of U.S. producers’ total shipments increased by *** percent from 2014 to 2015, but then decreased by *** percent from 2015 to 2016. The value of U.S. producers’ total shipments decreased overall by *** percent from 2014 to 2016. The average unit value of U.S. producers’ total shipments increased by *** percent from 2014 to 2015, but decreased by *** percent from 2015 to 2016. The average unit value of U.S. producers’ total shipments decreased overall by *** percent from 2014 to 2016. During January to September (“interim”) 2016 compared to interim 2017, 4 Between 2014 and 2016, ***. *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, section II‐3f. 5 *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, section II‐3d. 6 *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, section II‐3d. 7 *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, section II‐3d. 8 Hearing transcript, pp. 23‐24 (Kramer). III‐6 U.S. producers’ total shipments based on quantity was *** higher in interim 2017 than in interim 2016, but *** percent lower based on value. 9 During 2014‐16, *** of domestic producers’ total shipments of silicon metal were U.S. commercial shipments while *** were transfers to related firms. *** accounted for all reported transfers to related firms. 10 Export shipments fluctuated from 2014 to 2016, but ***. The principal export markets include ***. Table III-7 Silicon metal: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, exports shipments, and total shipments, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 * * * * * * * U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES Table III‐8 presents U.S. producers’ end‐of‐period inventories and the ratio of these inventories to U.S. producers’ production, U.S. shipments, and total shipments. These data show that U.S. producers’ inventories increased by *** percent from 2014 to 2015, but decreased by *** percent from 2015 to 2016. U.S. producers’ inventories increased overall by *** percent from 2014 to 2016. U.S. producers’ inventories were equivalent to between *** and *** percent of U.S. producers’ total shipments during 2014‐16. In 2015 and 2016, all domestic producers reported holding end‐of‐period inventories of silicon metal (Mississippi Silicon did not produce in 2014). *** held lower inventories in December 2016 than in December 2014 and *** held higher inventories in December 2016 than in December 2014. 11 U.S. producers’ inventories were *** lower in September 2017 than in September 2016. Table III-8 Silicon metal: U.S. producers’ inventories, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 * * * * * * * 9 ***. *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, section II‐11. 10 The vast majority of *** U.S. shipments were transfers to related firms, while the majority of *** U.S. shipments were U.S. commercial shipments. *** U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section II‐ 7. 11 In response to a Commission question regarding whether the U.S. industry has made a business decision to focus on the polysilicon and chemicals market, Marlin Perkins, Vice President of Sales for Globe indicated that “we supply all sectors of the market. I think right now we're probably holding more inventory than we would like to and if we could sell it, we would sell it.” Hearing transcript, pp. 109‐110 (Perkins). III‐7 U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES Two U.S. producers *** purchased domestic silicon metal during 2014‐16. ***. 12 13 U.S. producers’ imports of silicon metal are presented in table III‐9. U.S. producer *** is related to *** through a common parent, ***. This parent imported silicon metal from *** during 2014‐16. *** indicated its reason for importing was due to “***.” 14 ***. Table III-9 Silicon metal: U.S. producers’ U.S. production and imports, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 * * * * * * * U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY Table III‐10 shows U.S. producers’ employment‐related data. U.S. producers’ employment measured by production and related workers (“PRWs”) increased by *** percent from 2014 to 2015, but decreased by *** percent from 2015 to 2016. 15 U.S. producers’ employment measured by PRWs increased overall by *** percent from 2014 to 2016. U.S. producers’ total hours worked increased by *** percent from 2014 to 2016. U.S. producers’ hourly wages decreased by *** percent from 2014 to 2016. Unit labor costs increased by *** percent from 2014 to 2015, but decreased by *** percent from 2015 to 2016. Unit labor costs increased overall by *** percent from 2014 to 2016. Productivity decreased by *** percent from 2014 to 2016. In contrast to the increases with the U.S. producers’ employment‐related data during 2014‐16, the employment‐related data in the 2017 interim period (January‐September) was lower than the 2016 interim period for all employment‐related data, with the exceptions of ***.16 17 Table III-10 Silicon metal: Average number of production and related workers, hours worked, wages paid to such employees, hourly wages, productivity, and unit labor costs, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 * * * * * * * 12 *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, section II‐12. 13 *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, section II‐12. 14 *** added that “***”. *** U.S. importer questionnaire response, section II‐4. 15 In its hearing testimony, Globe indicated that “as production fell and plants and furnaces were shut down, employment indicators fell significantly in 2016, with a number of PRWs falling by more than 18 percent.” Hearing transcript, p. 61 (Lutz). 16 *** indicated that “*** .” ***. *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, section II‐10, and Staff field trip report, ***. 17 *** indicated that the “***. ***.” *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, section II‐10, and Staff field trip report, ***. III‐8 CAPTIVE CONSUMPTION Section 771(7)(C)(iv) of the Act states that– 18 If domestic producers internally transfer significant production of the domestic like product for the production of a downstream article and sell significant production of the domestic like product in the merchant market, and the Commission finds that– (I) the domestic like product produced that is internally transferred for processing into that downstream article does not enter the merchant market for the domestic like product, (II) the domestic like product is the predominant material input in the production of that downstream article, and then the Commission, in determining market share and the factors affecting financial performance . . ., shall focus primarily on the merchant market for the domestic like product. Transfers and sales As previously reported in table III‐7, from 2014‐16, transfers to related firms accounted for between *** and *** percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of silicon metal. *** U.S. producers, ***, reported transferring silicon metal to related firms in 2016.19 In 2016, *** reported that *** silicon metal production was transferred to related firms, while *** indicated that *** percent of its silicon metal production and *** percent of its U.S. shipments were transferred to related firms.20 21 Table III‐11 presents data on U.S. producers’ captive production in 2016. 18 Amended by PL 114‐27 (as signed, June 29, 2015), Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. 19 ***. *** U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section II‐13. 20 “Dow Corning Alabama was originally a commercial producer, but was purchased by Dow Corning and is now primarily a captive producer for its chemical business. D.C. Alabama is a captive producer and generally is sheltered from import competition.” Hearing transcript, pp. 50 and 60 (Lutz). 21 In response to the Commission’s questions regarding captive production, the petitioner argued that “we don't believe that the captive production provision applies because of the case law interpretation of the term ‘internal transfers.’ Internal transfers, as we read the case law, refers to transfers within the same legal entity and because that doesn't exist in this case we are not arguing for application of the captive production provision.” Hearing transcript, p. 97 (Schaefermeier). III‐9 Table III-11 Silicon metal: U.S. producers’ captive production, 2016 * * * * * * * First statutory criterion in captive consumption The first requirement for application of the captive consumption provision is that the domestic like product that is internally transferred for processing into that downstream article not enter the merchant market for the domestic like product. U.S. producers reported no internal consumption of silicon metal. Approximately *** of U.S. producers’ transfers to related firms during 2016 was sold as silicon metal and the remainder was processed into other products. Second statutory criterion in captive consumption The second criterion of the captive consumption provision concerns whether the domestic like product is the predominant material input in the production of the downstream article that is captively produced. With respect to the downstream articles resulting from captive production, silicon metal reportedly comprises the minority (approximately five percent) of the finished cost of a number of end‐use products: electronics, solar panels, adhesives, resins, lubricants, plastomers, anti‐foaming agents, and water‐repellent compounds. 22 23 22 Ibid. 23 In response to the Commission’s questions regarding the captive production provision, the respondents (Dow) argued that “we agree with the Petitioners that the captive production provision does not apply, but we would like to add, if you were to apply the captive production in this case to the test, it would fail the second prong of the test. In the Commerce investigation, it is publicly on the record that the downstream article has about 95 percent of added value to the silicon metal. So the silicon metal only takes up about five percent, and therefore it would fail the second prong.” Hearing transcript, p. 174 (Bay). IV‐1 PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION, AND MARKET SHARES U.S. IMPORTERS The Commission issued importer questionnaires to 40 firms believed to be importers of subject silicon metal, as well as to all U.S. producers of silicon metal.1 Usable questionnaire responses were received from 24 companies, representing virtually all U.S. imports from Australia, virtually all U.S. imports from Brazil, virtually all U.S. imports from Kazakhstan, and 96.7 percent of U.S. imports from Norway for 2016 under HTS statistical reporting numbers 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000. 2 That is, the 24 questionnaire responses represented essentially all U.S. imports from the combined subject sources during 2016. As is generally consistent across previous and related Commission silicon proceedings, public official Commerce statistics are presented throughout this report (as opposed to country‐specific confidential questionnaire responses), unless specifically indicated otherwise.3 Table IV‐1 lists all responding U.S. importers of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Norway, and other sources, their locations, and their shares of U.S. imports, in 2016. 1 The Commission issued questionnaires to those firms identified in the petitions, along with firms that, based on a review of data provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”), may have accounted for more than one percent of total imports under HTS statistical reporting numbers 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 in 2016. 2 The coverage estimates presented are calculated from official U.S. import statistics based on General Imports. General Imports measure the total physical arrivals of merchandise from foreign countries, whether such merchandise enters the U.S. customs territory immediately or is entered into bonded warehouses or FTZs under Customs custody. 3 U.S. import statistics presented in this report are based on General U.S. imports (as opposed to imports for consumption) due to issues with country of origin reporting and product classification reporting that result from certain U.S. importers’ use of foreign trade zones (FTZs) for their importation of silicon metal. Since U.S. import statistics are presented on the basis of General U.S. Imports, values are reported on a CIF basis as opposed to a LDPV basis. IV‐2 Table IV-1 Silicon metal: U.S. importers, their headquarters, and share of imports by source, 2016 Firm Headquarters Share of imports by source (percent) Aust- ralia Brazil Kazakh- stan Norway Subject sources Non- subject sources All import sources BIT Fondel Amstelveen, Netherlands *** *** *** *** *** *** *** CBC Americas Cary, NC *** *** *** *** *** *** *** CCMA 1 Amherst, NY *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Dow Corning2 Midland, MI *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Elkem 3 Moon Township, PA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** FerroAtlantica4 Madrid, Spain *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Greenwich Greenwich, CT *** *** *** *** *** *** *** GTAT Merrimack, NH *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Itochu Tokyo, Japan *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Laurand Great Neck, NY *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Medima Clarence, NY *** *** *** *** *** *** *** MPM 5 Waterford, NY *** *** *** *** *** *** *** MPSAC6 Theodore, AL *** *** *** *** *** *** *** MTALX/Derby7 London, UK *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ni-Met West Palm Beach, FL *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Panadyne Montgomeryville, PA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Polymet8 Birmingham, AL *** --- *** *** *** *** *** REC Silicon Moses Lake, WA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** S&A Alloys Mineola, NY *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Simcoa9 Wellesley, Australia *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Standard Resources Cherry Hill, NJ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Tennant 10 Sheffield, UK *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Traxys New York, NY *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Wacker Charleston, TN *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 CCMA is ***. 2 Dow Corning is ***. 3 Elkem Materials Inc. is ***. 4 FerroAtlántica is ***. 5 MPM is ***. 6 MPSAC is ***. 7 Derby Trading Limited is ***. 8 Polymet is ***. 9 Simcoa is ***. 10 Tennant Metallurgical Group Ltd. Is ***. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. IV‐3 U.S. IMPORTS Table IV‐2 and figure IV‐1 present data for U.S. imports of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Norway, and all other sources. The quantity of silicon metal imports from the subject countries decreased by 22.9 percent from 2014 to 2015, 4 but increased by 22.1 percent from 2015 to 2016. The quantity of silicon metal imports from the subject countries decreased overall by 5.8 percent during 2014‐16, but was higher in January to September (“interim”) 2017 than in interim 2016 by 25.2 percent. The value of silicon metal imports from the subject countries decreased by 23.4 percent from 2014 to 2016, but was higher in interim 2017 than in interim 2016 by 24.0 percent. As a share of total imports, subject imports decreased from 56.0 percent in 2014 to 50.8 percent in 2015, but increased to 67.0 percent in 2016. The average unit values of silicon metal imports from the subject countries, which were higher than those reported for nonsubject imports in 2014 but lower than those reported for nonsubject imports in 2015 and 2016, increased by 0.5 percent from 2014 to 2015 but decreased by 19.1 percent from 2015 to 2016. The quantity of silicon metal imports from all nonsubject countries decreased by 40.8 percent from 2014 to 2016, and was 30.8 percent lower in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. The CIF value of silicon metal imports from all nonsubject countries followed a similar trend, decreasing by 46.9 percent from 2014 to 2016, and was 34.3 percent lower in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. The average unit value of silicon metal imports from nonsubject countries increased by 4.3 percent from 2014 to 2015, but decreased by 13.9 percent from 2015 to 2016. The average unit value of silicon metal imports from nonsubject countries decreased overall by 10.2 percent during 2014‐16, and was 5.1 percent lower in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. The ratio of subject import volume to U.S. production decreased from *** percent in 2014 to *** percent in 2015, but increased to *** percent in 2016. The ratio was *** percent in interim 2016 and *** percent in interim 2017. The ratio of total import volume to U.S. production decreased from *** percent in 2014 to *** in 2015, and further decreased to *** percent in 2016 but was higher in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. 4 Globe noted that the decline in imports was due to Brazil in 2015 as a result of severe energy shortages that restricted silicon metal production in Brazil that year. Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 32. IV‐4 Table IV-2 Silicon metal: U.S. imports by source, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 Item Calendar year January to September 2014 2015 2016 2016 2017 Quantity (short tons contained silicon) U.S. imports from.-- Australia 19,977 22,045 18,458 14,674 20,053 Brazil 83,724 51,888 68,340 47,123 60,449 Kazakhstan --- 3,006 10,367 7,640 10,359 Norway 14,753 14,441 14,432 11,429 10,392 Subject sources 118,454 91,381 111,597 80,866 101,253 Canada 20,932 23,470 21,542 17,195 21,023 South Africa 44,100 42,886 24,196 20,749 1,624 All other sources 28,072 22,057 9,353 7,884 9,071 Non subject sources 93,104 88,413 55,090 45,829 31,718 All import sources 211,558 179,793 166,687 126,695 132,971 Value (1,000 dollars) U.S. imports from.-- Australia 52,516 58,984 34,601 28,158 39,793 Brazil 219,760 140,482 158,897 109,522 140,085 Kazakhstan --- 6,691 17,441 13,279 17,466 Norway 42,151 37,507 29,806 23,778 19,349 Subject sources 314,427 243,664 240,745 174,737 216,694 Canada 49,973 60,261 52,122 41,668 50,171 South Africa 116,321 117,442 56,427 48,036 3,001 All other sources 72,488 58,752 18,285 15,896 16,198 Non subject sources 238,782 236,455 126,834 105,600 69,371 All import sources 553,210 480,118 367,580 280,337 286,064 Unit value (dollars per STCS) U.S. imports from.-- Australia 2,629 2,676 1,875 1,919 1,984 Brazil 2,625 2,707 2,325 2,324 2,317 Kazakhstan --- 2,226 1,682 1,738 1,686 Norway 2,857 2,597 2,065 2,080 1,862 Subject sources 2,654 2,666 2,157 2,161 2,140 Canada 2,387 2,568 2,420 2,423 2,387 South Africa 2,638 2,739 2,332 2,315 1,848 All other sources 2,582 2,664 1,955 2,016 1,786 Non subject sources 2,565 2,674 2,302 2,304 2,187 All import sources 2,615 2,670 2,205 2,213 2,151 Table continued on next page. IV‐5 Table IV-2--Continued Silicon metal: U.S. imports by source, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 Item Calendar year January to September 2014 2015 2016 2016 2017 Share of quantity (percent) U.S. imports from.-- Australia 9.4 12.3 11.1 11.6 15.1 Brazil 39.6 28.9 41.0 37.2 45.5 Kazakhstan --- 1.7 6.2 6.0 7.8 Norway 7.0 8.0 8.7 9.0 7.8 Subject sources 56.0 50.8 67.0 63.8 76.1 Canada 9.9 13.1 12.9 13.6 15.8 South Africa 20.8 23.9 14.5 16.4 1.2 All other sources 13.3 12.3 5.6 6.2 6.8 Non subject sources 44.0 49.2 33.0 36.2 23.9 All import sources 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Share of value (percent) U.S. imports from.-- Australia 9.5 12.3 9.4 10.0 13.9 Brazil 39.7 29.3 43.2 39.1 49.0 Kazakhstan --- 1.4 4.7 4.7 6.1 Norway 7.6 7.8 8.1 8.5 6.8 Subject sources 56.8 50.8 65.5 62.3 75.8 Canada 9.0 12.6 14.2 14.9 17.5 South Africa 21.0 24.5 15.4 17.1 1.0 All other sources 13.1 12.2 5.0 5.7 5.7 Non subject sources 43.2 49.2 34.5 37.7 24.2 All import sources 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Ratio to U.S. production U.S. imports from.-- Australia *** *** *** *** *** Brazil *** *** *** *** *** Kazakhstan *** *** *** *** *** Norway *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources *** *** *** *** *** Canada *** *** *** *** *** South Africa *** *** *** *** *** All other sources *** *** *** *** *** Non subject sources *** *** *** *** *** All import sources *** *** *** *** *** Note.--Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. STCS= Short tons contained silicon. Source: Official U.S. imports based on General Imports using statistical reporting numbers 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000, accessed on December 13, 2017. IV‐6 Figure IV-1 Silicon metal: U.S. import volumes and average unit values, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 Source: Official U.S. imports based on General Imports using statistical reporting numbers 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000, accessed on December 13, 2017. CRITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES On March 8, 2018, Commerce issued its final affirmative determination (in part) that “critical circumstances” exist with regard to imports from Australia (Simcoa) of silicon metal.5 In this investigation, if the Commission also makes affirmative final critical circumstances determinations, certain subject imports may be subject to antidumping duties retroactive by 90 days from October 12, 2017, the effective date of Commerce’s preliminary affirmative LTFV determination. In assessing critical circumstances, the Commission shall consider, among other factors it considers relevant, (I) the timing and the volume of the imports, (II) a rapid increase in inventories of the imports, and (III) any other circumstances indicating that the remedial effect of the {order} will be seriously undermined.6 Information regarding the timing and volume of imports subject to Commerce’s affirmative critical circumstances determination, as well as the volume of inventories of such imports, is presented below. 5 Silicon Metal From Australia: Affirmative Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part, 83 FR 9839, March 8, 2018, referenced in app. A. 6 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b)(4)(A)(ii), 1673d(b)(4)(A)(ii). 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 2014 2015 2016 2016 2017 Calendar year January to September Average unit value (dollars per short ton contained silicon) Quantity (short tons contained silicon) Subject import volume (left-axis) Nonsubject import volume (left-axis) Subject AUV (right-axis) Nonsubject AUV (right-axis) IV‐7 Timing and volume of imports Table IV‐3 and figure IV‐2 present data concerning timing and volume of imports. Simcoa is the only known producer of silicon metal in Australia and the U.S. import data are believed to be representative of exclusively Simcoa silicon metal imports from Australia. Table IV-3 Silicon metal: U.S. importers’ U.S. imports from Australia subject to Commerce’s final critical circumstances finding, September 2016 through August 2017 Period Actual monthly quantity (short tons) Outwardly cumulative subtotals (short tons) Percentage change from comparable period (percent) 1 2016.-- September 1,276 7,854 October 1,329 6,579 November 847 5,250 December 1,609 4,403 2017.-- January 2,093 2,794 February 701 701 Petition file date: March 7, 2017. March 2,490 2,490 255.2 April 2,216 4,706 68.4 May 3,174 7,880 79.0 June 1,608 9,488 80.7 July 4,449 13,937 111.9 August 2,274 16,211 106.4 Note.--The running totals represent the total imports summing both sides of the petition file date. The six months after the petition file date represents 6 months of data for the March 2017 through August 2017 period, while the six months prior to the petition file date represents six months of data for the September 2016 through February 2017 period. 1 The percentage increase or (decrease) over the comparable pre-petition period. Source: Official U.S. imports based on General Imports using statistical reporting numbers 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000, accessed on December 13, 2017. Figure IV Silicon m critical ci Source: C statistical S inventori exclusive entitled “ from U.S merchan *** shor Septemb T determin imports a merchan than 3 pe 7 Secti 1671d(b)( Quantity (short tons) V-2 metal: U.S. im ircumstance Compiled from reporting num ince Simcoa ies of merch ely Simcoa p “U.S. Invento . importer q dise from A t tons of con ber 30, 2017 he statute re nation if imp are generally dise corresp ercent of the ons 703(a)(1) (1), 1673b(a)( 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 Se mporters’ U.S s finding, Se m official U.S. mbers 2804.6 is the only k handise impo roduct. Thes ories of Imp questionnaire ustralia wer ntained silico . equires that ports of the s y defined in ponding to a e volume of ), 705(b)(1), 7 (1), and 1673 ep Oct No 2016 Post pet S. imports fro eptember 201 import statist 69.1000 and 2 Invento known prod orted from A se inventory orted Merch e responses e *** short on at yearen NEG t an investiga subject merc the Act, as a domestic li all such mer 733(a)(1), and d(b)(1)). ov Dec Jan tition IV‐8 om Australia 16 through A tics based on 2804.69.5000 ories of impo ucer of silico Australia are y data are pr handise” at t indicate tha tons of cont nd 2016, and GLIGIBILITY ation be term chandise are amended, as ke product w rchandise im d 735(b)(1) of n Feb Mar Im subject to C August 2017 General Imp 0, accessed N orts on metal in A e believed to resented in t table VII‐22. at U.S. inven tained silicon d *** short t minated wit e found to be s imports fro where such mported into f the Act (19 U r Apr May 2017 mports from Au Commerce’s ports and CIF November 27, Australia, th o be represe the section o . Inventory d ntories of im n on Septem tons of conta thout an inju e negligible. om a countr imports acco o the United U.S.C. §§ 167 y Jun Jul ustralia preliminary value using H 2017. e volume of ntative of of this repor data compile ported mber 30, 201 ained silicon ury .7 Negligible y of ount for less States in th 1b(a)(1), Aug HTS f U.S. t ed 16, n on s e IV‐9 most recent 12‐month period for which data are available that precedes the filing of the petitions or the initiation of the investigations. However, if there are imports of such merchandise from a number of countries subject to investigations initiated on the same day that individually account for less than 3 percent of the total volume of the subject merchandise, and if the imports from those countries collectively account for more than 7 percent of the volume of all such merchandise imported into the United States during the applicable 12‐ month period, then imports from such countries are deemed not to be negligible.8 In the case of countervailing duty investigations involving developing countries, the negligibility limits are 4 percent and 9 percent rather than 3 percent and 7 percent.9 Although the petitions in these investigations include countervailing duty allegations on three countries (Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan), only Brazil has been designated as a developing country by the U.S. Trade Representative. The quantity of U.S. imports in the twelve month period preceding the filing of the petitions (March 2016 to February 2017) and the share of quantity of total U.S. imports for which each accounted are presented in table IV‐4. Based on official import statistics, U.S. imports from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway accounted for 10.6 percent (17,877 short tons), 46.0 percent (77,489 short tons), 5.9 percent (10,027 short tons), and 8.5 percent (14,250 short tons), respectively, of total imports of silicon metal by quantity during March 2016 to February 2017. Based on official import statistics, U.S. imports from the three combined CVD subject countries (Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan), accounted for 62.5 percent of total imports during March 2016 to February 2017, while U.S. imports from the three combined AD subject countries (Australia, Brazil, and Norway) accounted for 65.1 percent of total imports during March 2016 to February 2017. 10 Based on questionnaire data, imports from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway accounted for *** percent (*** short tons), *** percent (*** short tons), *** percent (*** short tons), and *** percent (*** short tons), respectively, of total imports of silicon metal by quantity during March 2016 to February 2017. 11 Based on questionnaire data, U.S. imports from the three combined CVD subject countries (Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan), accounted for *** percent of total imports during March 2016 to February 2017, while U.S. imports from the three combined AD subject countries (Australia, Brazil, and Norway) accounted for *** percent of total imports during March 2016 to February 2017. 8 Section 771 (24) of the Act (19 U.S.C § 1677(24)). 9 Section 771 (24) of the Act (19 U.S.C § 1677(24)(B)). 10 Based on official import statistics, imports from all four subject countries combined accounted for 71.0 percent of total imports during March 2016 to February 2017. 11 Based on questionnaire data, U.S. imports from all four subject countries combined accounted for *** percent of total imports during March 2016 to February 2017. IV‐10 Table IV-4 Silicon metal: U.S. imports in the twelve months preceding the filing of the petitions, March 2016 through February 2017 Source March 2016 through February 2017 Official U.S. statistics Questionnaire data Quantity (short tons contained silicon) Share of quantity (percent) Quantity (short tons contained silicon) Share of quantity (percent) Australia 1 2 17,877 10.6 *** *** Brazil1 2 77,489 46.0 *** *** Kazakhstan 1 10,027 5.9 *** *** Norway2 14,250 8.5 *** *** Subject sources 119,642 71.0 *** *** Canada 22,343 13.3 *** *** South Africa 16,422 9.7 *** *** All other sources 10,153 6.0 *** *** Nonsubject sources 48,918 29.0 *** *** All imports sources 168,560 100.0 *** *** 1 Subject to countervailing duty investigations. 2 Subject to antidumping duty investigations. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and official U.S. imports based on General Imports using statistical reporting numbers 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000, accessed on December 13, 2017. CUMULATION CONSIDERATIONS In assessing whether imports should be cumulated, the Commission determines whether U.S. imports from the subject countries compete with each other and with the domestic like product and has generally considered four factors: (1) fungibility, (2) presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographical markets, (3) common or similar channels of distribution, and (4) simultaneous presence in the market. Fungibility Table IV‐5 and figure IV‐3 present data for U.S producers’ and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments by product type for 2016. U.S. shipments by product type data are categorized by low boron content silicon metal, high purity silicon metal, metallurgical grade silicon metal, and all other product types of silicon metal. For U.S. producers and U.S. importers from Australia, Kazakhstan, Norway, and nonsubject countries, metallurgical grade silicon metal was the largest for shipments by type. For U.S. importers from Brazil (and almost half of subject IV‐11 imports), low boron content silicon metal was the largest for shipments by type.12 In its posthearing brief, Brazilian producers Liagas de Aluminio S/A (“LIASA”) and Companhia Ferroligas Minas Gerais (“Minasligas”) contend that the bulk of the products that are not low boron content silicon metal from Brazil are primarily unique *** products that are sold by ***, and that these products are not fungible with other subject imports or the domestic like product.13 For U.S. producers and U.S. importers combined, metallurgical grade silicon metal was the largest (by *** percent) for shipments by type in 2016. Further detailed information pertaining to U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ commercial U.S. shipments (by product type) for 2014‐16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 is presented in appendix D. Table IV-5 Silicon metal: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ commercial U.S. shipments by product type, 2016 * * * * * * * Figure IV-3 Silicon metal: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments by product type, 2016 * * * * * * * 12 In their combined posthearing brief, Brazilian producers LIASA and Minasligas indicated that low boron content silicon metal is not fungible with the domestic like product because they do not share common channels of distribution, there is no reasonable overlap in competition, there is limited interchangeability, and because low boron content silicon metal is not sourced domestically. LIASA and Minasligas joint respondents posthearing brief, pp. 1‐2. 13 Joint Respondents’ (LIASA and Minasligas) posthearing brief, p. 5. IV‐12 Geographical markets According to Commission questionnaire responses, silicon metal production occurs in the Eastern and Southern geographic regions of the United States. Silicon metal is generally shipped nationwide, with the exception of geographic market areas served by U.S. importers from Australia, which do not ship to the Central Southwest and Mountains geographic U.S. market areas. As illustrated in table IV‐6, U.S. Customs districts located in the North14 accounted (by share of quantity, across) for 35.0 percent, the largest share of the imports of silicon metal from the subject countries during 2016, whereas U.S. Customs districts located in the East, 15 South, 16 and West 17 accounted for smaller shares (28.3 percent, 22.0 percent, and 14.6 percent of imports from the subject countries, respectively). 14 The “North” includes the following Customs entry districts: Chicago, Illinois; Cleveland, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; Duluth, Minnesota; Great Falls, Montana; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Pembina, North Dakota.The “South” includes the following Customs entry districts: Dallas‐Fort Worth, Texas; El Paso, Texas; Houston‐Galveston, Texas; Laredo, Texas; Miami, Florida; Mobile, Alabama; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Tampa, Florida. 15 The “East” includes the following Customs entry districts: Baltimore, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; Buffalo, New York; Charleston, South Carolina; Charlotte, North Carolina; New York, New York; Norfolk, Virginia; Ogdensburg, New York; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Portland, Maine; San Juan, Puerto Rico; Savannah, Georgia; St. Albans, Vermont; and Washington, District of Columbia. 16 The “South” includes the following Customs entry districts: Dallas‐Fort Worth, Texas; El Paso, Texas; Houston‐Galveston, Texas; Laredo, Texas; Miami, Florida; Mobile, Alabama; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Tampa, Florida. 17 The “West” includes the following Customs entry districts: Columbia‐Snake, Oregon; Honolulu, Hawaii; Los Angeles, California; Nogales, Arizona; San Diego, California; San Francisco, California; and Seattle, Washington. IV‐13 Table IV-6 Silicon metal: U.S. imports, by source and border of entry, 2016 Source Border of entry East North South West All borders Quantity (short tons contained silicon) Australia 12,525 --- --- 5,933 18,458 Brazil 4,947 38,899 16,619 7,875 68,340 Kazakhstan 6,839 104 1,890 1,535 10,367 Norway 7,273 101 6,053 1,005 14,432 Subject sources 31,584 39,104 24,563 16,347 111,597 Canada 1,792 19,750 --- --- 21,542 South Africa 18,895 --- 5,301 --- 24,196 All other sources 6,863 1,938 158 394 9,353 Nonsubject sources 27,549 21,687 5,459 394 55,090 All imports sources 59,133 60,791 30,022 16,742 166,687 Share of quantity across (percent) Australia 67.9 --- --- 32.1 100.0 Brazil 7.2 56.9 24.3 11.5 100.0 Kazakhstan 66.0 1.0 18.2 14.8 100.0 Norway 50.4 0.7 41.9 7.0 100.0 Subject sources 28.3 35.0 22.0 14.6 100.0 Canada 8.3 91.7 --- --- 100.0 South Africa 78.1 --- 21.9 --- 100.0 All other sources 73.4 20.7 1.7 4.2 100.0 Nonsubject sources 50.0 39.4 9.9 0.7 100.0 All imports sources 35.5 36.5 18.0 10.0 100.0 Share of quantity down (percent) Australia 21.2 --- --- 35.4 11.1 Brazil 8.4 64.0 55.4 47.0 41.0 Kazakhstan 11.6 0.2 6.3 9.2 6.2 Norway 12.3 0.2 20.2 6.0 8.7 Subject sources 53.4 64.3 81.8 97.6 67.0 Canada 3.0 32.5 --- --- 12.9 South Africa 32.0 --- 17.7 --- 14.5 All other sources 11.6 3.2 0.5 2.4 5.6 Nonsubject sources 46.6 35.7 18.2 2.4 33.0 All imports sources 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official U.S. imports based on General Imports using statistical reporting numbers 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000, accessed on December 13, 2017. Channels of distribution Table IV‐7 and figure IV‐4 present data for U.S producers’ and U.S. importers’ commercial shipments by channels of distribution for 2016. Channels of distribution data are categorized by polysilicon and other chemical producers, primary aluminum producers, secondary aluminum producers, various other end users, end users, and distributors. For U.S. producers and U.S. importers from Brazil and nonsubject countries, polysilicon and other IV‐14 chemical producers were the largest channels of distribution. 18 For U.S. importers from Australia and Kazakhstan, secondary aluminum producers were the largest channel. For U.S. importers from Norway, secondary aluminum producers and other end users were the largest channel. Table IV-7 Silicon metal: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ commercial U.S. shipments by channels of distribution, 2016 * * * * * * * Figure IV-4 Silicon metal: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ commercial U.S. shipments by channels of distribution, 2016 * * * * * * * Presence in the market Table IV‐8 presents monthly U.S. imports during January 2014 to September 2017. These data show that imports of silicon metal were present in the U.S. market in every month during the period examined from January 2014 to September 2017 for every subject country except Kazakhstan. With respect to Kazakhstan, there were zero imports present in the U.S. market in 2014. Imports of silicon metal from Kazakhstan were present in 8 months in 2015, 12 months in 2016, and 8 of the first 9 months of 2017. 18 In the Commission’s hearing, Dow argued that “there is limited head to head competition between imports from Brazil and domestic product due to product differences and differing channels of distribution.” Hearing transcript, p. 126 (Brown). IV‐15 Table IV-8 Silicon metal: U.S. imports by month, January 2014 through September 2017 Year / month U.S. importers Australia Brazil Kazakhstan Norway Subject sources Nonsubject sources All import sources 2014: January 2,161 9,384 --- 783 12,328 5,620 17,948 February 1,653 9,306 --- 344 11,302 3,938 15,240 March 751 8,150 --- 873 9,774 10,540 20,314 April 2,015 5,093 --- 862 7,970 6,552 14,522 May 1,669 5,666 --- 1,209 8,544 8,862 17,406 June 1,499 7,472 --- 615 9,586 6,770 16,355 July 2,182 8,985 --- 765 11,932 7,847 19,779 August 1,722 4,930 --- 1,752 8,404 7,637 16,041 September 1,681 6,420 --- 1,344 9,444 11,381 20,825 October 1,785 8,358 --- 948 11,090 4,890 15,980 November 1,312 4,168 --- 3,488 8,967 7,841 16,809 December 1,547 5,793 --- 1,771 9,112 11,226 20,338 2015: January 1,680 5,257 482 2,040 9,459 7,820 17,278 February 1,183 5,076 --- 951 7,210 8,312 15,523 March 2,519 2,926 300 2,053 7,799 8,808 16,607 April 1,645 7,182 --- 740 9,567 7,373 16,940 May 1,909 3,704 --- 1,143 6,755 7,193 13,949 June 2,114 5,421 437 982 8,954 8,306 17,260 July 1,663 5,668 --- 1,419 8,750 7,562 16,312 August 3,191 3,571 329 940 8,030 7,294 15,324 September 1,145 1,888 84 1,044 4,160 5,274 9,434 October 1,587 2,562 219 1,064 5,431 5,367 10,798 November 2,076 5,090 219 978 8,363 7,339 15,701 December 1,333 3,543 937 1,089 6,902 7,765 14,668 Table continued on next page. IV‐16 Table IV-8--Continued Silicon metal: U.S. imports by month, January 2014 through September 2017 Year / month U.S. importers Australia Brazil Kazakhstan Norway Subject sources Nonsubject sources All import sources 2016: January 1,975 2,123 1,641 906 6,645 7,563 14,208 February 1,401 1,057 982 1,034 4,474 5,943 10,416 March 2,513 6,538 678 649 10,377 7,572 17,949 April 1,324 3,411 836 1,633 7,205 4,501 11,705 May 1,110 3,133 770 904 5,916 8,510 14,426 June 1,382 8,954 766 1,309 12,411 2,799 15,210 July 1,498 7,421 871 1,572 11,363 3,817 15,180 August 2,196 8,964 771 1,845 13,776 2,577 16,353 September 1,276 5,522 325 1,577 8,699 2,548 11,247 October 1,329 5,895 1,082 1,190 9,496 4,499 13,994 November 847 9,485 1,101 772 12,204 2,842 15,046 December 1,609 5,836 545 1,041 9,032 1,920 10,951 2017: January 2,093 5,392 925 1,110 9,519 4,237 13,756 February 701 6,937 1,358 648 9,644 3,097 12,741 March 2,490 6,901 858 1,633 11,882 2,749 14,631 April 2,216 5,261 285 1,910 9,672 3,976 13,648 May 3,174 3,822 1,277 1,504 9,776 3,402 13,178 June 1,608 5,646 2,985 670 10,909 2,852 13,761 July 4,449 8,037 1,912 1,076 15,475 4,227 19,702 August 2,274 11,522 759 592 15,148 2,859 18,007 September 1,048 6,930 --- 1,249 9,227 4,320 13,547 Source: Official U.S. imports based on General Imports using statistical reporting numbers 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000, accessed on December 13, 2017. APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION (TOTAL MARKET) Table IV‐9 and figure IV‐6 present data on total market, apparent U.S. consumption for silicon metal during 2014‐16, January‐September 2016, and January‐September 2017. Apparent U.S. consumption based on quantity decreased by *** percent from 2014 to 2015, but increased by *** percent from 2015 to 2016. Apparent U.S. consumption based on quantity decreased overall by *** percent from 2014 to 2016, but was higher in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. Apparent U.S. consumption based on value decreased by *** percent from 2014 to 2016 and was lower in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. U.S. imports based on quantity from subject sources decreased by 22.9 percent from 2014 to 2015, but increased by 22.1 IV‐17 percent from 2015 to 2016. U.S. imports from subject sources decreased by 5.8 percent from 2014 to 2016, but were higher in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. 19 Table IV-9 Silicon metal: Apparent U.S. consumption (total market), 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 Item Calendar year January to September 2014 2015 2016 2016 2017 Quantity (short tons contained silicon) U.S. producers' U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** U.S. imports from.-- Australia 19,977 22,045 18,458 14,674 20,053 Brazil 83,724 51,888 68,340 47,123 60,449 Kazakhstan --- 3,006 10,367 7,640 10,359 Norway 14,753 14,441 14,432 11,429 10,392 Subject sources 118,454 91,381 111,597 80,866 101,253 Canada 20,932 23,470 21,542 17,195 21,023 South Africa 44,100 42,886 24,196 20,749 1,624 All other sources 28,072 22,057 9,353 7,884 9,071 Non subject sources 93,104 88,413 55,090 45,829 31,718 All import sources 211,558 179,793 166,687 126,695 132,971 Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** *** *** Value (1,000 dollars) U.S. producers' U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** U.S. imports from.-- Australia 52,516 58,984 34,601 28,158 39,793 Brazil 219,760 140,482 158,897 109,522 140,085 Kazakhstan --- 6,691 17,441 13,279 17,466 Norway 42,151 37,507 29,806 23,778 19,349 Subject sources 314,427 243,664 240,745 174,737 216,694 Canada 49,973 60,261 52,122 41,668 50,171 South Africa 116,321 117,442 56,427 48,036 3,001 All other sources 72,488 58,752 18,285 15,896 16,198 Non subject sources 238,782 236,455 126,834 105,600 69,371 All import sources 553,210 480,118 367,580 280,337 286,064 Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** *** *** Note.--Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official U.S. import statistics using General Imports and CIF value under HTS statistical reporting numbers 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000, accessed November 27, 2017. 19 In the Commission’s hearing, the respondents (Dow Corning) stated that they were not a threat to the U.S. total market, because “Dow Silicones accounts for a large portion of imports from Brazil and all of these imports are consumed internally by Dow Silicones to produce downstream intermediate products. We do not participate in the merchant market.” Hearing transcript, p. 125 (Brown). IV‐18 Figure IV-6 Silicon metal: Apparent U.S. consumption (total market), 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 * * * * * * * U.S. MARKET SHARES (TOTAL MARKET) U.S. market share data (based on the total market) are presented in table IV‐10 during 2014‐16, January‐September 2016, and January‐September 2017. These data show that U.S. producers’ market share based on quantity increased by *** percentage points from 2014 to 2016, but was lower in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. U.S. producers’ market share, based on value, increased by *** percentage points from 2014 to 2016, but was lower in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. The market share based on quantity of imports of silicon metal from the subject countries decreased by *** percentage points from 2014 to 2015, but increased by *** percentage points from 2015 to 2016. The market share based on quantity of imports of silicon metal from subject countries, based on quantity increased by *** percentage points from 2014 to 2016, and was *** percentage points higher in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. Table IV-10 Silicon metal: Market shares (total market), 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 * * * * * * * APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION (MERCHANT MARKET) Table IV‐11 and figure IV‐7 present data on merchant market apparent U.S. consumption for silicon metal during 2014‐16, January‐September 2016, and January‐ September 2017. Apparent U.S. consumption based on quantity decreased overall by *** percent from 2014 to 2016, but was higher in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. Apparent U.S. consumption based on value decreased by *** percent from 2014 to 2016, but was higher in in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. U.S. imports based on quantity from subject sources decreased by 22.9 percent from 2014 to 2015, but increased by 22.1 percent from 2015 to 2016. U.S. imports from subject sources decreased by 5.8 percent from 2014 to 2016, but were higher in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. IV‐19 Table IV-11 Silicon metal: Apparent U.S. consumption (merchant market), 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 Item Calendar year January to September 2014 2015 2016 2016 2017 Quantity (short tons contained silicon) U.S. producers' commercial U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** U.S. imports from.-- Australia 19,977 22,045 18,458 14,674 20,053 Brazil 83,724 51,888 68,340 47,123 60,449 Kazakhstan --- 3,006 10,367 7,640 10,359 Norway 14,753 14,441 14,432 11,429 10,392 Subject sources 118,454 91,381 111,597 80,866 101,253 Canada 20,932 23,470 21,542 17,195 21,023 South Africa 44,100 42,886 24,196 20,749 1,624 All other sources 28,072 22,057 9,353 7,884 9,071 Non subject sources 93,104 88,413 55,090 45,829 31,718 All import sources 211,558 179,793 166,687 126,695 132,971 Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** *** *** Value (1,000 dollars) U.S. producers' commercial U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** U.S. imports from.-- Australia 52,516 58,984 34,601 28,158 39,793 Brazil 219,760 140,482 158,897 109,522 140,085 Kazakhstan --- 6,691 17,441 13,279 17,466 Norway 42,151 37,507 29,806 23,778 19,349 Subject sources 314,427 243,664 240,745 174,737 216,694 Canada 49,973 60,261 52,122 41,668 50,171 South Africa 116,321 117,442 56,427 48,036 3,001 All other sources 72,488 58,752 18,285 15,896 16,198 Non subject sources 238,782 236,455 126,834 105,600 69,371 All import sources 553,210 480,118 367,580 280,337 286,064 Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** *** *** Note.--Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official U.S. imports based on General Imports and CIF value using statistical reporting numbers 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000, accessed on December 13, 2017. Figure IV-7 Silicon metal: Apparent U.S. consumption (merchant market), 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 * * * * * * * U.S. MARKET SHARES (MERCHANT MARKET) U.S. market share data (based on the merchant market) are presented in table IV‐12. These data show that U.S. producers’ market share based on quantity increased by *** IV‐20 percentage points from 2014 to 2016, and were higher in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. U.S. producers’ market share, based on value, increased by *** percentage points from 2014 to 2016 and were higher in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. The market share based on quantity of imports of silicon metal from the subject countries decreased by *** percentage points from 2014 to 2015, but increased by *** percentage points from 2015 to 2016. U.S. imports from subject sources held a *** percentage points from higher market share in 2016 than in 2014, and were higher in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. Table IV-12 Silicon metal: Market shares: (merchant market), 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 * * * * * * * V‐1 PART V: PRICING DATA FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES Raw material costs Silicon metal is composed almost entirely of elemental silicon with very small amounts of impurities, such as iron, calcium, and aluminum. Silicon metal is produced from mined quartz. Other inputs to the production process include coal or charcoal, woodchips, and electrodes.1 Electricity is a significant input cost in the production process. The quality of raw materials used in the production of silicon metal determines the quality of silicon metal, and thus whether silicon metal meets specific end‐user requirements. 2 Grade quality can vary over large volumes, and may require monitoring and testing to ensure product consistency and quality. *** of three U.S. producers reported that raw material prices had fluctuated and that electricity prices had decreased since 2014. U.S. producer *** reported that total raw material costs have increased approximately 4 percent since 2014, with increases in the cost of quartz and coal being partly offset by declines in electrode, woodchip, and electricity costs.3 U.S. producer *** reported that quartz costs have increased slightly while coal costs have decreased significantly, and stated that the decrease in the cost of electricity has contributed to a lower cost of production. U.S. producers *** stated that raw material price changes did not affect silicon metal prices. During the preliminary phase of these investigations, respondents stated that electricity is often the most significant cost in silicon metal production, and that U.S. industrial electricity prices generally peak during the summer and trough during the winter. Overall, electricity prices decreased (when compared to the same month in the prior year) during 2014‐2016, but electricity prices increased in 2017 (figure V‐1). 1 Petitioner’s postconference brief, Appendix A, p. 12. 2 Conference transcript, pp. 76‐77 (Hudson). See Parts I and II for further discussion of raw material quality. 3 Respondent ***. Respondent Wacker’s posthearing brief, pp. 3 and 12, Exhibit 13, pp. 1‐3. V‐2 Figure V-1 Electricity costs: U.S. average retail price of electricity, Industrial, monthly, January 2014- September 2017 Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration. U.S. inland transportation costs All U.S. producers and most responding importers (10 of 15) reported that they typically arrange transportation to their customers. U.S. producers reported that their U.S. inland transportation costs were between 1.6 and 3.0 percent while importers reported costs of 0.1 to 5.0 percent of the total delivered cost. Of the 15 responses, 9 importers reported that they shipped silicon metal from storage, while 6 importers reported that they shipped from the point of importation. According to respondents, U.S. producers have a cost advantage over imports due to high freight costs in the United States and purchasers’ need for just‐in‐time deliveries, as U.S. producers are located near their East Coast customers.4 However, for shipments going to the West Coast, U.S. purchaser *** reported that some foreign producers in Asia and Australia have lower freight costs to reach West Coast ports, and that U.S. producers in the East and Midwest frequently do not offer quotes to West Coast purchasers. Importer and purchaser *** stated that while other silicon metal consumers are located closer to silicon metal production in the East or Midwest, its facilities are in ***, and the transportation cost of imported silicon metal from the West Coast is almost one‐third of the cost of shipping domestically produced silicon metal across the continental United States.5 4 Joint respondents’ postconference brief, p. 5. 5 Conference transcript, pp. 83, 119‐120, and 122 (Bowes, Stoel, and Lewis); *** postconference brief, p. 5. 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 Jan‐14 May‐14 Sep‐14 Jan‐15 May‐15 Sep‐15 Jan‐16 May‐16 Sep‐16 Jan‐17 May‐17 Sep‐17 Cents per kilowatthour V‐3 Exchange rates U.S. producer *** stated that the exchange rate for currencies of subject countries relative to the U.S. dollar “significantly affects the competitiveness” of silicon metal imported from those countries in the U.S. market. *** reported that the majority of silicon production costs are incurred in local currencies, and that depreciation of those currencies against the U.S. dollar lowers foreign producers’ production costs. U.S. importer *** reported that exchange rates have affected the price of production inputs including carbon electrodes and low ash coal. U.S. purchaser *** stated that the depreciation of local currencies against the U.S. dollar led to reduced production costs for foreign producers during 2014‐16. The Federal Reserve’s broad dollar index increased by 15 percent from January 2014 to September 2017, indicating an overall appreciation of the dollar against world currencies (figure V‐2). Figure V-2 Exchange rates: Trade weighted U.S. dollar index, monthly, not seasonally adjusted, January 2014-September 2017 Source: U.S. Federal Reserve. PRICING PRACTICES Pricing methods Silicon metal contract prices are sometimes determined based on a formula that accounts for published price indexes (figure V‐3).6 These published price data are readily available to purchasers, and purchasers may share competing prices with suppliers during 6 Conference transcript, pp. 32, 36, 60‐61, 92 (Lutz, Kramer, Augusto). 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Jan‐14 May‐14 Sep‐14 Jan‐15 May‐15 Sep‐15 Jan‐16 May‐16 Sep‐16 Jan‐17 May‐17 Sep‐17 January 2014=100 V‐4 negotiations.7 The published index reflects a product that is likely to be sold to secondary aluminum producers, but purchasers in all sectors reference these indices. 8 There are no published price series data for chemical or polysilicon grade silicon metal.9 Figure V-3 Silicon metal: Published price index of silicon metal, ***, average price reported, cents per pound, for all transactions during the month, January 2014–December 2017 * * * * * * * U.S. producers and importers reported using transaction‐by‐transaction negotiations and contracts as their primary pricing methods (table V‐1). Table V-1 Silicon metal: U.S. producers’ and importers’ reported price setting methods, by number of responding firms1 Method U.S. producers U.S. importers Transaction-by-transaction *** 14 Contract *** 13 Set price list *** 0 Other 1 *** 7 Total responding firms 3 22 1 Other pricing methods include pricing based on published indexes. Note.--The sum of responses down may not add up to the total number of responding firms as each firm was instructed to check all applicable price setting methods employed. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. U.S. producers *** reported selling the majority of their production under annual or long‐term contracts in 2016, with some contracts lasting as long as three years (table V‐2). Short‐term contracts were generally for six months or less. ***. Most importers reported selling the bulk of their silicon metal primarily under annual contracts, with short‐term contracts or spot sales to supply additional purchaser demand as necessary. Of 13 responding importers, 7 reported selling on annual contracts, 9 reported selling by short‐term contracts, and 10 reported selling on the spot market. 7 Conference transcript, p. 20 (Perkins). 8 Conference transcript, pp. 63 and 134 (Lutz, Stoel). 9 Joint respondents’ postconference brief, Exhibit 1. V‐5 Table V-2 Silicon metal: U.S. producers’ and importers’ shares of U.S. commercial shipments by type of sale, 2016 Item U.S. producers Subject U.S. importers Share (percent) Share of commercial U.S. shipments.-- Long-term contracts *** --- Annual contract *** 62.6 Short-term contracts *** 19.2 Spot sales *** 18.2 Note.-- Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. U.S. producers reported that their contracts do not allow for price renegotiation, nor do their contracts contain meet‐or‐release provisions. One importer (***) reported that its contracts allow for price renegotiation. No importers reported providing meet‐or‐release provisions. One importer reported contracts with fixed prices, and *** importers reported having contracts with fixed quantities. Typically, contracts are negotiated or competitively bid on during the fourth quarter for shipments in the following year.10 U.S. producers *** and seven (of 13) responding importers reported that some of their contract prices are based on silicon metal price indexes published by Platts or CRU. U.S. producers and importers, however, reported that they did not base contract prices on raw material indexes. Some purchasers reported that contracts are usually signed in the last quarter of the preceding year, but that agreements for 2018 had stalled. U.S. purchasers *** reported that U.S. producers were not willing to negotiate agreements or provide quotes during the usual fourth quarter negotiation period.11 Purchaser *** also reported that U.S. producers prioritize contracts with purchasers that buy higher grades of silicon metal, such as polysilicon producers. During the preliminary phase of these investigations, *** explained that a discontinued producer pricing mechanism of discounting to published indexes had the effect of allowing low volume spot purchases in the aluminum industry to cause indexes to “ratchet down” from month to month, as the price index declined and the discount to index policy further lowered prices in the following month. 12 Two purchasers reported that they purchase silicon metal weekly, 11 purchase monthly, 3 purchase quarterly, 10 purchase annually, and 7 purchasers also reported buying silicon metal on an as‐needed basis. Twenty of 31 responding purchasers reported that their purchasing frequency had not changed since 2014. Purchasers reporting a change in purchase frequency usually cited increasing demand and production or an uncertain business outlook. Most 10 Conference transcript, p. 23 (Perkins). 11 See Part II, supply constraints, for additional information. 12 Purchaser *** stated that chemical industry buyers saw little benefit from price drops due to most chemical purchases being on fixed price contracts. V‐6 purchasers contact between one and eight suppliers before making a purchase, with the majority contacting between two and four suppliers, and some contacting up to 15 suppliers. Sales terms and discounts Most U.S. producers (2 of 3) and importers (11 of 15) typically quote prices on a delivered basis. All U.S. producers and almost all importers (except for ***) reported having no discount policy. All U.S. producers and most importers reported sales terms of net 30 days, with some variation. 13 Price leadership Most responding purchasers reported that U.S. producer Globe is a price leader. Several U.S. purchasers, including ***, noted that Globe’s merger with Grupo FerroAtlantica during the fourth quarter of 2015 consolidated two silicon metal suppliers into one larger supplier, with some purchasers indicating that this allowed the recently merged company to have greater influence on market pricing. PRICE DATA The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers to provide quarterly data for the total quantity and f.o.b. value of the following silicon metal products shipped to unrelated U.S. customers during January 2014‐September 2017. Product 1.‐‐ Sold to primary aluminum producers; silicon metal less than 99.99% pure that contains a minimum of 98.5% silicon, a maximum of 1.00% iron, a maximum of 0.07% calcium, and no restriction of the aluminum content. Product 2.‐‐ Sold to secondary aluminum producers; silicon metal less than 99.99% pure that contains a minimum of 97.0% silicon, a maximum of 2.00% iron, a maximum of 0.4% calcium, and no restriction of the aluminum content. Product 3.‐‐ Sold to chemical and/or polysilicon manufacturers; silicon metal less than 99.99% pure that contains a minimum of 98.0% silicon, a maximum of 1.50% iron, a maximum of 0.2% calcium, and a maximum of 0.4% aluminum. All three U.S. producers and 23 importers provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested products, although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters. 14 13 U.S. producers *** additionally reported sales terms of net 45 days. Six importers additionally reported sales terms of net 60 days, and three reported variations of less than or more than net 60 days. V‐7 Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. commercial shipments of silicon metal in 2016. Pricing data reported by importers accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports from Australia, *** percent of U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports from Brazil, *** U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports from Kazakhstan, and *** percent of U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports from Norway in 2016. Price data for products 1‐3 are presented in tables V‐3 to V‐5 and figures V‐4 to V‐6. Nonsubject country prices for Canada and South Africa are presented in Appendix E. Table V-3 Silicon metal: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 11 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2014-September 2017 * * * * * * * Table V-4 Silicon metal: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 21 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2014-September 2017 * * * * * * * Table V-5 Silicon metal: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 31 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2014-September 2017 * * * * * * * Figure V-4 Silicon metal: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1,1 by quarters, January 2014-September 2017 * * * * * * * Figure V-5 Silicon metal: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2,1 by quarters, January 2014-September 2017 * * * * * * * Figure V-6 Silicon metal: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3,1 by quarters, January 2014-September 2017 * * * * * * * (…continued) 14 Per‐unit pricing data are calculated from total quantity and total value data provided by U.S. producers and importers. The precision and variation of these figures may be affected by rounding, limited quantities, and producer or importer estimates. V‐8 Import purchase costs The Commission also requested importers provide landed‐duty paid values and quantities for imports used for internal consumption. Very small quantities of products 1 and 2 were imported for a firm’s own use. 15 However, imports for internal consumption accounted for a relatively large volume of product 3 from subject countries, particularly product 3 imports from Brazil that were imported by chemical/polysilicon manufacturers. Purchase cost data for imports of product 3 are presented in tables V‐6 and figure V‐7. Table V-6 Silicon metal: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and landed duty-paid values and quantities of domestic and imported product 3,1 by quarter, January 2014-September 2017 * * * * * * * Figure V-7 Silicon metal: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and landed duty-paid values and quantities of domestic and imported product 3,1 by quarter, January 2014-September 2017 * * * * * * * Price trends During January 2014‐September 2017, prices declined overall. In general, prices increased slightly in 2014 and 2015, declined in 2016, and stabilized in 2017. Table V‐7 summarizes the price trends, by country and by product. As shown in the table, domestic price decreases ranged from *** percent to *** percent during January 2014 to September 2017, while import price decreases ranged from *** percent to *** percent. Direct import purchase costs also decreased during the period, with decreases ranging from *** percent to *** percent. Table V-7 Silicon metal: Number of quarters containing observations, low price, high price and change in price over period by product and source country, January 2014-September 2017 * * * * * * * Price comparisons As shown in tables V‐8 and V‐9, prices for silicon metal imported from subject countries were below those for U.S.‐produced silicon metal in 66 of 88 instances (*** short tons); margins of underselling ranged from *** to *** percent. In the remaining 22 instances (*** short tons), prices for silicon metal from subject countries were between *** and *** percent 15 ***. For product 1, there were ***. V‐9 above prices for the domestic product. Lower grade silicon metal may occasionally be sold at higher prices than purer grades of silicon metal during the same time period, because of supply and demand pressure which may vary between different end‐use sectors, and the relatively limited ability of consumers to switch to alternate input products that contain different characteristics. Table V-8 Silicon metal: Instances of underselling/overselling and the range and average of margins, by product, January 2014-September 2017 * * * * * * * Table V-9 Silicon metal: Instances of underselling/overselling and the range and average of margins, by country, January 2014-September 2017 * * * * * * * Compared to U.S. commercial shipments of silicon metal from subject countries, relatively higher volumes of silicon metal from subject countries were directly imported and internally consumed. Virtually all directly imported silicon metal shipments consisted of product 3. 16 Costs for product 3 silicon metal imported from subject countries were below those for U.S.‐produced silicon metal in 9 of 33 instances (*** short tons), and above in the remaining 24 instances (*** short tons). LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUE In the preliminary phase of these investigations, the Commission requested that U.S. producers of silicon metal report purchasers where they experienced instances of lost sales or revenue due to competition from imports of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway during 2014‐16. *** submitted lost sales and lost revenue allegations, and identified eight firms where *** lost sales or revenue (seven consisting of lost sales allegations and one consisting of lost revenue allegations). All allegations of lost sales and lost revenue occurred in 2016 and 2017. Five allegations included Australia, three allegations included Brazil, two allegations included Kazakhstan, and four allegations included Norway. Most alleged lost sales and lost revenue were through contract negotiations and two were through a request for quote. In the final phase of these investigations, *** of the three responding U.S. producers, ***, reported that they had to either reduce prices and/or roll back announced price increases, and one firm *** reported that it had lost sales. Staff contacted 47 firms and received responses from 31 purchasers. During 2014‐2016, the share of domestic product purchased by 16 According to questionnaire responses, *** were directly imported. V‐10 respondents increased by *** percent and the share of subject imports purchased by respondents increased by *** percent (table V‐10). Table V-10 Silicon metal: Purchasers’ responses to purchasing patterns * * * * * * * Of the 31 responding purchasers, 25 purchased silicon metal from subject countries instead of domestic producers on at least one occasion since 2014 (table V‐11). Of those 25 purchasers, 15 reported that prices of imported silicon metal were lower than domestic, and 11 reported that price was a primary reason for the decision to purchase subject imports rather than U.S.‐produced silicon metal. Some purchasers reported that they did not know if subject import prices were lower or higher than U.S.‐produced product because they did not receive price quotes from U.S. producers, or because they did not know from where their shipment was sourced at the time of purchase. Table V-11 Silicon metal: Purchasers’ responses to purchasing subject imports instead of domestic, by country Source Count of purchasers reporting subject instead of domestic Count of purchasers reported that imports were priced lower Count of purchasers reporting that price was a primary reason for purchasing imports instead of domestic Quantity subject purchased (short tons) Other reasons for purchasing imports instead of domestic Australia 17 10 6 *** 15 Brazil 17 10 9 *** 10 Kazakhstan 12 7 6 *** 9 Norway 4 1 1 *** 8 All subject sources 25 15 11 *** 15 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Of the 11 purchasers reporting that price was a primary reason for the decision to purchase imported product rather than U.S.‐produced product, six purchasers reported purchasing Australian silicon metal with quantities ranging from *** short tons, nine purchasers reported purchasing Brazilian silicon metal with quantities ranging from *** short tons, six purchasers reported purchasing silicon metal from Kazakhstan with quantities ranging from *** short tons, and one purchaser reported purchasing silicon metal from Norway for a total quantity of *** short tons (table V‐12). Purchasers also identified various non‐price reasons for purchasing imported rather than U.S.‐produced product, including diversity of supply, chemical characteristics, contract terms, longstanding business relationships, and availability from foreign producers when domestic producers were unable to meet demand. V‐11 Table V-12 Silicon metal: Purchasers’ responses to purchasing subject imports instead of domestic product * * * * * * * *** identified a reduction in U.S. producers’ prices in order to compete with subject imports. 17 Seven purchasers reported that U.S. producers did not reduce prices to compete with subject imports, while the majority of purchasers stated that they did not know if domestic prices were reduced to compete with subject imports (table V‐13). Table V-13 Silicon metal: Purchasers’ responses to U.S. producer price reductions, by country Source Count of purchasers reporting U.S. producers reduced prices Simple average of estimated U.S. price reduction (percent) Range of estimated U.S. price reductions (percent) Australia 1 *** *** Brazil 1 *** *** Kazakhstan --- *** *** Norway --- *** *** All subject sources 1 *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM PURCHASERS Some purchasers also provided additional comments and information on purchases, pricing, and market dynamics. Frequently cited issues included a desire for specific quality characteristics and reliability/diversity of supply. ***: “*** would like to maintain multiple supply options to safeguard the various manufacturing sites that we operate in the U.S. that rely on silicon as a raw material in our production processes. *** in the U.S. who are represented by various labor unions. Given that Simcoa have ceased marketing silicon metal to the U.S. market due to the impending anti‐ dumping and countervailing duties, we have been forced to go back to FerroGlobe for 2018 supply at price levels that are 65 percent higher than prior levels. This has a negative impact on our financials and places us at increased risk due to lack of diversity of supply options.” ***: “We purchase predominantly a by‐product of silicon metal crushing. Much of it is from traders rather than direct manufacturers. ***, and their sources could be any of the countries in question. As long as they meet our spec, we have not been concerned with the source.” 17 U.S. purchaser ***. V‐12 ***: “It does not matter if it is domestic or imported as long as the supplier can meet the delivery, quality and price requirements.” ***: “The U.S. market is not served by a single dominant player, such as Globe, who works to raise prices and control supply, which results in U.S. consumers paying the highest silicon prices in the world. This puts the U.S. consumers at a severe disadvantage to consumers in Canada, Mexico and everywhere else.” ***: “When we place our orders for silicon, we have no knowledge of where the origin of the material might be coming from. For instance, our annual contract with FerroGlobe, they could supply us material from their plant outside of U.S., such as France, Spain, and South Africa, which they have done. All we want is diversity in supply with minimum of two suppliers.” ***: “One of the biggest issues is the timing of entering into a contract. Many times the domestic producers want to delay entering into a contract until they understand where they can book the highest value contracts for themselves. With our two domestic suppliers now one (two years ago), they first want to sell to the polysilicon customers, then the chemical grade customers, then the primary aluminum customers. When those customers are booked then they will finally come to the secondary aluminum smelters because we are typically the worst spec for them. Their goal is to produce and sell the highest purity silicon first at the highest price and then come to the secondary aluminum group with 553 grade or lower. By the time the higher purity grades are sold they cannot even come close to supplying the domestic secondary aluminum market which makes the need for imports all the greater. …This leads to apples and oranges pricing where pricing and contracts are awarded at different times, thus different prices and discounts.” ***. “***.” *** stated “***.”18 *** stated “Maintaining a diverse supply is important to us. We don't want to sole source silicon metal because it is too important as an input raw material.” 18 *** provided these comments in the preliminary phase, but did not provide this information in the additional information section of the questionnaire during the final phase. VI‐1 PART VI: FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF U.S. PRODUCERS BACKGROUND Three firms, DC Alabama, Globe, and Mississippi Silicon, reported financial results on their U.S. silicon metal operations.1 For the period as a whole and with regard to operations reflecting both commercial sales and transfers of silicon metal, *** accounted for *** percent of total silicon metal sales quantity, *** accounted for *** percent, and *** accounted for *** percent. When considering open market silicon metal operations (i.e., operations reflecting only commercial sales), *** accounted for *** percent of commercial silicon metal sales quantity, *** accounted for *** percent, and *** accounted for *** percent.2 . To varying degrees and with the exception of the ***,3 the following changes/events directly or indirectly impacted the U.S. industry’s silicon metal financial results during the period: Mississippi Silicon began silicon metal operations at its newly‐established Burnsville, Mississippi plant in 2015, Globe Specialty Metals (Globe’s previous stand‐alone parent company) and FerroAtlantica merged to form Ferroglobe in late 2015, and Dow Corning became a wholly‐owned subsidiary of Dow Chemical in 2016. 4 ***.5 ***.6 ***.7 1 All three U.S. producers reported their silicon metal financial results on a GAAP basis and for calendar‐year periods. Staff conducted a verification of Globe’s U.S. producer questionnaire on January 11‐12, 2018. Data changes pursuant to verification are reflected in this and other relevant sections of the staff report. Verification report, p. 2. 2 While the underlying production process is essentially the same, U.S. producers vary in terms of their focus on commercial sales versus transfers. ***. December 18, 2017 letter with attachments from Counsel on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. ***. Verification report, p. 4. Transfer valuation of Dow Corning’s share of the Alloy, West Virginia plant joint venture is described further below. ***. Consistent with its normal practice, the Commission collected financial results in a manner that did not explicitly identify the Alloy, West Virginia joint venture as a separate entity and/or by joint venture partner share. In the absence of corresponding modifications to the Commission’s U.S. producer questionnaire format, stand‐alone joint venture financial results are not directly compatible with the financial results information gathered in the Commission’s questionnaire. 3 ***. *** U.S. producer questionnaire, response to III‐11. 4 Globe’s silicon metal operations are part of parent company Ferroglobe’s Electrometallurgy—North America segment. Ferroglobe 2016 20‐F, p. 66. Verification report, p. 3. Ferroglobe was created pursuant to the merger of Globe Specialty Metals and FerroAtlantica on December 23, 2015. Ferroglobe 2016 20‐F, p. F‐27. Dow Corning is part of DowDuPont’s Performance Materials & Coatings segment. DowDuPont 2017 10Q (Q3), p. 68. Dow Corning became a wholly‐owned subsidiary of Dow Chemical on June 1, 2016. Dow Chemical and DuPont merged to form DowDuPont on September 1, 2017. 5 ***. December 18, 2017 e‐mail with attachments from Counsel on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. ***. Ibid. Verification report, p. 6. 6 ***. December 18, 2017 letter with attachments from Counsel on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 7 ***. December 18, 2017 e‐mail with attachments from *** to USITC auditor. VI‐2 OPERATIONS ON SILICON METAL Income‐and‐loss data for the U.S. producers’ total operations on silicon metal are presented in table VI‐1. Table VI‐2 presents corresponding changes in average per short ton values.8 Table VI‐3 presents company‐specific financial information for total operations. Income‐and‐loss data for the U.S. producers’ open market operations are presented in table VI‐ 4. Table VI‐5 presents corresponding changes in average per short ton values. Table VI‐6 presents company‐specific financial information for open market operations. 9 Net sales Commercial sales represent the majority of the U.S. industry’s overall silicon metal revenue during 2014 through interim 2017 (*** percent of total sales quantity). Transfers, which were reported by *** and ***, accounted for *** percent total sales quantity.10 Quantity Total silicon metal sales quantities for overall operations and open market operations increased in each full‐year and were higher in interim 2017 compared to interim 2016 (see table VI‐1 and table VI‐4). The increase in the U.S. industry’s total sales quantity in 2015 primarily reflects *** relatively large increase in transfer sales quantity, attributed to improved operating conditions, 11 and to a lesser degree the ***. The further increase in 2016 total sales quantity reflects *** transition from start‐up to commercial production. Reflecting alternating declines in transfer and commercial sales quantities, *** total net sales quantity declined throughout the period, with its largest decline ocurring in 2016 (see table VI‐3). 12 Value According to U.S. producers, silicon metal pricing/sales values are not directly tied to underlying material input or other manufacturing costs. ***, however, noted an indirect connection between silicon metal sales values and production costs inasmuch as the cost of material inputs can be impacted, to some extent, by changes in the demand for silicon metal.13 8 Mississippi Silicon’s entry to the market impacts the pattern of period‐to‐period volume and calculated average values for silicon metal sales, cost of goods sold (COGS), and sales, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses. Accordingly, a variance analysis of financial results on overall operations or open market operations is not presented in this report. 9 ***. December 18, 2017 e‐mail with attachments from Counsel on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. Note: ***. Verification report, p. 4. Because of these differences, direct extrapolation of transfer‐only financial results is not possible. 10 ***. Verification report, p. 4. ***. December 18, 2017 letter with attachments from Counsel on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 11 ***. Ibid. 12 ***. December 18, 2017 e‐mail with attachments from Counsel on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 13 ***. December 18, 2017 e‐mail with attachments from *** to USITC auditor. VI‐3 On an overall basis average sales value (see table VI‐1) increased more notably in 2015 compared to open market sales (see table VI‐4). Both groups reported declines in average sales values in 2016 and interim 2017. To the extent that company‐specific product mix did not change substantially during the period, overall declines in average sales value were primarily a function of declines in silicon metal prices. Table VI-1 Silicon metal: Results of overall operations of U.S. producers, 2014-16, January-September 2016, and January-September 2017 * * * * * * * Table VI-2 Silicon metal: Changes in the U.S. producers’ average per short ton contained silicon values reported for overall operations 2014-16, January-September 2016, and January-September 2017 * * * * * * * While reporting the same directional trend in average sales value for the majority of the period (see table VI‐3), U.S. producers varied in terms of the magnitude of change in average sales value. ***, which reported minimal commercial sales in 2015, reported a large decline in average sales value in 2016 followed by a somewhat higher average sales value in interim 2017 compared to interim 2016. 14 Table VI‐3 shows that *** reported the lowest company‐specific average commercial sales value throughout the period (see footnote 2). Transfer valuation As noted previously (see footnote 10), transfers reported by DC Alabama represent sales to related downstream Dow Corning affiliates, while the transfers reported by Globe primarily represent Alloy, West Virginia joint venture sales to Dow Corning. Reflecting different reporting structures and operations, the underlying transfer valuations adopted by DC Alabama and Globe were based on different assumptions. 15 ***.16 14 ***. December 18, 2017 e‐mail with attachments from *** to USITC auditor. 15 ***. December 18, 2017 e‐mail with attachments from Counsel on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. Verification report, p. 4. 16 ***. March 5, 2018 e‐mail with attachment from Counsel on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. USITC auditor posthearing notes. The decision to revise Globe’s transfer values was specific to an evaluation of issues related to the financial section of the staff report and the measurement of the U.S. industry’s financial results. Because overall trends in the trade section are not impacted by revaluation of transfers, these changes were not applied to the trade data for U.S. producers presented in Part III of this report. VI‐4 Cost of goods sold and gross profit While U.S. producers generally indicated that they all use the same underlying production process, there are company‐specific differences with respect to silicon metal operations. 17 In terms of vertical integration, *** U.S. producer that reported input purchases from related suppliers.18 Raw materials In addition to other identified inputs, total raw material cost represents several primary items, which were common to all U.S. producers: electrodes, coal, quartz, and woodchips. For all companies, coal accounts for the largest share of raw material costs, followed by electrodes, quartz, and woodchips. 19 On an average basis, ***.20 *** average unit costs for these inputs reflect a mix of increases and decreases, with *** higher at the end of the period and *** lower. *** average coal and electrode cost declined during the period, while its average quartz cost increased.21 On an overall basis, *** average raw material cost fluctuated and increased to its highest level in interim 2017, while *** average raw material costs declined throughout the period (see table VI‐3). Direct comparability of *** average raw material cost to those of the other U.S. producers is limited, at least to some extent, due to *** deduction of byproduct revenue from raw material cost (see Byproducts section below). In contrast, *** deducted byproduct revenue from other factory costs. Electricity On an overall basis (see table VI‐1), electricity’s share of total COGS declined somewhat during the period from *** percent in 2014 to *** percent in interim 2017. Open market operations (see table VI‐4) reflect the same trend and similar cost shares. On a company‐specific basis, average electricity cost for overall operations reflects somewhat different patterns: *** average electricity cost declined substantially in 2016, largely reflecting ***,22 *** average electricity cost fluctuated somewhat but generally remained 17 ***. December 18, 2017 e‐mail with attachments from *** to USITC auditor. 18 ***. *** U.S. producer questionnaire, response to III‐7. ***. Verification report, p. 5. ***. Posthearing brief submitted by counsel on behalf of Dow Corning, Attachment 2. ***. The information submitted by *** and *** indicated that neither purchase inputs from related suppliers. *** U.S. producer questionnaire, response to III‐7. *** U.S. producer questionnaire, response to III‐7. 19 *** U.S. producer questionnaire, response to III‐9b. *** U.S. producer questionnaire, response to III‐9b. *** U.S. producer questionnaire, response to III‐9b. USITC auditor prehearing notes. ***. 20 As calculated based on questionnaire information, total average raw material cost and average costs for specific inputs reflect the average cost incurred to produce and sell the silicon metal reported as revenue. As such, these averages do not directly reflect the price paid for a specific input. 21 ***. December 18, 2017 letter with attachments from Counsel on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 22 ***. December 18, 2017 e‐mail with attachments from *** to USITC auditor. VI‐5 within a relatively narrow range throughout the period, and *** average electricity cost declined during the full‐year period.23 Direct labor and other factory costs For overall operations and open market operations, direct labor as a share of COGS declined during 2014 through interim 2017, while the share of other factory costs increased (see table VI‐1 and table VI‐4). The increase in other factory costs reflects the initiation of ***,24 as well as increasing full‐year average other factory costs reported by ***.25 26 While *** other factory costs were somewhat lower in interim 2017 compared to interim 2016, *** other factory costs were at their highest level of the period in interim 2017. 27 Byproducts All three U.S. producers reported similar byproducts (fume, dross, and fines) generated during the production of silicon metal, but varied somewhat in terms of how byproducts are recognized.28 In *** financial results, the byproduct deduction was to raw material cost, while *** byproduct deductions were to other factory costs. 29 The extent to which byproducts are sold can also vary by producer. For example, *** noted that fines can be either recycled into the production process or sold and *** indicated that in 2017 some of its fume byproduct was not sold due to impurities. 30 31 Cost of goods sold For overall operations and open market operations (see table VI‐1 and table VI‐4), the U.S. industry’s average full‐year COGS increased to its highest level in 2015 and then declined somewhat in 2016. Higher 2015 average COGS reflects ***, as well as higher average COGS reported by ***. In contrast, *** average COGS declined in 2015 (see footnote 11). In 2016, the decrease in average COGS, partially offset by *** higher average COGS, reflects a continued decline in *** average COGS and a substantial decline in *** average COGS, generally reflecting 23 ***. December 18, 2017 letter with attachments from Counsel on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 24 ***. December 18, 2017 e‐mail with attachments from *** to USITC auditor. 25 ***. December 18, 2017 e‐mail with attachments from Counsel on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. ***. *** U.S. producer questionnaire, response to III‐10a. ***. December 18, 2017 e‐mail with attachments from Counsel on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 26 ***. December 18, 2017 letter with attachments from Counsel on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 27 ***. Ibid. 28 In general, the distinction between joint products, also called main products, and byproducts is largely dependent on the market value of the products in question and their contribution to overall revenue. As such, a product’s designation as a byproduct or a main product can change over time given market conditions. For cost accounting purposes the market value of a byproduct is generally treated as a deduction to arrive at the cost of the main product. Cost Accounting: Using a Cost Management Approach, L. Gayle Rayburn, Irwin, 1993, pp. 258‐259. 29 ***. USITC auditor prehearing notes. 30 December 18, 2017 e‐mail with attachments from Counsel on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 31 ***. December 18, 2017 e‐mail with attachments from *** to USITC auditor. VI‐6 ***. At the end of the period and with respect to overall operations, the higher level of average COGS in interim 2017 compared to interim 2016 is generally attributable to *** (see footnote 27); i.e., *** reported essentially the same average COGS in each interim period and *** reported modestly lower average COGS in interim 2017 compared to interim 2016. Gross profit or loss Gross profit for overall operations and open market operations contracted throughout the period (see table VI‐1 and table VI‐4). For both sets of financial results, the decline in gross profit in 2015 reflects an increase in average COGS, which was only partially offset by higher average sales value. In contrast, the much larger contraction in average gross profit in 2016 reflects a substantial decline in average sales value, which was only partially offset by lower average COGS. At the end of the period, the two sets of financial results diverged: average COGS for overall operations increased somewhat, which amplified the negative impact of lower average sales value in interim 2017 compared to interim 2016, while average COGS for open market operations declined somewhat and partially offset lower average sales value. On an overall and open market basis, table VI‐1 and table VI‐4 show that the U.S. industry generated gross profit in 2014 and 2015, a marginal gross profit for overall operations and a gross loss for open market operations in 2016, respectively, and gross losses of differing magnitudes in interim 2017. SG&A expenses and operating income or loss SG&A expenses For overall operations and open market operations (see table VI‐1 and table VI‐4), total SG&A expenses increased throughout the full‐year period and were lower in interim 2017 compared to interim 2016. During the full‐year period, this pattern reflects *** and higher levels of SG&A expenses reported by ***, which offset relatively large declines in *** SG&A expenses. At the end of the period, lower SG&A expenses in interim 2017 compared to interim 2016 reflect reduced SG&A expenses reported by ***, which were partially offset by higher SG&A expenses reported by ***. Lower SG&A expense ratios (total SG&A expenses divided by total revenue) for overall operations compared to open market operations generally reflect the larger presence of ***, which reported the lowest company‐specific SG&A expense ratios throughout the period (see table VI‐3 and table VI‐6).32 *** SG&A expense ratios for its overall operations were in the same general range as its open market SG&A ratios. 33 *** SG&A expense ratios, which were notably high in 2015, subsequently declined but remained the highest on a company‐specific basis throughout the period. 34 32 ***. December 18, 2017 letter with attachments from Counsel on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 33 ***. December 18, 2017 e‐mail with attachments from Counsel on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 34 ***. December 18, 2017 e‐mail with attachments from *** to USITC auditor. VI‐7 Table VI-3 Silicon metal: Results of operations of U.S. producers’ overall operations, by firm, 2014-16, January-September 2016, and January-September 2017 * * * * * * * Operating income or loss During the full‐year period, the pattern of higher SG&A expense ratios reported for overall operations and open market operations amplified the negative impact of declining gross results. In contrast and to a modest degree, the lower SG&A expense ratio in interim 2017 compared to interim 2016 partially offset the gross loss ratios reported for overall operations (table VI‐1) and open market operations (table VI‐4). In general, the level and pattern of SG&A expenses played a limited role in terms of explaining the U.S. industry’s operating results; i.e., the factors that determined financial results at the gross level were more important. Interest expense, other expenses, and net income or loss For overall operations and open market operations (see table VI‐1 and table VI‐4), the directional trend of operating results and net results was the same throughout the period. The absolute amounts reported for operating results and net results, however, diverged more notably in 2016 due to higher levels of interest expense and other expenses, reflected in net results, which were only partially offset by corresponding other income. While *** reported interest expense throughout the period and *** reported small amounts in 2014 and 2015, *** accounts for the large increase in total interest expense during the period.35 Other expenses were reported throughout the period by *** and by *** in 2016. 36 *** reported no other expenses during the period. While *** and *** reported other income, the large increase in other income in 2016 and interim 2017 primarily reflects ***.37 Table VI-4 Silicon metal: Results of open market operations of U.S. producers, 2014-16, January-September 2016, and January-September 2017 * * * * * * * Table VI-5 Silicon metal: Changes in the U.S. producers’ average per short ton contained silicon values reported for open market operations 2014-16, January-September 2016, and January-September 2017 * * * * * * * 35 ***. Ibid. 36 ***. *** U.S. producer questionnaire, response to III‐10a. 37 ***. *** U.S. producer questionnaire, response to III‐10a. VI‐8 Table VI-6 Silicon metal: Results of operations of U.S. producers’ open market operations, by firm, 2014-16, January-September 2016, and January-September 2017 * * * * * * * CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES Table VI‐7 presents the U.S. producers’ capital expenditures and research and development (R&D) expenses related to silicon metal operations. Overall capital expenditures increased to their highest level in 2015 and then declined to their lowest full‐year level in 2016. While *** reported modest increases, the large overall increase in the U.S. industry’s total capital expenditures in 2015 primarily reflects ***.38 For the period as a whole, *** accounted for *** percent of total capital expenditures, followed by *** (*** percent),39 and *** (*** percent).40 Table VI‐7 shows that *** of the U.S. producers reported R&D expenses. ***.41 *** provided a similar response.42 With the regard to the *** of R&D expenses, ***.43 Table VI-7 Silicon metal: U.S. producers’ capital expenditures and research and development (R&D) expenses, by firm, 2014-16, January-September 2016, and January-September 2017 * * * * * * * ASSETS AND RETURN ON ASSETS Table VI‐8 presents the U.S. producers’ silicon metal‐related total assets and operating return on assets.44 38 ***. *** U.S. producer questionnaire, response to III‐13 (note 1). 39 ***. *** U.S. producer questionnaire, response to III‐13 (note 1). 40 ***. *** U.S. producer questionnaire, response to III‐13 (note 1). 41 December 18, 2017 e‐mail with attachments from Counsel on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 42 December 18, 2017 letter with attachments from Counsel on behalf of *** to USITC auditor. 43 December 18, 2017 e‐mail with attachments from *** to USITC auditor. 44 Total asset value (i.e., the bottom line value on the asset side of a company’s balance sheet) reflects an aggregation of a number of assets, which in many instances are not product specific. Accordingly, high‐level allocation factors were likely required, to some extent, in order to report a total asset value (i.e., current and non‐current assets) specific to silicon metal operations. As such, it should be noted that the pattern of total asset values reported can reflect changes in underlying asset account balances, as well as period‐to‐period variations in relevant allocation factors. The ability of U.S. producers to assign total asset values to discrete product lines affects the meaningfulness of calculated return on assets. VI‐9 Table VI-8 Silicon metal: U.S. producers’ total assets and return on assets, 2014-16 * * * * * * * The increase in the U.S. industry’s total assets in 2015 primarily reflects ***.45 In 2016, the higher level of total assets primarily reflects the ***.46 CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT The Commission requested the U.S. producers of silicon metal to describe any actual or potential negative effects on their return on investment or their growth, investment, ability to raise capital, existing development and production efforts (including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the product), or the scale of capital investments as a result of imports of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and/or Norway. Table VI‐9 tabulates the U.S. producers’ responses regarding actual negative effects on investment, growth and development, as well as anticipated negative effects. Table VI‐10 presents U.S. producers’ narrative responses regarding actual and anticipated negative effects on investment, growth and development. Table VI-9 Silicon metal: Negative effects of imports from subject sources on investment, growth, and development since January 1, 2014 * * * * * * * Table VI-10 Silicon metal: Narrative responses of U.S. producers regarding actual and anticipated negative effects of imports from subject sources on investment, growth, and development since January 1, 2014 * * * * * * * 45 ***. *** U.S. producer questionnaire, response to III‐12 (note 1). 46 ***. *** U.S. producer questionnaire, response to III‐12 (note 1). VII‐1 PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS AND INFORMATION ON NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES Section 771(7)(F)(i) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i)) provides that— In determining whether an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports (or sales for importation) of the subject merchandise, the Commission shall consider, among other relevant economic factors 1‐‐ (I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may be presented to it by the administering authority as to the nature of the subsidy (particularly as to whether the countervailable subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement), and whether imports of the subject merchandise are likely to increase, (II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial increase in production capacity in the exporting country indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject merchandise into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional exports, (III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of imports of the subject merchandise indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports, (IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices that are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices, and are likely to increase demand for further imports, (V) inventories of the subject merchandise, 1 Section 771(7)(F)(ii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii)) provides that “The Commission shall consider {these factors} . . . as a whole in making a determination of whether further dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would occur unless an order is issued or a suspension agreement is accepted under this title. The presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to consider . . . shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the determination. Such a determination may not be made on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition.” VII‐2 (VI) the potential for product‐shifting if production facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products, (VII) in any investigation under this title which involves imports of both a raw agricultural product (within the meaning of paragraph (4)(E)(iv)) and any product processed from such raw agricultural product, the likelihood that there will be increased imports, by reason of product shifting, if there is an affirmative determination by the Commission under section 705(b)(1) or 735(b)(1) with respect to either the raw agricultural product or the processed agricultural product (but not both), (VIII) the actual and potential negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product, and (IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the probability that there is likely to be material injury by reason of imports (or sale for importation) of the subject merchandise (whether or not it is actually being imported at the time).2 Information on the nature of the subsidies was presented earlier in this report; information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Parts IV and V; and information on the effects of imports of the subject merchandise on U.S. producers’ existing development and production efforts is presented in Part VI. Information on inventories of the subject merchandise; foreign producers’ operations, including the potential for “product‐shifting;” any other threat indicators, if applicable; and any dumping in third‐ country markets, follows. Also presented in this section of the report is information obtained for consideration by the Commission on nonsubject countries. THE INDUSTRY IN AUSTRALIA The Commission issued a foreign producer/exporter questionnaire to one firm, Simcoa (Australia), believed to be the only producer of silicon metal in Australia.3 A completed 2 Section 771(7)(F)(iii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(iii)) further provides that, in antidumping investigations, “. . . the Commission shall consider whether dumping in the markets of foreign countries (as evidenced by dumping findings or antidumping remedies in other WTO member markets against the same class or kind of merchandise manufactured or exported by the same party as under investigation) suggests a threat of material injury to the domestic industry.” 3 This firm was identified through a review of information submitted in the petition and contained in *** records. VII‐3 response to the Commission’s questionnaire was received from this firm. Simcoa (Australia)’s exports to the United States accounted for all known U.S. imports of silicon metal from Australia in 2016. According to information requested of the responding Australian producer, the production of silicon metal in Australia reported in this part of the report accounts for all production of silicon metal in Australia in 2016. Table VII‐1 presents information on the silicon metal operations of the responding producer in Australia. Table VII-1 Silicon metal: Summary data for Simcoa (Australia), 2016 * * * * * * * Changes in operations As presented in table VII‐2, the producer in Australia reported *** since January 1, 2014. Table VII-2 Silicon metal: Simcoa (Australia’s) reported changes in operations, since January 1, 2014 * * * * * * * Operations on silicon metal Table VII‐3 presents information on the silicon metal operations of the responding producer and exporter in Australia for 2014‐16, the January‐September (“interim”) periods in 2016 and 2017, as well as projections for 2017‐18. Table VII-3 Silicon metal: Data for Simcoa (Australia), 2014-16, January to September 2016, January to September 2017, and projections for calendar years 2017 and 2018 * * * * * * * Capacity in Australia increased by *** percent from 2014 to 2015, but decreased by *** percent from 2015 to 2016, resulting in an overall increase of *** percent from 2014 to 2016. ***. No change in the capacity to produce was reported during interim periods 2016 and 2017. The firm’s production increased by *** percent from 2014 to 2015, but decreased by *** percent from 2015 to 2016, resulting in an overall increase of *** percent from 2014 to 2016. Production was higher in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. ***. Capacity utilization decreased by *** percentage points from *** percent in 2014 to *** percent 2015, but increased by *** percentage points to *** 2016. Capacity utilization was *** percent in interim 2017. In addition, end‐of‐period inventories increased by *** percent from 2014 to 2015, but decreased VII‐4 by *** percent from 2015 to 2016. End‐of‐period inventories decreased overall by *** percent from 2014 to 2016, but were higher in interim 2017 than in the comparable period in 2016. 4 Total shipments of the responding Australian producer increased by *** percent from 2014 to 2016, but were lower in interim 2017 than in the comparable period in 2016. Home market shipments declined from *** percent of total shipments in 2014 to *** percent of total shipments in 2015, but increased to *** percent of total shipments in 2016. Home market shipments as a share of total shipments were higher in interim 2017 at *** percent than in interim 2016 at *** percent. Exports of silicon metal to the United States increased by *** percent from 2014 to 2015, but decreased by *** percent from 2015 to 2016. Exports of silicon metal to the United States decreased overall by *** percent from 2014 to 2016, but were higher in the first nine months of 2017 as compared to the first nine months of 2016. As a share of total shipments, exports to the United States increased from *** percent of total shipments in 2014 to *** percent of total shipments in 2015, but decreased to *** percent of total shipments in 2016. Exports to the United States accounted for *** percent of total shipments in January‐ September 2017. Exports of silicon metal to countries other than the United States accounted for *** (***) of total shipments, during 2014‐16, but accounted for a smaller share (*** percent) in interim 2017. Other export markets identified include ***. Projections indicate the exports to the United States will decline in 2017 and 2018 both in absolute quantity and relative to total shipments. 5 Alternative products As shown in table VII‐4, the responding Australian firm reported that, from 2014 to 2016, *** production capacity was devoted to in‐scope silicon metal production. The firm reported that elements other than silicon accounted for less than *** percent of the total weight of in‐scope silicon metal production. Table VII-4 Silicon metal: Overall capacity and production on the same equipment as subject production by Simcoa (Australia), 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 * * * * * * * 4 Projections indicate that capacity, production, and inventories will be higher in 2018 than reported in 2016. 5 “Simcoa has participated in the U.S. market for more than 20 years, but has neither the plans nor the means to increase our exports to the United States. Additionally, high logistical costs and a weak U.S. dollar make it far less attractive for us to export products here than to other markets.” Hearing transcript, pp. 145‐147 (Miles). VII‐5 Exports According to Global Trade Atlas (“GTA”), the leading export market for silicon metal from Australia was the United States (table VII‐5). Germany was the second‐largest export destination of silicon metal from Australia. During 2016, the United States and Germany accounted for 35.2 and 19.6 percent of total exports from Australia of silicon metal, respectively. Table VII-5 Silicon metal: Exports from Australia by destination market, 2014-16 Destination market Calendar year 2014 2015 2016 Quantity (short tons contained silicon) Exports from Australia to the United States 20,320 22,284 18,616 Exports from Australia to other major destination markets.-- Germany 13,733 13,942 10,375 United Arab Emirates 6,360 2,381 5,842 Japan 232 3,231 5,595 Thailand --- --- 4,409 Qatar --- --- 2,816 Netherlands 2,804 3,679 1,181 Poland 1,508 4,021 1,121 United Kingdom 1,282 1,089 925 All other destination markets 10,145 2,228 1,967 Total exports from Australia 56,384 52,856 52,848 Value (1,000 dollars) Exports from Australia to the United States 51,120 55,930 32,277 Australia's exports to other major destination markets.-- Germany 32,371 29,946 20,644 United Arab Emirates 14,922 6,167 9,151 Japan 543 7,110 10,140 Thailand --- --- 7,509 Qatar --- --- 4,507 Netherlands 6,099 7,742 2,127 Poland 3,462 8,138 1,802 United Kingdom 2,486 1,922 1,067 All other destination markets 12,646 5,358 3,547 Total exports from Australia 123,649 122,313 92,771 Table continued on next page. VII‐6 Table VII-5--Continued Silicon metal: Exports from Australia by destination market, 2014-16 Destination market Calendar year 2014 2015 2016 Unit value (dollars per STCS) Exports from Australia to the United States 2,516 2,510 1,734 Exports from Australia to other major destination markets.-- Germany 2,357 2,148 1,990 United Arab Emirates 2,346 2,590 1,566 Japan 2,337 2,201 1,812 Thailand --- --- 1,703 Qatar --- --- 1,600 Netherlands 2,175 2,104 1,802 Poland 2,296 2,024 1,607 United Kingdom 1,940 1,764 1,153 All other destination markets 1,247 2,404 1,804 Total exports from Australia 2,193 2,314 1,755 Share of quantity (percent) Exports from Australia to the United States 36.0 42.2 35.2 Exports from Australia to other major destination markets.-- Germany 24.4 26.4 19.6 United Arab Emirates 11.3 4.5 11.1 Japan 0.4 6.1 10.6 Thailand --- --- 8.3 Qatar --- --- 5.3 Netherlands 5.0 7.0 2.2 Poland 2.7 7.6 2.1 United Kingdom 2.3 2.1 1.8 All other destination markets 18.0 4.2 3.7 Total exports from Australia 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official Australia export statistics under HTS subheading 2804.69 as reported by Australian Bureau of Statistics in the IHS/GTA database accessed November 28, 2017. THE INDUSTRY IN BRAZIL The Commission issued foreign producers’ or exporters’ questionnaires to five firms believed to produce and/or export silicon metal from Brazil.6 Usable responses to the Commission’s questionnaire were received from four firms: Companhia Ferroligas Minas Gerais (“Minasligas”), Dow Corning (Brazil), Ligas de Alumínio S/A (“LIASA”), and Rima Industrial S.A. 6 These firms were identified through a review of information submitted in the petitions and contained in *** records. VII‐7 (“RIMA”).7 The four responding Brazilian producers are believed to have accounted for all known production of silicon metal in Brazil and all known exports of silicon metal from Brazil to the United States in 2016. 8 Table VII‐ 6 presents information on the silicon metal operations of the responding producers and exporters in Brazil. Table VII-6 Silicon metal: Summary data for producers in Brazil, 2016 * * * * * * * Changes in operations As presented in table VII‐7 producers in Brazil reported several operational and organizational changes since January 1, 2014. Table VII-7 Silicon metal: Brazilian producers' reported changes in operations, since January 1, 2014 * * * * * * * Operations on silicon metal Table VII‐8 presents information on the silicon metal operations of the responding producers and exporters in Brazil for 2014‐16, interim 2016, and interim 2017, as well as projections for 2017‐18. Projections indicate that capacity, production, and shipments will fluctuate, while inventories will increase during 2017‐18. Table VII-8 Silicon metal: Data for producers in Brazil, 2014-16, January to September 2016, January to September 2017, and projections for calendar years 2017 and 2018 * * * * * * * Capacity in Brazil decreased by *** percent from 2014 to 2015, but increased by *** percent from 2015 to 2016. Capacity in Brazil decreased overall by *** percent from 2014 to 2016 and was lower in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. Production decreased by *** percent from 2014 to 2015, but increased by *** percent from 2015 to 2016. 9 Production increased 7 The one firm that did not respond to the Commission’s questionnaire was ***. In their posthearing brief, LIASA and Minasligas indicate that *** has not produced silicon metal in Brazil since 2014. ***. Joint respondents (LIASA and Minasligas) posthearing brief, p. 11 and email message from ***. 8 Joint respondents (LIASA and Minasligas) posthearing brief, p. 11. 9 The increase in production was largely due to *** silicon metal production increasing from *** short tons in 2014 to *** short tons in 2015, and to *** short tons of silicon metal produced in 2016. This resulted in capacity utilization increases from *** percent in 2014 to *** percent in 2015 and to (continued...) VII‐8 overall by *** percent from 2014 to 2016, but was lower in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. 10 Capacity utilization decreased by *** percentage points from 2014 to 2015, but increased by *** percentage points from 2015 to 2016. Capacity utilization increased overall by *** percentage points from 2014 to 2016 but was lower in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. 11 In addition, end‐of‐period inventories increased by *** percent from 2014 to 2016 but were lower in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. Total shipments of the responding Brazilian producers decreased by *** percent from 2014 to 2015, but increased by *** percent from 2015 to 2016. Total shipments of the responding Brazilian producers increased overall by *** percent from 2014 to 2016 but were lower in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. Home market shipments declined from *** percent of total shipments in 2014 to *** percent of total shipments in 2015, and further declined to *** percent of total shipments in 2016. Home market shipments increased by *** percentage points (as a share of total shipments) from interim 2016 to interim 2017. Brazilian exports of silicon metal to the United States decreased by *** percent from 2014 to 2015, but increased by *** percent from 2015 to 2016. 12 Exports of silicon metal to the United States increased overall by *** percent from 2014 to 2016, but were lower in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. 13 As a share of the responding Brazilian producers’ total shipments, exports to the United States decreased from *** percent of total shipments in 2014 to *** percent of total shipments in 2015, and further decreased to *** percent of total shipments in 2016, but were lower in quantity, higher in share in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. Exports of silicon metal to countries other than the United States accounted for *** of total shipments during 2015 and 2016. 14 Exports of silicon metal to countries other than the United States (…continued) *** percent in 2016 for LIASA. *** indicated that the prolonged shutdowns of the furnaces during 2014 and 2015 were due to high energy prices. *** foreign producer questionnaire, section II‐4a. Dow Corning noted that “significant issues in the energy sector due to weather conditions in Brazil led many production facilities to cut back on their production, or even stop production of silicon metal altogether, during the period of investigation.” Dow Corning’s postconference brief, p. 28. 10 LIASA noted that all producers in Brazil use charcoal as a resin in their production process rather than coal and the silicon metal they produce has very low levels of impurities. In addition, Brazilian “production technology offers a very high efficiency for the chemical industry with high reactivity and selectivity” on the silicon metal production process. Conference transcript, p. 89 (Augusto). 11 *** indicated that “the design of the furnaces and supporting processes constrain the limits of the production capacity. The semi‐batch smelting process also has inherent inefficiencies that make it difficult to reach full, theoretical production capacity (e.g. variability in raw material quality, silicon recovery, and unplanned downtime caused by equipment failure).” *** foreign producer questionnaire response, section II‐4d. 12 Minasligas explained that it ***. ***. 13 Dow Corning (Brazil) noted in its questionnaire response that ***. *** U.S. importer questionnaire response, section II‐4. 14 Dow Corning noted that ***, demonstrating that there are significant markets other than the United States that are open to Brazilian producers and exporters. Dow Corning’s postconference brief, p. 26. VII‐9 increased by *** percent from 2014 to 2016, but were lower in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. Other export markets identified include ***. Alternative products As shown in table VII‐9, responding Brazilian firms reported that, from 2014 to 2016, *** production capacity was devoted to in‐scope silicon metal production. The four Brazilian firms reported that elements other than silicon accounted for approximately *** percent of the total weight of in‐scope silicon metal production in 2016. Table VII-9 Silicon metal: Brazilian producers' overall capacity and production on the same equipment as subject production, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 * * * * * * * Exports According to GTA, the leading export market for silicon metal from Brazil was the United States in 2016 (table VII‐10). Germany was the second‐largest export market by quantity for silicon metal from Brazil in 2016. During 2016, the United States and Germany accounted for 38.4 and 16.2 percent of total exports from Brazil of silicon metal, respectively. VII‐10 Table VII-10 Silicon metal: Exports from Brazil by destination market, 2014-16 Destination market Calendar year 2014 2015 2016 Quantity (short tons contained silicon) Exports from Brazil to the United States 79,228 46,198 78,275 Exports from Brazil to other major destination markets.- Germany 21,390 9,740 33,060 United Kingdom 25,353 46,071 31,764 Netherlands 1,708 441 17,633 Poland 187 386 8,822 Japan 2,094 1,543 5,093 Thailand 2,646 882 4,685 Canada 882 1,213 4,317 Italy 4,324 --- 3,663 All other destination markets 5,943 2,534 16,318 Total exports from Brazil 143,755 109,007 203,630 Value (1,000 dollars) Exports from Brazil to the United States 189,129 113,143 172,694 Exports from Brazil to other major destination markets.- Germany 49,787 22,036 57,154 United Kingdom 63,685 113,003 62,728 Netherlands 3,837 862 25,514 Poland 383 647 12,989 Japan 4,234 3,403 9,717 Thailand 5,063 1,988 9,148 Canada 2,083 3,097 6,043 Italy 9,448 --- 5,302 All other destination markets 13,145 4,969 23,986 Total exports from Brazil 340,793 263,149 385,275 Table continued on next page. VII‐11 Table VII-10--Continued Silicon metal: Exports from Brazil by destination market, 2014-16 Destination market Calendar year 2014 2015 2016 Unit value (dollars per STCS) Exports from Brazil to the United States 2,387 2,449 2,206 Exports from Brazil to other major destination markets.-- Germany 2,328 2,262 1,729 United Kingdom 2,512 2,453 1,975 Netherlands 2,246 1,954 1,447 Poland 2,045 1,676 1,472 Japan 2,022 2,205 1,908 Thailand 1,914 2,255 1,953 Canada 2,362 2,554 1,400 Italy 2,185 --- 1,447 All other destination markets 2,212 1,961 1,470 Total exports from Brazil 2,371 2,414 1,892 Share of quantity (percent) Exports from Brazil to the United States 55.1 42.4 38.4 Exports from Brazil to other major destination markets.-- Germany 14.9 8.9 16.2 United Kingdom 17.6 42.3 15.6 Netherlands 1.2 0.4 8.7 Poland 0.1 0.4 4.3 Japan 1.5 1.4 2.5 Thailand 1.8 0.8 2.3 Canada 0.6 1.1 2.1 Italy 3.0 --- 1.8 All other destination markets 4.1 2.3 8.0 Total exports from Brazil 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official Brazil export statistics under HTS subheading 2804.69 as reported by Brazil's Foreign Trade Secretariat (SECEX) in the IHS/GTA database, accessed November 28, 2017 THE INDUSTRY IN KAZAKHSTAN The Commission issued foreign producers’ or exporters’ questionnaires to two firms believed to produce and/or export silicon metal from Kazakhstan. 15 Usable responses to the Commission’s questionnaire were received from one firm: Tau‐Ken.16 This firm’s exports to the 15 These firms were identified through a review of information submitted in the petitions and contained in proprietary *** records. 16 Kaz Silicon was the other silicon metal producer in Kazakhstan identified by Staff during the preliminary phase of these investigations. Kaz Silicon *** Staff’s attempts to reach Kaz Silicon (continued...) VII‐12 United States accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S. imports of silicon metal from Kazakhstan in 2016. According to estimates requested of the responding Kazakh producer, the production of silicon metal in Kazakhstan reported in this part of the report accounts for *** production of silicon metal in Kazakhstan in 2016. Table VII‐11 presents information on the silicon metal operations of the responding producers in Kazakhstan during 2016. Table VII-11 Silicon metal: Summary data for industry in Kazakhstan, 2016 * * * * * * * Changes in operations As presented in table VII‐12 producers in Kazakhstan reported several operational and organizational changes since January 1, 2014. Table VII-12 Silicon metal: Kazakhstan producers' reported changes in operations, since January 1, 2014 * * * * * * * Note.—Tau-Ken indicated in its posthearing brief that it is *** to meet an anticipated increase in demand for its silicon metal in Kazakhstan because of the following events: (1) the launch of *** new alloy plant which plans to consume *** metric tons of silicon metal per month and up to *** metric tons of silicon metal per month at full capacity; and (2) the signing of a ***. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires, Tau-Ken’s posthearing brief, p.2, and email messages from ***. Operations on silicon metal Table VII‐13 presents information on the silicon metal operations of the responding producers and exporters in Kazakhstan for 2014‐16, January‐September 2016, and January‐ September 2017, as well as projections for 2017‐18. Projections indicate that capacity, production, and shipments are expected to fluctuate, while inventories are expected to decrease during 2017‐18. Table VII-13 Silicon metal: Data on industry in Kazakhstan, 2014-16, January to September 2016, January to September 2017, and projections for calendar years 2017 and 2018 * * * * * * * (…continued) representatives went unanswered, and the firms’ information provided in the preliminary phase was again utilized in this final phase for country‐specific analysis. VII‐13 Capacity in Kazakhstan increased by *** percent from 2014 to 2016. Production increased by *** percent from 2014 to 2016, but was lower in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. Capacity utilization increased by *** percentage points from 2014 to 2016, but decreased from interim 2016 to interim 2017. 17 In addition, end‐of‐period inventories decreased by *** percent from 2014 to 2016, but were higher in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. Tau‐Ken indicated that ***.18 Total shipments of the responding producer in Kazakhstan increased by *** percent from 2014 to 2016, but were lower in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. Home market shipments declined from *** percent of total shipments in 2014 to *** percent of total shipments in 2015, but increased to *** percent of total shipments in 2016. 19 Exports of silicon metal to the United States increased by *** percent from 2014 to 2016, but were lower in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. As a share of total shipments of the responding producers in Kazakhstan, exports to the United States increased from *** percent of total shipments in 2014 to *** percent of total shipments in 2016, while total exports and total shipments *** during the 2017 interim period. Exports of silicon metal to countries other than the United States increased by *** percent from 2014 to 2016, and continued to increase during interim 2016 to interim 2017. Other export markets identified include ***. Alternative products As shown in table VII‐14, responding Kazakh firms produced other products on the same equipment and machinery used to produce silicon metal during 2014‐15. *** produced both subject silicon metal and out‐of‐scope products on the same equipment until ***. Out‐of‐scope production accounted for *** percent and *** percent of total production in 2014 and 2015, respectively. Other products produced on the same equipment as silicon metal included ***. *** did not produce out‐of‐scope products. Table VII-14 Silicon metal: Kazakh producers' overall capacity and production on the same equipment as subject production, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 * * * * * * * 17 This increase in capacity, production, and capacity utilization in 2015 and 2016 is due to ***. *** foreign producer questionnaire, section II‐4. 18 Tau‐Ken’s posthearing brief, p. 2. 19 Tau‐Ken indicated that it plans to increase its market share in the Eurasian Economic Union (the “EEU,” which consists of Russia, Belorussia, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan), mainly in Russia. Tau‐Ken plans to sell ***. Tau‐Ken estimates that is approximately *** of its total output. Tau‐Ken posthearing brief, p. 1. VII‐14 Exports According to GTA, the top export market for silicon metal from Kazakhstan was the United States in 2016 (table VII‐15). The Netherlands was the second‐largest export destination of silicon metal from Kazakhstan. During 2016, the United States and Netherlands accounted for 48.0 and 25.0 percent of total exports from Kazakhstan of silicon metal, respectively. Table VII-15 Silicon metal: Exports from Kazakhstan, 2014-16 Destination market Calendar year 2014 2015 2016 Quantity (short tons contained silicon) Exports from Kazakhstan to the United States 485 5,472 9,637 Exports from Kazakhstan to other major destination markets.-- Netherlands --- 397 5,013 Germany 772 5,045 2,840 Slovakia --- --- 1,134 United Kingdom --- 66 551 Canada --- 732 331 Italy --- --- 306 Spain --- --- 220 Estonia --- --- 22 All other destination markets 551 1,080 18 Total exports from Kazakhstan 1,808 12,792 20,073 Value (1,000 dollars) Exports from Kazakhstan to the United States 1,194 12,536 16,968 Exports from Kazakhstan to other major destination markets.-- Netherlands --- 779 7,022 Germany 1,773 9,821 3,578 Slovakia --- --- 1,656 United Kingdom --- 110 727 Canada --- 1,628 571 Italy --- --- 506 Spain --- --- 384 Estonia --- --- 32 All other destination markets 1,172 2,022 10 Total exports from Kazakhstan 4,139 26,895 31,453 Table continued on next page. VII‐15 Table VII-15--Continued Silicon metal: Exports from Kazakhstan, 2014-16 Destination market Calendar year 2014 2015 2016 Unit value (dollars per STCS) Exports from Kazakhstan to the United States 2,461 2,291 1,761 Exports from Kazakhstan to other major destination markets.-- Netherlands --- 1,962 1,401 Germany 2,298 1,947 1,260 Slovakia --- --- 1,460 United Kingdom --- 1,658 1,319 Canada --- 2,224 1,726 Italy --- --- 1,653 Spain --- --- 1,740 Estonia --- --- 1,450 All other destination markets 2,127 1,872 532 Total exports from Kazakhstan 2,289 2,102 1,567 Share of quantity (percent) Exports from Kazakhstan to the United States 26.8 42.8 48.0 Exports from Kazakhstan to other major destination markets.-- Netherlands --- 3.1 25.0 Germany 42.7 39.4 14.1 Slovakia --- --- 5.7 United Kingdom --- 0.5 2.7 Canada --- 5.7 1.6 Italy --- --- 1.5 Spain --- --- 1.1 Estonia --- --- 0.1 All other destination markets 30.5 8.4 0.1 Total exports from Kazakhstan 100.0 100.0 100.0 Note.--Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Source: Official exports statistics under HS subheading 2804.69 as reported by various national statistical authorities in the IHS/GTA database, accessed November 28, 2017. THE INDUSTRY IN NORWAY The Commission issued foreign producers’ or exporters’ questionnaires to two firms believed to produce and/or export silicon metal from Norway.20 Usable responses to the Commission’s questionnaire were received from two firms: Elkem and Wacker Chemical Norway AS (“Wacker”). These firms’ exports to the United States accounted for approximately 20 These firms were identified through a review of information submitted in the petitions and contained in *** records. VII‐16 *** percent of U.S. imports of silicon metal from Norway in 2016. According to estimates requested of the responding Norwegian producers, the production of silicon metal in Norway reported in questionnaires accounts for essentially all production of silicon metal in Norway. Table VII‐16 presents information on the silicon metal operations of the responding producers and exporters in Norway. Table VII-16 Silicon metal: Summary data for producers in Norway, 2016 * * * * * * * Changes in operations As presented in table VII‐17 producers in Norway reported several operational and organizational changes since January 1, 2014. Table VII-17 Silicon metal: Norwegian producers' reported changes in operations, since January 1, 2014 * * * * * * * Operations on silicon metal Table VII‐18 presents information on the silicon metal operations of the responding producers and exporters in Norway. Projections indicate that capacity, production, and total shipments will decrease (from 2016 levels), while inventories will fluctuate during 2017‐18. Table VII-18 Silicon metal: Data for producers in Norway, 2014-16, January to September 2016, January to September 2017, and projections for 2017 and 2018 * * * * * * * Capacity in Norway decreased by *** percent from 2014 to 2015 and remained constant from 2015 to 2016 but was lower in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. 21 Production decreased by *** percent from 2014 to 2015, but increased by *** percent from 2015 to 2016. Production increased overall by *** percent from 2014 to 2016, but was lower in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. Capacity utilization increased by *** percentage points from 2014 to 2016, but 21 On March 8, 2017, Wacker announced that it is investing €85 million to expand the capacity of its silicon metal plant in Holla, Norway. The plant is expected to be completed during the first half of 2019. WACKER Expands Silicon‐Metal Capacity at Norwegian Production Site in Holla, https://www.wacker.com/cms/en/press_media/press‐releases/pressinformation‐ detail_78912.jsp?from_all_summary=true, March 8, 2017. VII‐17 was lower in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. In addition, end‐of‐period inventories decreased by *** percent from 2014 to 2016, and were lower in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. Total shipments of the responding Norwegian producers increased by *** percent from 2014 to 2016, but were lower in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. Home market shipments increased from *** percent of total shipments in 2014 to *** percent of total shipments in 2015, but decreased to *** percent of total shipments in 2016. Home market shipments were *** percent of total shipments in interim 2016 and were *** percent of total shipments in interim 2017. 22 Exports of silicon metal to the United States increased by *** percent from 2014 to 2016, but were lower in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. As a share of the responding Norwegian producers’ total shipments, exports to the United States decreased from *** percent of total shipments in 2014 to *** percent of total shipments in 2016, but remained the same during the interim periods. Exports of silicon metal to countries other than the United States accounted for *** of total shipments, increasing by *** percentage points from 2014 to 2016, but were lower in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. Other export markets identified include ***.23 In its hearing testimony, officials for Wacker indicated that Wacker’s export volumes have been stable since 2014, and that it does not have plans to increase exports to the United States. 24 25 Alternative products As shown in table VII‐19, responding Norway firm *** reported producing both subject silicon metal and out‐of‐scope products on the same equipment. Overall capacity decreased by *** percent from 2014 to 2016. Production of subject silicon metal accounted for *** percent of overall total production and out‐of‐scope production accounted for *** percent in 2016. A 1.6 percent switch production between silicon metal and certain out‐of‐scope products, such as ferrosilicon.26 22 Bjornar Ovesen, the Vice President of sales and marketing of silicon with Elkem, testified that “our capacity to produce increased quantity is limited and any incremental shipment volumes would be logically directed to the continue ‐‐ to serve the EU market because of our proximity and preferential market access.” Hearing transcript, p. 149 (Ovesen). 23 Wacker noted that it does not export silicon metal to the United States because it currently only produces silicon metal with specification suitable for the production of silicons, but not polysilicons. Therefore, it only exports to its parent company in Germany. Conference transcript, p. 98 (Majumdar). 24 Hearing transcript, p. 148 (Ovesen). 25 Oliver Majumdar, the Director of raw materials procurement at Wacker’s parent company in Germany (Wacker Chemie AG), testified that Wacker Polysilicon North America (“WPNA”) “cannot even use silicon metal from the Wacker silicon metal production plant in Norway. Our Norwegian high quality silicon metal has specifications suitable for the production silicones, but not polysilicon.” Hearing transcript, p. 131 (Majumdar). 26 Conference transcript, p. 99 (Majumdar). VII‐18 Table VII-19 Silicon metal: Norwegian producers' overall capacity and production on the same equipment as subject production, 2014-16, January to September 2016, January to September 2017 * * * * * * * Exports According to GTA, the top export market for silicon metal from Norway was Germany in 2016 (table VII‐20). The Netherlands was the second‐largest export destination of silicon metal from Norway. During 2016, Germany and the Netherlands accounted for 46.8 and 19.3 percent of total exports from Norway of silicon metal, respectively. Table VII-20 Silicon metal: Exports from Norway, 2014-16 Destination market Calendar year 2014 2015 2016 Quantity (short tons contained silicon) Exports from Norway to the United States 9,587 9,533 11,093 Exports from Norway to other major destination markets.- Germany 107,414 106,692 98,754 Netherlands 46,058 30,738 40,840 France 14,204 22,320 23,099 Korea 12,900 12,126 11,729 United Kingdom --- 22 8,185 Sweden 6,654 7,037 7,142 Japan 4,634 6,650 6,725 Canada 683 --- 1,402 All other destination markets 3,180 5,534 2,090 Total exports from Norway 205,314 200,653 211,059 Value (1,000 dollars) Exports from Norway to the United States 27,936 24,970 23,244 Exports from Norway to other major destination markets.- Germany 234,132 209,945 167,367 Netherlands 104,246 65,254 77,906 France 30,874 45,878 42,205 Korea 33,262 32,354 23,544 United Kingdom --- 68 13,827 Sweden 15,417 15,014 11,534 Japan 15,428 17,681 18,952 Canada 1,769 --- 1,987 All other destination markets 8,780 17,837 6,914 Total exports from Norway 471,844 429,000 387,480 Table continued on next page. VII‐19 Table VII-20-Continued Silicon metal: Exports from Norway, 2014-16 Destination market Calendar year 2014 2015 2016 Unit value (dollars per STCS) Exports from Norway to the United States 2,913.89 2,619.23 2,095.45 Exports from Norway to other major destination markets.- Germany 2,179.72 1,967.76 1,694.78 Netherlands 2,263.37 2,122.88 1,907.61 France 2,173.61 2,055.53 1,827.14 Korea 2,578.55 2,668.22 2,007.34 United Kingdom --- 3,085.26 1,689.27 Sweden 2,316.94 2,133.42 1,614.86 Japan 3,329.18 2,658.64 2,818.14 Canada 2,587.80 --- 1,417.47 All other destination markets 2,760.89 3,223.09 3,308.57 Total exports from Norway 2,298.15 2,138.02 1,835.89 Share of quantity (percent) Exports from Norway to the United States 4.7 4.8 5.3 Exports from Norway to other major destination markets.-- Germany 52.3 53.2 46.8 Netherlands 22.4 15.3 19.3 France 6.9 11.1 10.9 Korea 6.3 6.0 5.6 United Kingdom --- 0.0 3.9 Sweden 3.2 3.5 3.4 Japan 2.3 3.3 3.2 Canada 0.3 --- 0.7 All other destination markets 1.5 2.8 1.0 Total exports from Norway 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official Norway export statistics under HTS subheading 2804.69 as reported by Statistics Norway in the IHS/GTA database accessed November 28, 2017. THE INDUSTRIES IN SUBJECT COUNTRIES Operations on silicon metal Table VII‐21 presents information on the silicon metal operations of the producers and exporters in all four subject countries combined during 2014‐16, January‐September 2016, and January‐September 2017, as well as projections for calendar years 2017‐18. The overall capacity and overall production for the combined subject country producers both increased from 2014‐ 16, but were both lower in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. VII‐20 Table VII-21 Silicon metal: Data on combined industries in subject countries, 2014-16, January to September 2016, January to September 2017, and projections for 2017 and 2018 Actual experience Projections Calendar year January to September Calendar year 2014 2015 2016 2016 2017 2017 2018 Quantity (short tons contained silicon) Capacity 521,427 506,806 530,498 411,315 381,003 527,393 552,369 Production 421,079 405,845 512,821 393,349 352,723 476,090 506,555 End-of-period inventories 51,616 53,251 47,829 56,671 46,529 48,466 46,628 Shipments: Home market shipments: Internal consumption/ transfers 7,450 8,339 5,647 3,055 5,616 8,941 22,804 Commercial home market shipments 23,915 18,633 30,366 21,972 25,490 33,793 36,218 Total home market shipments 31,365 26,972 36,013 25,027 31,106 42,734 59,022 Export shipments to: United States 109,563 83,403 118,181 94,596 91,358 109,178 69,137 All other markets 275,773 293,833 364,052 270,256 231,552 323,197 380,033 Total exports 385,336 377,236 482,233 364,852 322,910 432,375 449,170 Total shipments 416,701 404,208 518,246 389,879 354,016 475,109 508,192 Ratios and shares (percent) Capacity utilization 80.8 80.1 96.7 95.6 92.6 90.3 91.7 Inventories/production 12.3 13.1 9.3 10.8 9.9 10.2 9.2 Inventories/total shipments 12.4 13.2 9.2 10.9 9.9 10.2 9.2 Share of shipments: Home market shipments: Internal consumption/ transfers 1.8 2.1 1.1 0.8 1.6 1.9 4.5 Commercial home market shipments 5.7 4.6 5.9 5.6 7.2 7.1 7.1 Total home market shipments 7.5 6.7 6.9 6.4 8.8 9.0 11.6 Export shipments to: United States 26.3 20.6 22.8 24.3 25.8 23.0 13.6 All other markets 66.2 72.7 70.2 69.3 65.4 68.0 74.8 Total exports 92.5 93.3 93.1 93.6 91.2 91.0 88.4 Total shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Note.—Shares and ratios shown as “0.0” represent values greater than zero, but less than “0.05” percent. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VII‐21 Alternative products Table VII‐22 presents information on the silicon metal and out‐of‐scope products produced on the same equipment of the combined producers and exporters in all four subject countries during 2014‐16, January‐September 2016, and January‐September 2017. The overall capacity and overall production for the combined subject country producers both increased from 2014‐16, but were both lower in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. The overall capacity utilization rate for the combined subject country producers increased by 4.0 percentage points during 2014‐16, but was lower in interim 2017 than in interim 2016. Table VII-22 Silicon metal: Data on combined subject industries’ overall capacity and production on the same equipment as subject production, 2014-16, January to September 2016, January to September 2017 Calendar year January to September 2014 2015 2016 2016 2017 Quantity (short tons) Overall capacity 524,466 509,740 531,649 411,958 380,299 Production: Silicon metal contained silicon 421,079 405,845 512,821 393,349 352,723 Silicon metal other elements 5,820 5,890 7,554 5,063 4,701 Silicon metal total weight 426,899 411,735 520,375 398,412 357,424 Semiconductor grade --- --- --- --- --- Ferrosilicon --- --- --- --- --- Other products 360 671 --- --- --- Out-of-scope products 360 671 --- --- --- Total same machinery 427,259 412,406 520,375 398,412 357,424 Ratios and shares (percent) Overall capacity utilization 66.2 72.7 70.2 69.3 65.4 Share of production: Silicon metal contained silicon 98.6 98.4 98.5 98.7 98.7 Silicon metal other elements 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.3 Silicon metal total weight 99.9 99.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 Semiconductor grade --- --- --- --- --- Ferrosilicon --- --- --- --- --- Other products 0.1 0.2 --- --- --- Out-of-scope products 0.1 0.2 --- --- --- Total same machinery 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Note.--Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. U.S. INVENTORIES OF IMPORTED MERCHANDISE Table VII‐23 presents data on U.S. importers’ reported inventories of silicon metal. U.S. importers’ end‐of‐period inventories of imports from subject countries increased from 2014 to VII‐22 2015, but fell in 2016 to a level only 2.2 percent higher than reported in 2014. These inventories were lower during interim 2017 than the comparable period in 2016. Table VII-23 Silicon metal: U.S. importers’ inventories, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 Item Calendar year January to September 2014 2015 2016 2016 2017 Inventories (short tons contained silicon); Ratios (percent) Imports from Australia Inventories *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. imports *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports *** *** *** *** *** Imports from Brazil Inventories *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. imports *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports *** *** *** *** *** Imports from Kazakhstan Inventories *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. imports *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports *** *** *** *** *** Imports from Norway Inventories *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. imports *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports *** *** *** *** *** Imports from subject sources Inventories 11,591 12,126 11,851 16,623 12,592 Ratio to U.S. imports 10.0 13.6 10.4 14.8 10.1 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports 10.3 13.7 10.4 15.5 10.0 Ratio to total shipments of imports 10.3 13.6 10.4 15.5 10.0 Table continued on next page. VII‐23 Table VII-23--Continued Silicon metal: U.S. importers’ inventories, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 Item Calendar year January to September 2014 2015 2016 2016 2017 Inventories (short tons contained silicon); Ratios (percent) Imports from Canada Inventories *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. imports *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports *** *** *** *** *** Imports from South Africa Inventories *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. imports *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports *** *** *** *** *** Imports from all other sources Inventories *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. imports *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports *** *** *** *** *** Imports from nonsubject sources Inventories *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. imports *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports *** *** *** *** *** Imports from all import sources: Inventories *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. imports *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports *** *** *** *** *** Note.--Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. U.S. IMPORTERS’ OUTSTANDING ORDERS The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for the importation of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway after September 30, 2017 (table VII‐24). Responding importers reported *** short tons contained silicon of arranged imports from Australia in the last quarter of 2017, *** short tons contained silicon of arranged imports from Brazil during October 2017‐September 2018, and *** short tons contained silicon of arranged imports from Norway during October 2017‐September 2018. There were *** short tons of contained silicon metal of reported arranged imports from Kazakhstan after September 30, 2017. VII‐24 Table VII-24 Silicon metal: Arranged imports, October 2017 through September 2018 * * * * * * * ANTIDUMPING OR COUNTERVAILING DUTY ORDERS IN THIRD‐COUNTRY MARKETS On February 20, 2017, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (“CITT”) gave notice that, pursuant to subsection 34(2) of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA), it initiated a preliminary injury inquiry to determine whether the evidence discloses a reasonable indication that the alleged injurious dumping of silicon metal containing at least 96.00% but less than 99.99% silicon by weight, and silicon metal containing between 89.00% and 96.00% silicon by weight that contains aluminum greater than 0.20% by weight, of all forms and sizes (the subject goods), originating in or exported from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Laos, Malaysia, Norway, Russia, and Thailand, and subsidizing of the subject goods originating in or exported from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Norway and Thailand, have caused injury or retardation or are threatening to cause injury, as these words are defined in SIMA.27 On October 3, 2017, the President of the Canada Border Services Agency made a final determination of dumping with respect to goods originating in or exported from Brazil (excluding goods exported by Rima Industrial S.A.), Kazakhstan, Laos, Malaysia, and Thailand, and a final affirmative subsidy determination with respect to goods originating in or exported Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Norway.28 However, the CITT found, pursuant to subsection 4433(11) of the Special Import Measures Act, that the dumping and/or subsidizing of the goods originating in or exported from these countries have not caused injury and are not threatening to cause injury to the domestic industry.29 On November 8, 2017, the European Commission received a complaint pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, alleging that imports of silicon, originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Brazil are being dumped and are thereby causing material injury to the Union industry.30 The complaint 27 Petitions, Vol. I, exh. I‐51; Tribunal Initiates Injury—Silicon Metal from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Laos, Malaysia, Norway, Russia, and Thailand, https://www.canada.ca/en/international‐trade‐ tribunal/news/2017/02/tribunal_initiatesinquirysiliconmetalfrombrazilkazakhstanlaosmal.html, February 21, 2017; Certain Silicon Metal, http://www.cbsa‐asfc.gc.ca/sima‐lmsi/i‐e/sm22017/sm22017‐ in‐eng.html, March 7, 2017. 28 Tribunal Notice of Final Decisions—Silicon Metal from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Laos, Malaysia, Norway, Russia, and Thailand,http://www.cbsa‐asfc.gc.ca/sima‐lmsi/i‐e/sm22017/sm22017‐nf‐eng.html , January 17, 2018. 29 Tribunal Statement of Reasons—Silicon Metal from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Laos, Malaysia, Norway, Russia, and Thailand, http://www.cbsa‐asfc.gc.ca/sima‐lmsi/i‐e/sm22017/sm22017‐fd‐eng.html , January 17, 2018. 30 European Commission‐‐Notice of initiation of an anti‐dumping proceeding concerning imports of silicon originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Brazil, (continued...) VII‐25 was lodged by Ferroatlantica and Ferropem, representing more than 85 percent of the total European Union production of silicon for silicon with a silicon content of less than 99.99 percent by actual weight.31 INFORMATION ON NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES World production World production of silicon metal was estimated by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to have been 2.80 million tons in 2015, 32 excluding silicon metal produced in the United States, an increase from 2.53 million tons in 2014. China was by far the leading producer of silicon metal in 2015 with an estimated 2.15 million tons; accounting for about 77 percent of the world’s total silicon metal production. Other major producers of silicon metal in 2015 were, in descending order, Norway (6 percent), France (4 percent), and Brazil (3 percent). These four countries combined for 90 percent of total world silicon metal production. 33 Roskill (a market research firm) estimated that world silicon metal production in 2016 was about 2.44 million tons and China remained the dominant producer. According to Roskill, global silicon metal capacity utilization was estimated at 51 percent in 2016, a marginal increase compared to that in recent years. Reportedly, the low utilization rate primarily reflected overcapacity and underutilization in China’s silicon metal industry.34 Global exports Table VII‐25 presents the leading exporting countries of silicon metal from 2014 to 2016. Total world exports decreased by 9.3 percent by quantity and 24.0 percent by value from 2014 to 2016. China accounted for the largest share of global exports by quantity in 2016 (45.5 percent), followed by Norway (13.6 percent), Brazil (13.1 percent), Netherlands (10.5 percent), Australia (3.4 percent), and South Africa (1.9 percent). (…continued) http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2017/december/tradoc_156471.init.en.C438‐2017.html , December 19, 2017 and Petitioner’s posthearing brief, Exhibit 39. 31 In response to Commission questions regarding Ferroglobe’s pursuit of trade remedy cases in Canada and the European Union, Globe indicated that “there's a recent case brought by the European operations, which has nothing to do with Globe Specialty Metals, recently filed in Europe covering two countries, Bosnia, which is not part of this case and Brazil.” Hearing transcript, p. 65 (Kramer). 32 This is the most recent year that the USGS published world production data for silicon. 33 USGS, 2015 Minerals Yearbook, Silicon Chapter, p. 67.2, https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/silicon/myb1‐2015‐simet.pdf, retrieved January 11, 2018. 34 Outlook for silicon metal diverges sharply from that for ferrosilicon, Roskill Information Services Ltd., https://roskill.com/news/outlook‐silicon‐metal‐diverges‐sharply‐ferrosilicon/, retrieved January 11, 2018. VII‐26 Table VII-25 Silicon metal: Global exports by exporter, 2014-16 Exporter Calendar year 2014 2015 2016 Quantity (short tons contained silicon) United States 3,756 2,999 5,704 Australia 56,384 52,856 52,848 Brazil 143,755 109,007 203,630 Kazakhstan 1,808 12,792 20,073 Norway 205,314 200,653 211,059 All other major reporting exporters.-- China 960,394 854,819 707,456 Netherlands 77,638 130,549 162,911 South Africa 54,285 56,827 29,803 Bosnia & Herzegovina 18,757 19,730 24,153 Canada 25,493 25,009 21,869 Russia 28,341 29,847 21,677 Spain 17,477 20,971 18,795 Slovenia 6,814 9,285 17,432 Thailand 59,624 18,297 10,324 Poland 1,507 2,771 4,694 All other exporters 52,491 51,379 42,246 Total global exports 1,713,836 1,597,793 1,554,673 Value (1,000 dollars) United States 9,357 7,347 8,800 Australia 123,649 122,313 92,771 Brazil 340,793 263,149 385,275 Kazakhstan 4,139 26,895 31,453 Norway 471,844 429,000 387,480 All other major reporting exporters.-- China 1,978,644 1,777,455 1,223,053 Netherlands 192,459 271,326 282,901 South Africa 136,541 149,197 61,210 Bosnia & Herzegovina 44,770 45,315 41,958 Canada 59,985 62,704 52,272 Russia 54,391 57,180 34,470 Spain 42,912 48,216 35,492 Slovenia 17,424 22,064 35,453 Thailand 95,802 31,591 16,525 Poland 3,677 6,616 8,454 All other exporters 157,969 162,935 142,082 Total global exports 3,734,356 3,483,303 2,839,650 Table continued on next page. VII‐27 Table VII-25-Continued Silicon metal: Global exports by exporter, 2014-16 Exporter Calendar year 2014 2015 2016 Unit value (dollars per STCS) United States 2,491 2,449 1,543 Australia 2,193 2,314 1,755 Brazil 2,371 2,414 1,892 Kazakhstan 2,289 2,102 1,567 Norway 2,298 2,138 1,836 All other major reporting exporters.-- China 2,060 2,079 1,729 Netherlands 2,479 2,078 1,737 South Africa 2,515 2,625 2,054 Bosnia & Herzegovina 2,387 2,297 1,737 Canada 2,353 2,507 2,390 Russia 1,919 1,916 1,590 Spain 2,455 2,299 1,888 Slovenia 2,557 2,376 2,034 Thailand 1,607 1,727 1,601 Poland 2,440 2,387 1,801 All other exporters 3,009 3,171 3,363 Total global exports 2,179 2,180 1,827 Share of quantity (percent) United States 0.2 0.2 0.4 Australia 3.3 3.3 3.4 Brazil 8.4 6.8 13.1 Kazakhstan 0.1 0.8 1.3 Norway 12.0 12.6 13.6 All other major reporting exporters.-- China 56.0 53.5 45.5 Netherlands 4.5 8.2 10.5 South Africa 3.2 3.6 1.9 Bosnia & Herzegovina 1.1 1.2 1.6 Canada 1.5 1.6 1.4 Russia 1.7 1.9 1.4 Spain 1.0 1.3 1.2 Slovenia 0.4 0.6 1.1 Thailand 3.5 1.1 0.7 Poland 0.1 0.2 0.3 All other exporters 3.1 3.2 2.7 Total global exports 100.0 100.0 100.0 Note.--STCS= short tons contained silicon. Source: Official exports statistics under HS subheading 2804.69 as reported by various national statistical authorities in the IHS/GTA database, accessed November 28, 2017. VII‐28 Canada According to GTA, the United States was Canada’s largest export market from 2014 to 2016. Table VII‐26 presents data on Canada’s top export markets for silicon metal from 2014 to 2016. During that time period the U.S. share of Canada’s exports, by quantity, increased by 15.9 percentage points, from 83.5 percent in 2014 to 99.4 percent in 2016. Table VII-26 Silicon metal: Exports from Canada by destination market, 2014-16 Destination market Calendar year 2014 2015 2016 Quantity (short tons contained silicon) Exports from Canada to the United States 21,285 23,781 21,740 Exports from Canada to other major destination markets.-- India --- --- 43 China 8 50 35 France 17 25 28 Brazil 311 441 22 Mexico 2 1 1 Australia 0 --- 0 Bermuda --- 1 --- Cuba 0 --- --- All other destination markets 3,870 710 --- Total exports from Canada 25,493 25,009 21,869 Value (1,000 dollars) Exports from Canada to the United States 50,099 60,342 52,123 Exports from Canada to other major destination markets.-- India --- --- 51 China 11 60 40 France 24 32 32 Brazil 435 549 24 Mexico 3 1 2 Australia 0 --- 0 Bermuda --- 1 --- Cuba 0 --- --- All other destination markets 9,412 1,719 0 Total exports from Canada 59,985 62,704 52,272 Table continued on next page. VII‐29 Table VII-26-Continued Silicon metal: Exports from Canada by destination market, 2014-16 Destination market Calendar year 2014 2015 2016 Unit value (dollars per STCS) Exports from Canada to the United States 2,354 2,537 2,398 Exports from Canada to other major destination markets.-- India --- --- 1,187 China 1,402 1,212 1,144 France 1,421 1,244 1,158 Brazil 1,401 1,245 1,118 Mexico 1,398 1,292 1,161 Australia 1,345 --- 1,191 Bermuda --- 1,248 --- Cuba 1,462 --- --- All other destination markets 2,432 2,421 --- Total exports from Canada 2,353 2,507 2,390 Share of quantity (percent) Exports from Canada to the United States 83.5 95.1 99.4 Exports from Canada to other major destination markets.-- India --- --- 0.2 China 0.0 0.2 0.2 France 0.1 0.1 0.1 Brazil 1.2 1.8 0.1 Mexico 0.0 0.0 0.0 Australia 0.0 --- 0.0 Bermuda --- 0.0 --- Cuba 0.0 --- --- All other destination markets 15.2 2.8 --- Total exports from Canada 100.0 100.0 100.0 Note.--STCS= short tons contained silicon. Source: Official exports statistics under HS subheading 2804.69 as reported by various national statistical authorities in the IHS/GTA database, accessed November 28, 2017. South Africa South Africa was the leading nonsubject source of U.S. silicon metal imports from 2014 to 2016. Table VII‐27 presents data on South Africa’s top export markets for silicon metal from 2014 to 2016. The United States was South Africa’s largest export market in 2016, by quantity, followed by Korea, the Netherlands, Japan, and Germany. The average unit value of South African exports to the United States declined by 13.9 percent from 2014 to 2016. During the same period, the U.S. share of South African exports, by quantity, decreased by 16.7 percentage points, from 79.8 percent in 2014 to 63.1 percent in 2016. VII‐30 Table VII-27 Silicon metal: Exports from South Africa by destination market, 2014-16 Destination market Calendar year 2014 2015 2016 Quantity (short tons contained silicon) Exports from South Africa to the United States 43,335 45,013 18,809 Exports from South Africa to other major destination markets.-- Korea 8,113 9,083 6,197 Netherlands --- --- 1,984 Japan 551 776 731 Germany 556 --- 710 India 121 --- 473 United Kingdom 397 331 276 Qatar --- --- 240 Greece --- --- 132 All other destination markets 1,212 1,624 250 Total exports from South Africa 54,285 56,827 29,803 Value (1,000 dollars) Exports from South Africa to the United States 110,617 121,171 41,344 Exports from South Africa to other major destination markets.-- Korea 21,207 24,393 12,189 Netherlands --- --- 2,097 Japan 1,500 2,501 2,146 Germany 1,286 --- 1,269 India 17 --- 728 United Kingdom 919 615 423 Qatar --- --- 380 Greece --- --- 212 All other destination markets 995 518 422 Total exports from South Africa 136,541 149,197 61,210 Table continued on next page. VII‐31 Table VII-27-Continued Silicon metal: Exports from South Africa by destination market, 2014-16 Destination market Calendar year 2014 2015 2016 Unit value (dollars per STCS) Exports from South Africa to the United States 2,553 2,692 2,198 Exports from South Africa to other major destination markets.-- Korea 2,614 2,685 1,967 Netherlands --- --- 1,057 Japan 2,721 3,223 2,934 Germany 2,315 --- 1,787 India 137 --- 1,540 United Kingdom 2,316 1,861 1,535 Qatar --- --- 1,581 Greece --- --- 1,599 All other destination markets 822 319 1,687 Total exports to South Africa 2,515 2,625 2,054 Share of quantity (percent) Exports from South Africa to the United States 79.8 79.2 63.1 Exports from South Africa to other major destination markets.-- Korea 14.9 16.0 20.8 Netherlands --- --- 6.7 Japan 1.0 1.4 2.5 Germany 1.0 --- 2.4 India 0.2 --- 1.6 United Kingdom 0.7 0.6 0.9 Qatar --- --- 0.8 Greece --- --- 0.4 All other destination markets 2.2 2.9 0.8 Total exports from South Africa 100.0 100.0 100.0 Note.--STCS= short tons contained silicon. Source: Official exports statistics under HS subheading 2804.69 as reported by various national statistical authorities in the IHS/GTA database, accessed November 28, 2017. Major nonsubject countries In 2016, Canada and South Africa were the leading nonsubject exporters to the United States. In late 2015, the Spanish firm Grupo FerroAtlántica merged with Globe Specialty Metals (GSM) to become Ferroglobe PLC, the world’s leading producer of silicon metal and silicon‐ based alloys.35 Collectively, Ferroglobe’s silicon metal production capacity is about 543,000 35 Globe Specialty Metals and Grupo FerroAtlántica Clear Regulatory Process and Complete Business Combination, Ferroglobe PLC, December 23, 2015, http://www.ferroatlantica.es/press/news/globe‐ (continued...) VII‐32 short tons per year and is distributed as follows: Europe, 40 percent; North America, 40 percent; Africa, 14 percent; and Asia, 7 percent. The other leading global silicon metal producers, in descending order of production capacity, were Dow Corning (228,000 short tons), Elkem (175,000 short tons), and Rima (114,000 short tons). 36 Canada There is one producer of silicon metal in Canada, Quebec Silicon Limited Partnership (“QSLP”), owned jointly by GSM and Dow Corning. GSM acquired a 51‐percent share of QSLP in 2012. QSLP has the capacity to produce about 52,000 short tons of silicon metal per year.37 China China has the world’s largest production capacity and is believed to have over 200 producers of silicon metal with a total annual capacity of 1.65 million short tons. 38 Most of the producers are small, there being only seven producers having capacity in excess of 30,000 short tons per year.39 China is the largest export source for silicon metal, with most directed to markets in Asia. China also exports large quantities of silicon metal to Europe, the Middle East, Canada and Mexico. Antidumping duty orders on U.S. imports from China have been in place since 1991 and there have been minimal U.S. imports of silicon metal from China since then.40 France Ferroglobe operates five plants in France (Laudun, Anglefort, Les Clavaux, Montricher, and Chateau Feuillet) with a combined silicon metal production capacity of about 164,000 short tons per year.41 (…continued) specialty‐metals‐and‐grupo‐ferroatl%C3%A1ntica‐clear‐regulatory‐process‐and‐complete‐business‐ combination/?lang=en, accessed March 24, 2017. 36 Investor Presentation, January 2017, Ferroglobe PLC, p. 7, http://investor.ferroglobe.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=AMDA‐ 5STP82&fileid=890793&filekey=CFE050BE‐EFCF‐45C5‐B36E‐E2175021C697&filename=Ferroglobe_‐ _Investor_Presentation.pdf, accessed March 24, 2017. 37 Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., http://www.glbsm.com/quebecsilicon/, accessed March 28, 2017. 38 Roskill Information Services Ltd., Silicon and Ferrosilicon: Global Industry Markets and Outlook, Thirteenth Edition, 2011, para. 5.9.1. 39 Ibid. 40 Silicon Metal from Russia: Investigation No. 731‐TA‐991 (Second Review), USITC Publication 4471, June 2014), pp. IV‐5 – IV‐6. 41 Ferroglobe ‐ Investor Presentation ‐ May 2016, http://investor.ferroglobe.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=AMDA‐ 5STP82&fileid=925388&filekey=06493FD0‐3C33‐49AE‐A17E‐63A4ED53FEB3&filename=Ferroglobe_‐ _Investor_Presentation.pdf, accessed March 28, 2017. VII‐33 Iceland Silicon metal production is expected to increase in Iceland owing to a new smelter that opened in late 2016 and other smelters that are in different stages of development. ***.42 In early 2015, Petro Carbo Chem BakkiSilicon HF began construction on its new silicon metal smelter in Husavik. The plant was expected to open in 2018, and have the capacity to produce about 35,000 short tons of silicon metal per year. The company expected that the majority of the silicon produced would be sold to customers in Germany.43 In September 2015, Silicor Materials, Inc., secured $105 million in equity capital agreements to support the construction of its $1 billion commercial‐scale solar‐grade silicon metal manufacturing operation in Grundartangi.44 The company expected that at full capacity, the plant would produce about 21,000 short tons of solar grade silicon metal per year. Construction of the plant was expected to take about two years but a start date had not been announced. 45 In November 2016, United Silicon HF (USi), opened a silicon metal smelter, near Helguvik.46 It was the first silicon smelter built in Iceland. The company uses geothermal and hydro power sources to run the plant and imports selected quartz and reductants. At full production capacity, the plant can produce 24,000 short tons of silicon metal per year. The company planned to expand production capacity in the future.47 Thorsil ehf is planning to build a new silicon metal plant in Helguvik. The company acquired financing for two submerged arc furnaces but it was not clear when construction would begin.48 42 Joint Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 481. 43 Official start of construction for PCC’s silicon metal project in Iceland, PCC, February 15, 2016, http://www.pcc.eu/official‐start‐of‐construction‐for‐pccs‐silicon‐metal‐project‐in‐iceland/?lang=en, accessed March 24, 2017. 44 Silicor Materials Closes $105M in Equity Capital Commitments for Iceland Manufacturing Plant, September 16, 2016, Silicor Materials, Inc., http://www.silicormaterials.com/news‐a‐event/press‐ releases/92‐silicor‐materials‐closes‐105m‐in‐equity‐capital‐commitments‐for‐iceland‐manufacturing‐ plant.html, accessed March 24, 2017. 45 Silicor Sees Cost Advantage in $1 Billion Icelandic Solar Plant, Bloomberg, August 31, 2016, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016‐09‐01/silicor‐sees‐cost‐advantage‐in‐1‐billion‐ icelandic‐solar‐plant, accessed March 24, 2017. 46 First Silicon Metal casting in Iceland, Fondel, November 2016, https://fondel.com/news/first‐ silicon‐metal‐casting‐in‐iceland, accessed March 24, 2017. 47 United Silicon website, https://fondel.com/companies/united‐silicon, accessed March 24, 2017. 48 Thorsil metallurgical grade Silicon slant, Helguvik, Iceland, Export Credit Norway, June 27, 2016, http://www.eksportkreditt.no/en‐GB/52ABOUT‐EXPORT‐CREDIT‐NORWAY/CSR‐Engelsk/Category‐A‐ and‐B‐projects/Thorsil‐Metallurgical‐Grade‐Silicon‐Plant‐Helguvik‐Iceland‐Category‐A/, accessed March 4, 2017. VII‐34 South Africa There are two plants producing silicon metal in South Africa, both owned by Ferroglobe and its subsidiaries. The plants have the capacity to produce about 74,000 shorts tons of silicon metal per year.49 They are–The eMalahleni plant in the province of Mpumalanga, purchased by FerroAtlantica (now Ferroglobe) in 2009 which produces silicon metal with one of its three furnaces,50 and the Polokwane silicon plant in the province of Limpopo that produces silicon with three furnaces.51 In 2016, the United States and Korea were the leading destinations for silicon metal exported from South Africa, accounting for about 63.1 percent and 20.8 percent, respectively, of total exports (table VII‐27). ***.52 Thailand In Thailand, G.S. Energy Co., Ltd., began operations in 2008. The company has manufacturing facilities in Ratchaburi with capacity to produce 49,600 short tons of silicon metal per year. 53 Output is almost all exported to Asia and the United States. In 2015, Sica New Materials Co., Ltd., began producing silicon metal at its facilities in Kanchanaburi. The company was adding production capacity in phases and planned to have the capacity to produce about 99,200 short tons of silicon per year when the project was completed.54 United Arab Emirates Silicon Metal of Abu Dhabi plans to build a silicon plant in the Khalifa Port Industrial Zone, Taweelah. The plant would be the first silicon metal smelter in the Middle East, initially producing 36,000 short tons of silicon per year, though the company planned to double that capacity in the future. 55 49 Ferroglobe ‐ Investor Presentation ‐ May 2016, http://investor.ferroglobe.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=AMDA‐ 5STP82&fileid=925388&filekey=06493FD0‐3C33‐49AE‐A17E‐63A4ED53FEB3&filename=Ferroglobe_‐ _Investor_Presentation.pdf, accessed March 28, 2017. 50 Ferroglobe website, http://www.ferroglobe.com/business‐ areas/electrometallurgical/emalahleni/?lang=en, accessed January 17, 2018. 51 Ferroglobe website, http://www.ferroglobe.com/business‐ areas/electrometallurgical/polokwane/?lang=en, accessed January 17, 2018. 52 ***. 53 G.S. Energy Co., Ltd., http://www.gsi99g.com/en/, accessed March 28, 2017. 54 Sica New Materials Co., Ltd., http://www.sica‐mtl.com/index.php, accessed March 28, 2017. 55 Al‐Braik Investments LLC website, http://www.albraik.ae/Silicon Metal.html, accessed April 5, 2017. A‐1 APPENDIX A FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES A‐3 The Commission makes available notices relevant to its investigations and reviews on its website, www.usitc.gov. In addition, the following tabulation presents, in chronological order, Federal Register notices issued by the Commission and Commerce during the current proceeding. Citation Title Link 82 FR 13653 March 14, 2017 Silicon Metal From Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway; Institution of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2017-03-14/pdf/2017-04994.pdf 82 FR 16356 April 4, 2017 Silicon Metal From Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2017-04-04/pdf/2017-06622.pdf 82 FR 19383 April 27, 2017 Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway; Determination https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2017-04-27/pdf/2017-08535.pdf 82 FR 37841 August 14, 2017 Silicon Metal From Brazil: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2017-08-14/pdf/2017-17117.pdf 82 FR 37843 August 14, 2017 Silicon Metal From Australia: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2017-08-14/pdf/2017-17116.pdf 82 FR 37847 August 14, 2017 Silicon Metal From the Republic of Kazakhstan: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2017-08-14/pdf/2017-17112.pdf 82 FR 47475 October 12, 2017 Silicon Metal From Norway: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Preliminary Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances, Preliminary Determination of No Shipments, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2017-10-12/pdf/2017-22065.pdf 82 FR 47466 October 12, 2017 Silicon Metal From Brazil: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2017-10-12/pdf/2017-22066.pdf A‐4 Citation Title Link 82 FR 47471 October 12, 2017 Silicon Metal From Australia: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2017-10-12/pdf/2017-22067.pdf 82 FR 49848 October 27, 2017 Silicon Metal From Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2017-10-27/pdf/2017-23363.pdf 83 FR 9834 March 8, 2018 Silicon Metal From Australia: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2018-03-08/pdf/2018-04667.pdf 83 FR 9839 March 8, 2018 Silicon Metal From Australia: Affirmative Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2018-03-08/pdf/2018-04667.pdf 83 FR 9838 March 8, 2018 Silicon Metal From Brazil: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2018-03-08/pdf/2018-04661.pdf 83 FR 9835 March 8, 2018 Silicon Metal From Brazil: Affirmative Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2018-03-08/pdf/2018-04668.pdf 83 FR 9831 March 8, 2018 Silicon Metal from the Republic of Kazakhstan: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2018-03-08/pdf/2018-04664.pdf 83 FR 9829 March 8, 2018 Silicon Metal From Norway: Affirmative Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Final Determination of No Sales, and Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2018-03-08/pdf/2018-04666.pdf B‐1 APPENDIX B LIST OF HEARING WITNESSES B-3 CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade Commission’s hearing: Subject: Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway Inv. Nos.: 701-TA-567-569 and 731-TA-1343-1345 (Final) Date and Time: February 15, 2018 - 9:30 a.m. Sessions were held in connection with these investigations in the Main Hearing Room (Room 101), 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC. CONGRESSIONAL APPEARANCES: The Honorable Scott DesJarlais, M.D., U.S. Representative, 4th District, Tennessee The Honorable John Moolenaar, U.S. Representative, 4 th District, Michigan OPENING REMARKS: Petitioners (William D. Kramer, DLA Piper LLP (US)) Respondents (Stephen J. Orava, King & Spalding LLP; and Jonathan T. Stoel, Hogan Lovells US LLP) In Support of the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders: DLA Piper LLP (US) Washington, DC on behalf of Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. (“GSM”) J. Marlin Perkins, Vice President – Sales, Globe Metallurgical Inc. Duane Huck, Corporate Manager, IT & Business Information Systems, Globe Metallurgical Inc. Antonio Williams, President, Local 83693, Industrial Division of the Communication Workers of America (IUE-CWA) B-4 In Support of the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders (continued): Jennifer Lutz, Vice President, Economic Consulting Services, LLC William D. Kramer ) Mary E. Gately ) – OF COUNSEL Martin Schaefermeier ) In Opposition to the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders: Hogan Lovells US LLP Washington, DC on behalf of Wacker Polysilicon North America Wacker Chemicals Norway Wacker Chemie AG Simcoa Operations Pty Ltd. Shintech Inc. Oliver Majumdar, Director, Raw Materials Procurement, Wacker Chemie AG Mary Beth Hudson, Vice President, Wacker Polysilicon North America Tom Walters, Vice President for Trading, Service Aluminum Corporation David Miles, Vice President, Simcoa Operations Pty Ltd. Tiago Borges, Procurement Sourcing Manager, Alcoa Corporation Dr. Thomas J. Prusa, Professor and Chair, Department of Economics, Rutgers University Jonathan T. Stoel ) Craig A. Lewis ) ) – OF COUNSEL Jared R. Wessel ) Michael G. Jacobson ) B-5 In Opposition to the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders (continued): King & Spalding LLP Washington, DC on behalf of Dow Silicones Corporation (“Dow Silicones”) Agustin G. Argibay, Global Business Director, Feedstocks, Basics and Intermediates, Dow Silicones Craig S. Brown, Product Director, Strategic Feedstocks, Dow Silicones Michael P. Searcy, Commercial Director, Strategic Feedstocks, Dow Silicones Bonnie B. Byers, Senior International Trade Consultant, King and Spalding LLP Stephen J. Orava ) ) – OF COUNSEL Benjamin J. Bay ) Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP Washington, DC on behalf of Elkem AS (“Elkem”) Bjørnar Ovesen, Vice President of Sales and Marketing Silicon Division, Elkem Nils Dybwad, Director of Sales and Marketing Silicon Division, Elkem Jonathan M. Zielinski ) ) – OF COUNSEL Jack A. Levy ) B-6 In Opposition to the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders (continued): Brinks Gilson & Lione Washington, DC on behalf of Ligas de Aluminio S.A. Ligas (“Liasa”) Cia. Ferroligas Minas Gerais (“Minasligas”) Jay Armstrong, President, TriALco Inc. Lyle B. Vander Schaaf ) – OF COUNSEL Mayer Brown LLP Washington, DC on behalf of MPM Holdings Inc. Eric Thaler, Senior Vice President and General Manager, MPM Silicones Sydney H. Mintzer ) – OF COUNSEL Smirnow Law Washington, DC on behalf of REC Silicon, Inc. REC Solar Grade Materials LLC REC Advanced Silicon Materials LLC Chris Bowes, Director for Investor Relations and Global Sourcing, REC Silicon, Inc. John P. Smirnow ) – OF COUNSEL INTERESTED PARTY IN OPPOSITION: Mitsubishi Polysilicon Theodore, AL Matt Wilson, President B-7 REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS: Petitioners (William D. Kramer, DLA Piper LLP(US)) Respondents (Stephen J. Orava, King & Spalding LLP; and Jonathan T. Stoel and Craig A. Lewis, Hogan Lovells US LLP) -END- C‐1 APPENDIX C SUMMARY DATA C‐2 CONTENTS Page Table C‐1: Silicon metal total market summary data .................................................................. C‐3 Table C‐2: Silicon metal merchant market summary data .......................................................... C‐5 Table C‐3: Silicon metal related party exclusion summary data ................................................. C‐6 Table C-1 Silicon metal: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 Jan-Sep 2014 2015 2016 2016 2017 2014-16 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 U.S. consumption quantity: Amount......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Producers' share (fn1)................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Importers' share (fn1): Australia..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Brazil.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Kazakhstan................................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Norway....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources...................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Canada...................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** South Africa............................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources........................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All import sources................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. consumption value: Amount......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Producers' share (fn1)................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Importers' share (fn1): Australia..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Brazil.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Kazakhstan................................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Norway....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources...................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Canada...................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** South Africa............................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources........................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All import sources................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. imports from: Australia: Quantity..................................................... 19,977 22,045 18,458 14,674 20,053 (7.6) 10.4 (16.3) 36.7 Value......................................................... 52,516 58,984 34,601 28,158 39,793 (34.1) 12.3 (41.3) 41.3 Unit value................................................... $2,629 $2,676 $1,875 $1,919 $1,984 (28.7) 1.8 (29.9) 3.4 Ending inventory quantity........................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Brazil Quantity..................................................... 83,724 51,888 68,340 47,123 60,449 (18.4) (38.0) 31.7 28.3 Value......................................................... 219,760 140,482 158,897 109,522 140,085 (27.7) (36.1) 13.1 27.9 Unit value................................................... $2,625 $2,707 $2,325 $2,324 $2,317 (11.4) 3.1 (14.1) (0.3) Ending inventory quantity........................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Kazakhstan Quantity..................................................... --- 3,006 10,367 7,640 10,359 fn2 fn2 244.9 35.6 Value......................................................... --- 6,691 17,441 13,279 17,466 fn2 fn2 160.7 31.5 Unit value................................................... --- $2,226 $1,682 $1,738 $1,686 fn2 fn2 (24.4) (3.0) Ending inventory quantity........................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Norway: Quantity..................................................... 14,753 14,441 14,432 11,429 10,392 (2.2) (2.1) (0.1) (9.1) Value......................................................... 42,151 37,507 29,806 23,778 19,349 (29.3) (11.0) (20.5) (18.6) Unit value................................................... $2,857 $2,597 $2,065 $2,080 $1,862 (27.7) (9.1) (20.5) (10.5) Ending inventory quantity........................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources: Quantity..................................................... 118,454 91,381 111,597 80,866 101,253 (5.8) (22.9) 22.1 25.2 Value......................................................... 314,427 243,664 240,745 174,737 216,694 (23.4) (22.5) (1.2) 24.0 Unit value................................................... $2,654 $2,666 $2,157 $2,161 $2,140 (18.7) 0.5 (19.1) (1.0) Ending inventory quantity........................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Canada: Quantity..................................................... 20,932 23,470 21,542 17,195 21,023 2.9 12.1 (8.2) 22.3 Value......................................................... 49,973 60,261 52,122 41,668 50,171 4.3 20.6 (13.5) 20.4 Unit value................................................... $2,387 $2,568 $2,420 $2,423 $2,387 1.4 7.5 (5.8) (1.5) Ending inventory quantity........................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** South Africa: Quantity..................................................... 44,100 42,886 24,196 20,749 1,624 (45.1) (2.8) (43.6) (92.2) Value......................................................... 116,321 117,442 56,427 48,036 3,001 (51.5) 1.0 (52.0) (93.8) Unit value................................................... $2,638 $2,739 $2,332 $2,315 $1,848 (11.6) 3.8 (14.8) (20.2) Ending inventory quantity........................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources: Quantity..................................................... 28,072 22,057 9,353 7,884 9,071 (66.7) (21.4) (57.6) 15.0 Value......................................................... 72,488 58,752 18,285 15,896 16,198 (74.8) (18.9) (68.9) 1.9 Unit value................................................... $2,582 $2,664 $1,955 $2,016 $1,786 (24.3) 3.1 (26.6) (11.4) Ending inventory quantity........................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources: Quantity..................................................... 93,104 88,413 55,090 45,829 31,718 (40.8) (5.0) (37.7) (30.8) Value......................................................... 238,782 236,455 126,834 105,600 69,371 (46.9) (1.0) (46.4) (34.3) Unit value................................................... $2,565 $2,674 $2,302 $2,304 $2,187 (10.2) 4.3 (13.9) (5.1) Ending inventory quantity........................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All import sources: Quantity..................................................... 211,558 179,793 166,687 126,695 132,971 (21.2) (15.0) (7.3) 5.0 Value......................................................... 553,210 480,118 367,580 280,337 286,064 (33.6) (13.2) (23.4) 2.0 Unit value................................................... $2,615 $2,670 $2,205 $2,213 $2,151 (15.7) 2.1 (17.4) (2.8) Ending inventory quantity........................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued on next page. C-3 (Quantity=short tons contained silicon; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per STCS; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted) Reported data Period changes Calendar year January to September Calendar year Table C-1--Continued Silicon metal: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 Jan-Sep 2014 2015 2016 2016 2017 2014-16 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 U.S. producers': Average production capacity......................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Capacity utilization (fn1)................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments: Quantity..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments: Quantity..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity.............................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Inventories/total shipments (fn1)................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production workers....................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Hours worked (1,000s).................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Wages paid ($1,000)..................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Hourly wages (dollars)................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Productivity (STCS per 1,000 hours)............. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit labor costs............................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Net sales: Quantity..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Cost of goods sold (COGS)........................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss)..................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expenses............................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss)............................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss)...................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Capital expenditures...................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit COGS.................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit SG&A expenses..................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit operating income or (loss)...................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit net income or (loss)............................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** COGS/sales (fn1).......................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss)/sales (fn1)........... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss)/sales (fn1)..................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Note.--Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. fn1.--Reported data are in percent and period changes are in percentage points. fn2.--Undefined. Calendar year January to September Calendar year Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official U.S. imports based on General Imports using statistical reporting numbers 2804.69.1000 and C-4 (Quantity=short tons contained silicon; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per STCS; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted) Reported data Period changes Table C-2 Silicon metal: Summary data concerning the U.S. merchant market 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 Jan-Sep 2014 2015 2016 2016 2017 2014-16 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 U.S. consumption quantity: Amount......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Producers' share (fn1)................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Importers' share (fn1): Australia..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Brazil.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Kazakhstan................................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Norway....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources...................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Canada...................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** South Africa............................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources........................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All import sources................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. consumption value: Amount......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Producers' share (fn1)................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Importers' share (fn1): Australia..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Brazil.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Kazakhstan................................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Norway....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources...................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Canada...................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** South Africa............................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources........................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All import sources................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers': Commercial U.S. shipments: Quantity..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Commercial sales: Quantity..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Cost of goods sold (COGS)........................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss)..................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expenses............................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss)............................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss)...................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit COGS.................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit SG&A expenses..................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit operating income or (loss)...................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit net income or (loss)............................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** COGS/sales (fn1).......................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss)/sales (fn1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss)/sales (fn1)..................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Note.--Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. fn1.--Reported data are in percent and period changes are in percentage points. fn2.--Undefined. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official U.S. imports based on General Imports using statistical reporting numbers 2804.69.1000 and C-5 (Quantity=short tons contained silicon; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per STCS; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted) Reported data Period changes Calendar year January to September Calendar year Table C-3 Silicon metal: Summary data concerning the U.S. market excluding Dow, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 Jan-Sep 2014 2015 2016 2016 2017 2014-16 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 U.S. consumption quantity: Amount......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Producers' share (fn1): Included producers..................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Excluded producers................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All producers........................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Importers' share (fn1): Australia..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Brazil.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Kazakhstan................................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Norway....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources...................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Canada...................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** South Africa............................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources........................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All import sources................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. consumption value: Amount......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Producers' share (fn1): Included producers..................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Excluded producers................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All producers........................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Importers' share (fn1): Australia..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Brazil.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Kazakhstan................................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Norway....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources...................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Canada...................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** South Africa............................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources........................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All import sources................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. imports from: Australia: Quantity..................................................... 19,977 22,045 18,458 14,674 20,053 (7.6) 10.4 (16.3) 36.7 Value......................................................... 52,516 58,984 34,601 28,158 39,793 (34.1) 12.3 (41.3) 41.3 Unit value................................................... $2,629 $2,676 $1,875 $1,919 $1,984 (28.7) 1.8 (29.9) 3.4 Ending inventory quantity........................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Brazil Quantity..................................................... 83,724 51,888 68,340 47,123 60,449 (18.4) (38.0) 31.7 28.3 Value......................................................... 219,760 140,482 158,897 109,522 140,085 (27.7) (36.1) 13.1 27.9 Unit value................................................... $2,625 $2,707 $2,325 $2,324 $2,317 (11.4) 3.1 (14.1) (0.3) Ending inventory quantity........................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Kazakhstan Quantity..................................................... --- 3,006 10,367 7,640 10,359 fn2 fn2 244.9 35.6 Value......................................................... --- 6,691 17,441 13,279 17,466 fn2 fn2 160.7 31.5 Unit value................................................... --- $2,226 $1,682 $1,738 $1,686 fn2 fn2 (24.4) (3.0) Ending inventory quantity........................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Norway: Quantity..................................................... 14,753 14,441 14,432 11,429 10,392 (2.2) (2.1) (0.1) (9.1) Value......................................................... 42,151 37,507 29,806 23,778 19,349 (29.3) (11.0) (20.5) (18.6) Unit value................................................... $2,857 $2,597 $2,065 $2,080 $1,862 (27.7) (9.1) (20.5) (10.5) Ending inventory quantity........................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources: Quantity..................................................... 118,454 91,381 111,597 80,866 101,253 (5.8) (22.9) 22.1 25.2 Value......................................................... 314,427 243,664 240,745 174,737 216,694 (23.4) (22.5) (1.2) 24.0 Unit value................................................... $2,654 $2,666 $2,157 $2,161 $2,140 (18.7) 0.5 (19.1) (1.0) Ending inventory quantity........................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Canada: Quantity..................................................... 20,932 23,470 21,542 17,195 21,023 2.9 12.1 (8.2) 22.3 Value......................................................... 49,973 60,261 52,122 41,668 50,171 4.3 20.6 (13.5) 20.4 Unit value................................................... $2,387 $2,568 $2,420 $2,423 $2,387 1.4 7.5 (5.8) (1.5) Ending inventory quantity........................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** South Africa: Quantity..................................................... 44,100 42,886 24,196 20,749 1,624 (45.1) (2.8) (43.6) (92.2) Value......................................................... 116,321 117,442 56,427 48,036 3,001 (51.5) 1.0 (52.0) (93.8) Unit value................................................... $2,638 $2,739 $2,332 $2,315 $1,848 (11.6) 3.8 (14.8) (20.2) Ending inventory quantity........................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources: Quantity..................................................... 28,072 22,057 9,353 7,884 9,071 (66.7) (21.4) (57.6) 15.0 Value......................................................... 72,488 58,752 18,285 15,896 16,198 (74.8) (18.9) (68.9) 1.9 Unit value................................................... $2,582 $2,664 $1,955 $2,016 $1,786 (24.3) 3.1 (26.6) (11.4) Ending inventory quantity........................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources: Quantity..................................................... 93,104 88,413 55,090 45,829 31,718 (40.8) (5.0) (37.7) (30.8) Value......................................................... 238,782 236,455 126,834 105,600 69,371 (46.9) (1.0) (46.4) (34.3) Unit value................................................... $2,565 $2,674 $2,302 $2,304 $2,187 (10.2) 4.3 (13.9) (5.1) Ending inventory quantity........................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued on next page. Calendar year January to September Calendar year C-6 (Quantity=short tons contained silicon; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per STCS; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted) Reported data Period changes Table C-3--Continued Silicon metal: Summary data concerning the U.S. market excluding Dow, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 Jan-Sep 2014 2015 2016 2016 2017 2014-16 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 U.S. imports from:--Continued All import sources: Quantity..................................................... 211,558 179,793 166,687 126,695 132,971 (21.2) (15.0) (7.3) 5.0 Value......................................................... 553,210 480,118 367,580 280,337 286,064 (33.6) (13.2) (23.4) 2.0 Unit value................................................... $2,615 $2,670 $2,205 $2,213 $2,151 (15.7) 2.1 (17.4) (2.8) Ending inventory quantity........................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers': Average production capacity......................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Capacity utilization (fn1)................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments: Quantity..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments: Quantity..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity.............................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Inventories/total shipments (fn1)................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production workers....................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Hours worked (1,000s).................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Wages paid ($1,000)..................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Hourly wages (dollars)................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Productivity (STCS per 1,000 hours)............. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit labor costs............................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Net sales: Quantity..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Cost of goods sold (COGS)........................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss)..................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expenses............................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss)............................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss)...................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Capital expenditures...................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit COGS.................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit SG&A expenses..................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit operating income or (loss)...................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit net income or (loss)............................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** COGS/sales (fn1).......................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss)/sales (fn1)........... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss)/sales (fn1)..................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Note.--Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. fn1.--Reported data are in percent and period changes are in percentage points. fn2.--Undefined. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official U.S. imports based on General Imports using statistical reporting numbers 2804.69.1000 and (Quantity=short tons contained silicon; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per STCS; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted) Reported data Period changes Calendar year January to September Calendar year D‐1 APPENDIX D U.S. SHIPMENTS, BY PRODUCT TYPE D‐2 CONTENTS Page Table D‐1: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments ................................................................................. D‐3 Table D‐2: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments (Australia) ................................................................ D‐3 Table D‐3: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments (Brazil) ..................................................................... D‐3 Table D‐4: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments (Kazakhstan) ............................................................ D‐3 Table D‐5: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments (Norway) .................................................................. D‐3 Table D‐6: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments (subject sources) ..................................................... D‐3 Table D‐7: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments (Canada) .................................................................. D‐3 Table D‐8: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments (South Africa) .......................................................... D‐4 Table D‐9: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments (all other sources) ................................................... D‐4 Table D‐10: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments (nonsubject sources) ............................................. D‐4 Table D‐11: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments (all import sources) ............................................... D‐4 D‐3 Tables D‐1 through D‐11 present data on U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments, by product type from 2014 through 2016, January‐September 2016, and January to September 2017. Staff requested data on shipment types based on low‐boron content, high purity grade, and metallurgical grade silicon metal. Table D-1 Silicon metal: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments (U.S. shipments), by product type, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 * * * * * * * Table D-2 Silicon metal: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments (Australia), by product type, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 * * * * * * * Table D-3 Silicon metal: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments (Brazil), by product type, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 * * * * * * * Table D-4 Silicon metal: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments (Kazakhstan), by product type, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 * * * * * * * Table D-5 Silicon metal: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments (Norway), by product type, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 * * * * * * * Table D-6 Silicon metal: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments (Subject sources), by product type, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 * * * * * * * Table D-7 Silicon metal: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments (Canada), by product type, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 * * * * * * * D‐4 Table D-8 Silicon metal: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments (South Africa), by product type, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 * * * * * * * Table D-9 Silicon metal: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments (All other sources), by product type, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 * * * * * * * Table D-10 Silicon metal: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments (nonsubject sources), by product type, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 * * * * * * * Table D-11 Silicon metal: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments (all import sources), by product type, 2014-16, January to September 2016, and January to September 2017 * * * * * * * E‐1 APPENDIX E NONSUBJECT COUNTRY PRICE DATA E‐3 Eighteen importers reported shipments of silicon metal from nonsubject countries. The largest sources of nonsubject imports during 2014‐16 were South Africa and Canada, in order of size.1 South Africa and Canada accounted for *** percent respectively, of U.S. silicon metal apparent consumption, and approximately *** percent, respectively, of U.S. silicon metal imports in 2016. Price data reported by these firms accounted for *** percent of U.S. commercial shipments of silicon metal from South Africa, and *** percent of U.S. commercial shipments of silicon metal from Canada. The price items and accompanying data are comparable to those presented in tables V‐3 to V‐5. Price and quantity data for domestic sources, subject imports, and nonsubject imports from Canada and South Africa are shown in tables E‐1 to E‐3 and in figures E‐1 to E‐3. In comparing prices for nonsubject imports from South Africa with domestic prices, prices for silicon metal imported from South Africa were lower than prices for U.S.‐produced product in 20 instances and higher in 14 instances. In comparing prices for nonsubject imports from Canada with domestic prices, prices for silicon metal imported from Canada were lower than prices for U.S.‐produced product in 6 instances and higher in 11 instances. In the posthearing briefs, *** alleged that Globe’s affiliates in South Africa were the “low‐price leader” underselling domestically produced silicon metal products 1 and 2, and contributed to “price depression” in 2016. 2 In comparing nonsubject import prices with subject import prices, prices for silicon metal imported from nonsubject countries were lower than prices for silicon metal imported from subject countries in 26 instances and higher in 88 instances. A summary of price differentials is presented in table E‐4. Table E-1 Silicon metal: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of imported product 1, by quarters, January 2014-September 2017 * * * * * * * Table E-2 Silicon metal: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of imported product 2, by quarters, January 2014-September 2017 * * * * * * * 1 The petitioner shares common ownership with foreign producers in South Africa, and some of the nonsubject country producers in Canada. 2 Respondent Elkem’s posthearing brief, p. I‐7. Respondent Wacker’s posthearing brief, pp. 9‐10, Exhibit 1 pp. 11‐12. E‐4 Table E-3 Silicon metal: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of imported product 3, by quarters, January 2014-September 2017 * * * * * * * Figure E-1 Silicon metal: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1, by quarters, January 2014-September 2017 * * * * * * * Figure E-2 Silicon metal: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2, by quarters, January 2014-September 2017 * * * * * * * Figure E-3 Silicon metal: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3, by quarters, January 2014-September 2017 * * * * * * * Table E-4 Silicon metal: Summary of underselling/(overselling), by country, January 2014-September 2017 Comparison Total number of comparisons Nonsubject lower than the comparison source Nonsubject higher than the comparison source Number of quarters Quantity (short tons) Number of quarters Quantity (short tons) Nonsubject vs United States.-- Canada vs. United States 17 *** *** *** *** South Africa vs. United States 34 *** *** *** *** Nonsubject vs Subject.-- Canada vs. Australia 15 *** *** *** *** South Africa vs. Australia 26 *** *** *** *** Canada vs. Brazil 16 *** *** *** *** South Africa vs. Brazil 24 *** *** *** *** Canada vs. Kazakhstan 8 *** *** *** *** South Africa vs. Kazakhstan 8 *** *** *** *** Canada vs. Norway 6 *** *** *** *** South Africa vs. Norway 11 *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. F‐1 APPENDIX F PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS F‐3 Silicon metal from Argentina, Brazil, and China The Commission has conducted investigations and related five‐year reviews on silicon metal with respect to Argentina, Brazil, and China. On August 24, 1990, petitions were filed with Commerce and the Commission alleging that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports of silicon metal from Argentina, Brazil, and China that were sold at LTFV and imports from Brazil that were subsidized by the government of Brazil.1 Commerce made a final negative determination with respect to the countervailing duty investigation regarding imports of silicon metal from Brazil2 and final affirmative determinations with respect to the antidumping duty investigations regarding imports of silicon metal from Argentina,3 Brazil,4 and China.5 In addition, the Commission made final affirmative injury determinations with respect to all three countries in 1991. 6 Thereafter, Commerce issued antidumping duty orders on silicon metal from Argentina,7 Brazil,8 and China.9 On November 2, 1999, the Commission instituted the first five‐year reviews of the antidumping duty orders on imports of silicon metal from Argentina, Brazil, and China.10 In February 2001, the Commission completed its full first five‐year reviews and determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Argentina would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission further determined that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on silicon metal from Brazil and China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a 1 The petitions were filed by American Alloys, Inc. (“American Alloys”); Elkem Metals Co., L.P. (“Elkem”); Silicon Metaltech, Inc.; SiMETCO, Inc.; and SKW Alloys, Inc. (“SKW”). Silicon Metal from Argentina, Brazil, and the People’s Republic of China: Investigation Nos. 731‐TA‐470‐472 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 2325, October 1990, p. I‐1. 2 Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination: Silicon Metal From Brazil, 56 FR 26988, June 12, 1991. 3 Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Metal From Argentina, 56 FR 37891, August 9, 1991. 4 Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Metal From Brazil, 56 FR 26977, June 12, 1991. 5 Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Metal From the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 18570, April 23, 1991. 6 Determination, Silicon Metal From Argentina, 56 FR 48577, September 25, 1991; Determination, Silicon Metal From Brazil, 56 FR 37572, August 7, 1991; Determination, Silicon Metal From the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 27033, June 12, 1991. 7 Antidumping Duty Order: Silicon Metal From Argentina, 56 FR 48779, September 26, 1991. 8 Antidumping Duty Order: Silicon Metal From Brazil, 56 FR 36135, July 31, 1991. 9 Antidumping Duty Order: Silicon Metal From the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 26649, June 10, 1991. 10 Silicon Metal From Argentina, Brazil, and China and Silicomanganese From Brazil, China, and Ukraine, 64 FR 59209, November 2, 1999. F‐4 reasonably foreseeable time.11 Following affirmative determinations on imports of silicon metal from Brazil and China in the first five‐year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, 12 Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty orders on silicon metal from Brazil and China, effective February 16, 2001, 13 and revoked the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Argentina, effective January 1, 2000.14 The Commission instituted its second five‐year reviews of the antidumping duty orders on imports of silicon metal from Brazil and China on January 3, 2006. 15 The Commission completed its full second five‐year reviews in December 2006, determining that revocation of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time but that revocation of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.16 Following affirmative determinations on imports of silicon metal from China in the second five‐year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, 17 Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from China, effective December 21, 2006, 18 and revoked the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil, effective February 16, 2006. 19 11 Silicon Metal From Argentina, Brazil, and China: Investigations Nos. 731‐TA‐470‐472 (Review), USITC Publication 3385, January 2001, p. 1. Commissioners Okun, Askey, and Devaney did not participate in the first five‐year reviews concerning silicon metal from Argentina, Brazil, and China. Commissioner Bragg dissented with respect to the Commission’s determination concerning Argentina. 12 Silicon Metal From Brazil; Final Results of Expedited Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 65 FR 35607, June 5, 2000; Silicon Metal From the People’s Republic of China; Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 65 FR 35609, June 5, 2000; Silicon Metal From Argentina, Brazil, and China, 66 FR 8981, February 5, 2001. 13 Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders on Silicon Metal From Brazil and China and on Silicomanganese From Brazil and China, and Continuation of Suspended Antidumping Duty Investigation on Silicomanganese From Ukraine, 66 FR 10669, February 16, 2001. 14 Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order: Silicon Metal From Argentina, 66 FR 10669, February 16, 2001. 15 Silicon Metal From Brazil and China, 71 FR 138, January 3, 2006. 16 Silicon Metal From Brazil and China: Investigation Nos. 731‐TA‐471 and 472 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3892, December 2006, p. 1. 17 Silicon Metal from the People’s Republic of China and Brazil: Final Results of the Expedited Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 71 FR 26334, May 4, 2006; Silicon Metal From Brazil and China, 71 FR 71554, December 11, 2006. 18 Silicon Metal from the People’s Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order, 71 FR 76636, December 21, 2006. 19 Silicon Metal From Brazil: Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order, 71 FR 76635, December 21, 2006. F‐5 The Commission’s third five‐year review of the antidumping duty order on imports of silicon metal from China was instituted on November 1, 2011. 20 The Commission completed its expedited third five‐year review in March 2012, determining that revocation of the antidumping duty on China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.21 Following affirmative determinations in the third five‐year review by Commerce and the Commission, 22 Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from China, effective April 20, 2012. 23 The Commission’s fourth five‐year review of the antidumping order on imports of silicon metal from China was instituted on March 1, 2017. 24 On June 5, 2017, the Commission determined that responses to its notice of institution of the subject five‐year review were such that a full review should proceed.25 On July 3, 2017, Commerce determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. 26 On November 24, 2017, the Commission published its schedule for the conduct of the full fourth five‐year review. 27 Silicon metal from Russia On March 7, 2002, a petition was filed with Commerce and the Commission alleging that an industry in the United States was materially injured and threatened with further material injury by reason of LTFV imports of silicon metal from Russia.28 On February 11, 2003, 20 Silicon Metal From China; Institution of a Five‐Year Review Concerning the Antidumping Duty Order on Silicon Metal From China, 76 FR 67476, November 1, 2011. 21 Silicon Metal From China: Investigation No. 731‐TA‐472 (Third Review), USITC Publication 4312, March 2012, p. 1. 22 Silicon Metal From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Third Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 10477, February 22, 2012; Silicon Metal From China, 77 FR 20649, April 5, 2012. 23 Silicon Metal From the People’s Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 23660, April 20, 2012. 24 Silicon Metal From China; Institution of a Five‐Year Review, 82 FR 12234, March 1, 2017. 25 Silicon Metal From China; Notice of Commission Determination To Conduct a Full Five‐Year Review, 82 FR 27525, June 15, 2017. 26 Silicon Metal From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Fourth Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 82 FR 30841, July 3, 2017. 27 Silicon Metal From China: Scheduling of a Full Five‐Year Review, 82 FR 55858, November 24, 2017. 28 The petition was filed by counsel on behalf of Globe, Cleveland, OH; SIMCALA, Inc. (“SIMCALA”), Mt. Meigs, AL; the International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers (I.U.E.‐C.W.A, AFL‐CIO, C.L.C., Local 693), Selma, AL; the Paper, Allied‐Industrial Chemical and Energy Workers International Union (Local 5‐89), Boomer, WV; and the United Steel Workers of America (AFL‐CIO, Local 9436), Niagara Falls, NY. Silicon Metal From Russia: Investigation No. 731‐TA‐991 (Final), USITC Publication 3584, March 2003, p. I‐1. F‐6 Commerce made an affirmative final LTFV determination regarding silicon metal from Russia.29 The Commission completed its original investigation concerning silicon metal from Russia on March 19, 2003, determining that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of silicon metal from Russia. 30 After receipt of the Commission’s final determination, Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on imports of silicon metal from Russia.31 After the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports from Russia of silicon metal in March 2003,32 respondents Bratsk Aluminum Smelter and Sual Trade Limited (“plaintiffs”) appealed the Commission’s determination to the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”). On June 22, 2004, the CIT remanded the case to the Commission for further explanation, and on September 15, 2004, the Commission filed its affirmative remand determination with the CIT. On December 3, 2004, the CIT affirmed the Commission’s remand determination in its entirety and dismissed the case.33 Plaintiffs appealed the CIT’s dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”). On April 10, 2006, the CAFC vacated and remanded the CIT’s decision so that the CIT would remand the case back to the Commission to address nonsubject imports. 34 On May 25, 2006, the Commission submitted a petition for rehearing en banc before the CAFC and on July 24, 2006, the petition was denied. On July 28, 2006, the Commission petitioned the CAFC to stay issuance of the mandate to the CIT while the Commission, through the Office of the Solicitor General, considered the filing of a petition for certiorari. On August 7, 2006, the CAFC denied the motion to stay and remanded the case to the CIT. On August 17, 2006, the CIT remanded the case to the Commission. The Commission then filed a motion to stay the remand proceedings at the CIT pending a decision on whether to seek certiorari. On September 22, 2006, the CIT granted the stay. On December 20, 2006, the Commission informed the CIT that it would not be seeking certiorari at that time. On December 22, 2006, the CIT entered an order lifting the stay and instructed the Commission to submit its remand results to the CIT by March 22, 2007. Upon consideration of the CIT’s remand order that the Commission comply with the CAFC’s decision in Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006), the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports of silicon metal from Russia that Commerce found to be sold at LTFV. 35 On January 29 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Metal From the Russian Federation, 68 FR 6885, February 11, 2003 (as amended, Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Metal From the Russian Federation, 68 FR 12037, March 13, 2003). 30 Silicon Metal From Russia, 68 FR 14260, March 24, 2003; Silicon Metal from Russia: Investigation No. 731‐TA‐991 (Final), USITC Publication 3584, March 2003, p. I‐1. 31 Antidumping Duty Order: Silicon Metal From Russia, 68 FR 14578, March 26, 2003. 32 Silicon Metal from Russia: Investigation No. 731‐TA‐991 (Final), USITC Publication 3584, March 2003, p. 1. Chairman Okun did not participate in the investigation. 33 Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, Slip Op. 04‐153, CIT 2004, December 3, 2004. 34 Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 35 Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun was recused from the investigation. Vice Chairman Aranoff and Commissioners Williamson and Pinkert did not participate in the original investigation or (continued...) F‐7 15, 2008, the CIT issued an opinion affirming the Commission’s affirmative remand determination that subject imports of silicon metal from Russia were causing material injury to the U.S. industry.36 That decision was not appealed to the CAFC. The Commission’s first five‐year review of the antidumping duty order on imports of silicon metal from Russia was instituted on February 1, 2008.37 In June 2008, the Commission completed an expedited first five‐year review of the subject order and determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Russia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.38 Following affirmative determinations in the first five‐year review by Commerce and the Commission, 39 Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty order on imports of silicon metal from Russia, effective July 16, 2008. 40 The Commission’s second five‐year review of the antidumping duty order on imports of silicon metal from Russia was instituted on June 3, 2013. 41 In June 2014, the Commission completed its second full five‐year review of the subject order and determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Russia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.42 Following affirmative determinations in the first five‐year review by Commerce and the Commission, 43 Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty order on imports of silicon metal from Russia, effective July 2, 2014. 44 (…continued) first remand determination, but participated in the second remand proceeding. Silicon Metal from Russia: Investigation No. 731‐TA‐991 (Final) (Second Remand), USITC Publication 3910, March 2007, pp. 1 and I‐1. 36 Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, Slip Op. 08‐5 (January 15, 2008). 37 Silicon Metal From Russia, 73 FR 6204, February 1, 2008. 38 Silicon Metal From Russia: Investigation No. 731‐TA‐991 (Review), USITC Publication 4018, June 2008. 39 Silicon Metal From the Russian Federation: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 73 FR 31064, May 30, 2008; Silicon Metal From Russia, 73 FR 38467, July 7, 2008. 40 Silicon Metal from the Russian Federation: Continuation Of Antidumping Duty Order, 73 FR 40848 July 16, 2008. 41 Silicon Metal From Russia; Institution of a Five‐Year Review, 78 FR 33064, June 3, 2013. 42 Silicon Metal From Russia: Investigation No. 731‐TA‐991 (Second Review), USITC Publication 4471 (June 2014). 43 Silicon Metal From the Russian Federation: Final Results of the Expedited Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 78 FR 61334, October 3, 2013; Silicon Metal From Russia, 79 FR 34551, June 17, 2014. 44 Silicon Metal From the Russian Federation: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order, 79 FR 37718, July 2, 2014. F‐8 Silicon metal from Brazil and South Africa On March 31, 2004, the Commission instituted a countervailing duty investigation on imports of silicon metal from Brazil and an antidumping investigation on imports of silicon metal from South Africa upon receipt of a petition filed by GSM; the International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers, I.U.E.‐C.W.A., AFL‐CIO, C.L.C., Local 693; and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL‐CIO, Local 9436. 45 On April 16, 2004, the petition was withdrawn and the investigations were subsequently terminated.46 45 Silicon Metal From Brazil and South Africa, 69 FR 18404, April 7, 2004. 46 Silicon Metal From Brazil and South Africa, 69 FR 23213, April 28, 2004.