Titanium Sponge From Kazakhstan: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 43936-43939 [2017-20029]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
43936
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2017 / Notices
(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.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and/or
included in the request for OMB
approval of this information collection;
they also will become a matter of public
record.
Sheleen Dumas,
Departmental PRA Lead, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017–20037 Filed 9–19–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–07–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–834–810]
Titanium Sponge From Kazakhstan:
Initiation of Countervailing Duty
Investigation
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Applicable. September 13, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit
Astvatsatrian at (202) 482–6412 or
Ariela Garvett at (202) 482–3609, AD/
CVD Operations, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
The Petition
On August 24, 2017, the U.S.
Department of Commerce (the
Department) received a countervailing
duty (CVD) Petition concerning imports
of titanium sponge from Kazakhstan,
filed in proper form on behalf of
Titanium Metals Corporation (the
petitioner). The CVD Petition was
accompanied by antidumping duty (AD)
petitions concerning imports of titanium
sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan.1
The petitioner is a domestic producer of
titanium sponge.2
On August 30, 2017, the Department
requested supplemental information
1 See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from
the petitioner re: ‘‘Titanium Sponge from Japan and
Kazakhstan: Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties’’ (August
24, 2017) (the Petition).
2 Id., Volume I of the Petition, at 1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Sep 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
pertaining to certain areas of the
Petition.3 The petitioner filed responses
to these requests on September 1, 2017.4
The petitioner filed revised scope
language on September 11, 2017.5
In accordance with section 702(b)(1)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), the petitioner alleges that the
Government of Kazakhstan (GOK) is
providing countervailable subsidies,
within the meaning of section 771(5) of
the Act, to imports of titanium sponge
from Kazakhstan, and that such imports
are materially injuring, or threatening
material injury to, the domestic industry
producing titanium sponge in the
United States. Also, consistent with
section 702(b)(1) of the Act, for those
alleged programs on which we are
initiating a CVD investigation, the
Petition is accompanied by information
reasonably available to the petitioner
supporting its allegations.
The Department finds that the
petitioner filed this Petition on behalf of
the domestic industry because the
petitioner is an interested party as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act.
The Department also finds that the
petitioner demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the
initiation of the CVD investigation that
the petitioner is requesting.6
Period of Investigation
Because the Petition was filed on
August 24, 2017, the period of
investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016,
through December 31, 2016.7
Scope of the Investigation
The product covered by this
investigation is titanium sponge from
Kazakhstan. For a full description of the
scope of this investigation, see the
‘‘Scope of the Investigation,’’ in the
Appendix to this notice.
Comments on Scope of the Investigation
During our review of the Petition, the
Department issued questions to, and
3 See Letter from the Department, ‘‘Petition for the
Imposition of Countervailing and Antidumping
Duties on Imports of Titanium Sponge from Japan
and Kazakhstan: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated
August 30, 2017 (Kazakhstan CVD Supplemental
Questionnaire).
4 See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from
the petitioner, re: ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of
Countervailing Duties on Titanium Sponge from
Kazakhstan: TIMET Response to Supplemental
Questionnaire,’’ (September 1, 2017) (Kazakhstan
CVD Supplement).
5 See Letter from the Department, ‘‘Petitions for
the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties on Imports of Titanium Sponge from Japan
and Kazakhstan: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated
September 8, 2017 (Second General Issues
Supplemental Questionnaire).
6 See ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the
Petition’’ section, below.
7 See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
received responses from, the petitioner
pertaining to the proposed scope to
ensure that the scope language in the
Petition would be an accurate reflection
of the product for which the domestic
industry is seeking relief.8
As discussed in the preamble to the
Department’s regulations, we are setting
aside a period for interested parties to
raise issues regarding product coverage
(scope).9 The Department will consider
all comments received from interested
parties and, if necessary, will consult
with the interested parties prior to the
issuance of the preliminary
determination. If scope comments
include factual information,10 all such
factual information should be limited to
public information. To facilitate
preparation of its questionnaires, the
Department requests all interested
parties to submit such comments by
5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on
Tuesday, October 3, 2017, which is 20
calendar days from the signature date of
this notice. Any rebuttal comments,
which may include factual information,
must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Friday,
October 13, 2017, which is 10 calendar
days from the initial comments
deadline.
The Department requests that any
factual information the parties consider
relevant to the scope of the
investigations be submitted during this
time period. However, if a party
subsequently finds that additional
factual information pertaining to the
scope of the investigations may be
relevant, the party may contact the
Department and request permission to
submit the additional information. All
such comments must be filed on the
records of each of the concurrent AD
and CVD investigations.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department
must be filed electronically using
Enforcement and Compliance’s
Antidumping Duty and Countervailing
Duty Centralized Electronic Service
System (ACCESS).11 An electronically
8 See Second General Issues Supplemental
Questionnaire; see also Second General Issues
Supplement, at Attachement D.
9 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties;
Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
10 See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21).
11 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures;
Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR
39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and
Compliance: Change of Electronic Filing System
Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) for details
of the Department’s electronic filing requirements,
which went into effect on August 5, 2011.
Information on help using ACCESS can be found at
https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx, and a handbook
can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/
E:\FR\FM\20SEN1.SGM
20SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2017 / Notices
filed document must be received
successfully in its entirety by the time
and date it is due. Documents exempted
from the electronic submission
requirements must be filed manually
(i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement
and Compliance’s APO/Dockets Unit,
Room 18022, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230, and
stamped with the date and time of
receipt by the applicable deadlines.
Consultations
Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i)
and (ii) of the Act, the Department
notified representatives of the GOK of
the receipt of the Petition, and provided
them the opportunity for consultations
with respect to the CVD Petition.12
Consultations with Kazakhstan were
held via conference call on September 7,
2017.13
sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with NOTICES
Determination of Industry Support for
the Petition
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires
that a petition be filed on behalf of the
domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A)
of the Act provides that a petition meets
this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the
petition account for: (i) At least 25
percent of the total production of the
domestic like product; and (ii) more
than 50 percent of the production of the
domestic like product produced by that
portion of the industry expressing
support for, or opposition to, the
petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D)
of the Act provides that, if the petition
does not establish support of domestic
producers or workers accounting for
more than 50 percent of the total
production of the domestic like product,
the Department shall: (i) Poll the
industry or rely on other information in
order to determine if there is support for
the petition, as required by
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine
industry support using a statistically
valid sampling method to poll the
‘‘industry.’’
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines
the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers, as a
whole, of a domestic like product. Thus,
to determine whether a petition has the
requisite industry support, the statute
Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling
%20Procedures.pdf.
12 See Letter to the Embassy of Kazakhstan,
‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Titanium Sponge
from Kazakhstan: Invitation for Consultations to
Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition’’ (August
28, 2017).
13 See Memorandum, re: ‘‘Consultations with
Officials from the Government of Kazakhstan (GOK)
Regarding the Countervailing Duty (CVD) Petition
on Titanium Sponge from Kazakhstan’’ (September
7, 2017).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Sep 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
directs the Department to look to
producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The International
Trade Commission (ITC), which is
responsible for determining whether
‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been
injured, must also determine what
constitutes a domestic like product in
order to define the industry. While both
the Department and the ITC must apply
the same statutory definition regarding
the domestic like product,14 they do so
for different purposes and pursuant to a
separate and distinct authority. In
addition, the Department’s
determination is subject to limitations of
time and information. Although this
may result in different definitions of the
like product, such differences do not
render the decision of either agency
contrary to law.15
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the
domestic like product as ‘‘a product
which is like, or in the absence of like,
most similar in characteristics and uses
with, the article subject to an
investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the
reference point from which the
domestic like product analysis begins is
‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’
(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to
be investigated, which normally will be
the scope as defined in a petition).
With regard to the domestic like
product, the petitioner does not offer a
definition of the domestic like product
distinct from the scope of the
investigation. Based on our analysis of
the information submitted on the
record, we have determined that
titanium sponge, as defined in the
scope, constitutes a single domestic like
product, and we have analyzed industry
support in terms of that domestic like
product.16
In determining whether the petitioner
has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A)
of the Act, we considered the industry
support data contained in the Petition
with reference to the domestic like
product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of the
Investigation,’’ in the Appendix to this
14 See
section 771(10) of the Act.
USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp.
2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd.
v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988),
aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
16 For a discussion of the domestic like product
analysis as applied to this case and information
regarding industry support, see Countervailing Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Titanium Sponge
from Kazakhstan (Kazakhstan CVD Initiation
Checklist), at Attachment II, ‘‘Analysis of Industry
Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Petitions Covering Titanium Sponge from
Japan and Kazakhstan.’’ The checklist is dated
concurrently with this notice and on file
electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents
filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central
Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department
of Commerce building.
15 See
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
43937
notice. The petitioner provided its own
2016 production of the domestic like
product, and compared this to the
estimated total production of the
domestic like product for the entire
domestic industry.17 We relied on data
the petitioner provided for purposes of
measuring industry support.18
Our review of the data provided in the
Petition, General Issues Supplement,
and other information readily available
to the Department indicates that the
petitioner has established industry
support for the Petition.19 First, the
Petition established support from
domestic producers (or workers)
accounting for more than 50 percent of
the total production of the domestic like
product and, as such, the Department is
not required to take further action in
order to evaluate industry support (e.g.,
polling).20 Second, the domestic
producers (or workers) have met the
statutory criteria for industry support
under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petition
account for at least 25 percent of the
total production of the domestic like
product.21 Finally, the domestic
producers (or workers) have met the
statutory criteria for industry support
under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petition
account for more than 50 percent of the
production of the domestic like product
produced by that portion of the industry
expressing support for, or opposition to,
the Petition.22 Accordingly, the
Department determines that the Petition
was filed on behalf of the domestic
industry within the meaning of section
702(b)(1) of the Act.
The Department finds that the
petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of
the domestic industry because it is an
interested party as defined in section
771(9)(C) of the Act, and that the
petitioner has demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the
CVD investigation that it is requesting
the Department to initiate.23
Injury Test
Because Kazakhstan is a ‘‘Subsidies
Agreement Country’’ within the
17 See Volume I of the Petition, at 6–7 and Exhibit
GEN–20.
18 Id. For further discussion, see Kazakhstan CVD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
19 See Kazakhstan CVD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment II.
20 See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also
Kazakhstan CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment
II.
21 See Kazakhstan CVD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment II.
22 Id.
23 Id.
E:\FR\FM\20SEN1.SGM
20SEN1
43938
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2017 / Notices
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act,
section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to
this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC
must determine whether imports of the
subject merchandise from Kazakhstan
materially injure, or threaten material
injury to, a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
The petitioner alleges that imports of
the subject merchandise are benefitting
from countervailable subsidies and that
such imports are causing, or threaten to
cause, material injury to the U.S.
industry producing the domestic like
product. In addition, the petitioner
alleges that subject imports exceed the
negligibility threshold provided for
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.24
The petitioner contends that the
industry’s injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share;
displacement of U.S. production by
subject imports; underselling and price
suppression or depression; decline in
production, capacity utilization, hours
worked, and earnings before interest
and taxes; lost sales and revenues; and
decline in pricing for downstream
titanium products.25 We have assessed
the allegations and supporting evidence
regarding material injury, threat of
material injury, and causation, and we
have determined that these allegations
are properly supported by adequate
evidence, and meet the statutory
requirements for initiation.26
Initiation of CVD Investigation
Based on the examination of the CVD
Petition, we find that the Petition meets
the requirements of section 702 of the
Act. Based on our review of the Petition,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation on three of the four alleged
programs in Kazakhstan. For a full
discussion of the basis for our decision
to initiate or not initiate on each
program, see the Kazakhstan CVD
Initiation Checklist. A public version of
the initiation checklist for this
investigation is available on ACCESS.
Therefore, we are initiating a CVD
investigation to determine whether
imports of titanium sponge from
Kazakhstan benefit from countervailable
sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with NOTICES
24 See
Volume I of the Petition, at 24–25 and
Exhibits GEN–5 and GEN–6.
25 See Volume I of the Petition, at 1–3, 14–15, 18–
47 and Exhibits GEN–1, GEN–2, GEN–5, GEN–6,
GEN–10, GEN–12—GEN–15, GEN–19—GEN–26,
GEN–30, GEN–31, and GEN–33.
26 See Kazakhstan CVD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and
Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions
Covering Titanium Sponge from Japan and
Kazakhstan.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Sep 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
subsidies conferred by the Government
of Kazakhstan. In accordance with
section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will
make our preliminary determination no
later than 65 days after the date of this
initiation.
Under the Trade Preferences
Extension Act of 2015, numerous
amendments to the AD and CVD laws
were made.27 The 2015 law does not
specify dates of application for those
amendments. On August 6, 2015, the
Department published an interpretative
rule, in which it announced the
applicability dates for each amendment
to the Act, except for amendments
contained in section 771(7) of the Act,
which relate to determinations of
material injury by the ITC.28 The
amendments to sections 776 and 782 of
the Act are applicable to all
determinations made on or after August
6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to this
CVD investigation.29
In accordance with section 703(b)(1)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1),
unless postponed, we will make our
preliminary determination no later than
65 days after the date of this initiation.
Respondent Selection
Based on information from
independent sources, the petitioner
named one company as a producer/
exporter of titanium sponge in
Kazakhstan.30 Although the Department
normally relies on the number of
producers/exporters identified in the
petition and/or import data from U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to
determine whether to select a limited
number of producers/exporters for
individual examination in a CVD
investigation, the petitioner identified
only one company as a producer/
exporter of titanium sponge in
Kazakhstan: Ust-Kamenogorsk Titanium
Magnesium Plant JSC (UKTMP). We
currently know of no additional
producers/exporters of merchandise
under consideration from Kazakhstan
and the petitioner provided information
from independent sources as support.31
Accordingly, the Department intends to
examine the sole producer/exporter in
this investigation for Kazakhstan (i.e.,
27 See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015,
Public Law 114–27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
28 See Dates of Application of Amendments to the
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws Made
by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 80
FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice).
The 2015 amendments may be found at https://
www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/
1295/text/pl.
29 See Applicability Notice, 80 FR, at 46794–95.
30 See Petition, Volume I at 13; see also
Kazakhstan CVD Supplement, at 1.
31 See Petition, Volume I.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the company cited above). Parties
wishing to comment on respondent
selection for Kazakhstan must do so
within five days of the publication of
this notice in the Federal Register. Any
such comments must be submitted no
later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the due date,
and must be filed electronically via
ACCESS.
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section
702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), a copy of the public version
of the Petition has been provided to the
GOK via ACCESS. To the extent
practicable, we will attempt to provide
a copy of the public version of the
Petition to each exporter named in the
Petition, as provided under 19 CFR
351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We will notify the ITC of our
initiation, as required by section 702(d)
of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine,
within 45 days after the date on which
the Petition was filed, whether there is
a reasonable indication that imports of
titanium sponge from Kazakhstan are
materially injuring, or threatening
material injury to, a U.S. industry.32 A
negative ITC determination will result
in the investigation being terminated.33
Otherwise, this investigation will
proceed according to statutory and
regulatory time limits.
Submission of Factual Information
Factual information is defined in 19
CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence
submitted in response to questionnaires;
(ii) evidence submitted in support of
allegations; (iii) publicly available
information to value factors under 19
CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR
351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on
the record by the Department; and (v)
evidence other than factual information
described in (i)–(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b)
requires any party, when submitting
factual information, to specify under
which subsection of 19 CFR
351.102(b)(21) the information is being
submitted 34 and, if the information is
submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct
factual information already on the
record, to provide an explanation
identifying the information already on
the record that the factual information
seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.35 Time
32 See
section 703(a)(2) of the Act.
section 703(a)(1) of the Act.
34 See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
35 See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
33 See
E:\FR\FM\20SEN1.SGM
20SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2017 / Notices
limits for the submission of factual
information are addressed in 19 CFR
351.301, which provides specific time
limits based on the type of factual
information being submitted. Interested
parties should review the regulations
prior to submitting factual information
in this investigation.
Extensions of Time Limits
Parties may request an extension of
time limits before the expiration of a
time limit established under 19 CFR
351.301, or as otherwise specified by the
Secretary. In general, an extension
request will be considered untimely if it
is filed after the expiration of the time
limit established under 19 CFR 351.301.
For submissions that are due from
multiple parties simultaneously, an
extension request will be considered
untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET
on the due date. Under certain
circumstances, we may elect to specify
a different time limit by which
extension requests will be considered
untimely for submissions which are due
from multiple parties simultaneously. In
such a case, we will inform parties in a
letter or memorandum setting forth the
deadline (including a specified time) by
which extension requests must be filed
to be considered timely. An extension
request must be made in a separate,
stand-alone submission; under limited
circumstances we will grant untimelyfiled requests for the extension of time
limits. Parties should review Extension
of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790
(September 20, 2013), available at
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-201309-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to
submitting factual information in this
investigation.
sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with NOTICES
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual
information in an AD or CVD
proceeding must certify to the accuracy
and completeness of that information.36
Parties must use the certification
formats provided in 19 CFR
351.303(g).37 The Department intends to
reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with
applicable revised certification
requirements.
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under APO
36 See
section 782(b) of the Act.
also Certification of Factual Information to
Import Administration During Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July
17, 2013) (Final Rule). Answers to frequently asked
questions regarding the Final Rule are available at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_
info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
37 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Sep 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On
January 22, 2008, the Department
published Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Documents Submission Procedures;
APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate
in this investigation should ensure that
they meet the requirements of these
procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of
appearance as discussed at 19 CFR
351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of
the Act.
Dated: September 13, 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
Scope of the Investigation
The product covered by this investigation
is all forms and grades of titanium sponge,
except as specified below. Titanium sponge
is unwrought titanium metal that has not
been melted. Expressly excluded from the
scope of this investigation are:
(1) Loose particles of unwrought titanium
metal having a particle size of less than 20
mesh (0.84 mm);
(2) alloyed or unalloyed briquettes of
unwrought titanium metal that contain more
than 0.2% oxygen on a dry weight basis; and
(3) ultra-high purity titanium sponge. In
ultra-high purity titanium sponge, metallic
impurities do not exceed any of these
amounts:
WT %
Aluminum 0.0005
Chromium 0.0001
Cobalt 0.0001
Copper 0.0002
Iron 0.0300
Manganese 0.0010
Nickel 0.0002
Vanadium 0.0002
Zirconium 0.0005
Carbon 0.0150
Hydrogen 0.0100
Nitrogen 0.0020
Oxygen 0.1000
Titanium sponge is currently classified
under subheading 8108.20.0010 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS). The HTSUS subheading is
provided for convenience and customs
purposes; the written description of the
scope of this investigation is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2017–20029 Filed 9–19–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
PO 00000
43939
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–588–877, A–834–809]
Titanium Sponge From Japan and
Kazakhstan: Initiation of Less-ThanFair-Value Investigations
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Applicable September 13, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Aleksandras Nakutis at (202) 482–3147
(Japan) and Jonathan Hill at (202) 482–
3518 (Kazakhstan), AD/CVD Operations,
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
The Petitions
On August 24, 2017, the U.S.
Department of Commerce (the
Department) received antidumping duty
(AD) Petitions concerning imports of
titanium sponge from Japan and
Kazakhstan, filed in proper form on
behalf of Titanium Metals Corporation
(the petitioner).1 The AD Petitions were
accompanied by a countervailing duty
(CVD) petition concerning imports of
titanium sponge from Kazakhstan. The
petitioner is a domestic producer of
titanium sponge.2 On August 29, 2017,
September 5, 2017, and September 8,
2017, the Department requested
supplemental information pertaining to
certain areas of the Petitions.3 The
petitioner filed responses to these
requests on August 31, 2017, September
7, 2017, and September 11, 2017,
respectively.4 The petitioner filed
1 See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce re:
‘‘Titanium Sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan:
Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties’’ (August 24, 2017) (the
Petitions).
2 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 1–2.
3 See Letter from the Department, ‘‘Petitions for
the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties on Imports of Titanium Sponge from Japan
and Kazakhstan: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated
August 29, 2017 (General Issues Supplemental
Questionnaire); see also Petition for the Imposition
of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Titanium
Sponge from Japan: Supplemental Questionnaire;
and Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping
Duties on Imports of Titanium Sponge from
Kazakhstan: Supplemental Questionnaire. All of
these documents are dated August 29, 2017. See
also Letter from the Department, ‘‘Petitions for the
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties on Imports of Titanium Sponge from Japan
and Kazakhstan: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated
September 8, 2017 (Second General Issues
Supplemental Questionnaire).
4 See Letter from the petitioner, ‘‘Petitions for the
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Continued
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\20SEN1.SGM
20SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43936-43939]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20029]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-834-810]
Titanium Sponge From Kazakhstan: Initiation of Countervailing
Duty Investigation
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Applicable. September 13, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit Astvatsatrian at (202) 482-6412
or Ariela Garvett at (202) 482-3609, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On August 24, 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the
Department) received a countervailing duty (CVD) Petition concerning
imports of titanium sponge from Kazakhstan, filed in proper form on
behalf of Titanium Metals Corporation (the petitioner). The CVD
Petition was accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning
imports of titanium sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan.\1\ The petitioner
is a domestic producer of titanium sponge.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioner
re: ``Titanium Sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan: Petition for the
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties'' (August 24,
2017) (the Petition).
\2\ Id., Volume I of the Petition, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 30, 2017, the Department requested supplemental
information pertaining to certain areas of the Petition.\3\ The
petitioner filed responses to these requests on September 1, 2017.\4\
The petitioner filed revised scope language on September 11, 2017.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Letter from the Department, ``Petition for the
Imposition of Countervailing and Antidumping Duties on Imports of
Titanium Sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan: Supplemental Questions,''
dated August 30, 2017 (Kazakhstan CVD Supplemental Questionnaire).
\4\ See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioner,
re: ``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on
Titanium Sponge from Kazakhstan: TIMET Response to Supplemental
Questionnaire,'' (September 1, 2017) (Kazakhstan CVD Supplement).
\5\ See Letter from the Department, ``Petitions for the
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of
Titanium Sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan: Supplemental Questions,''
dated September 8, 2017 (Second General Issues Supplemental
Questionnaire).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Government of
Kazakhstan (GOK) is providing countervailable subsidies, within the
meaning of section 771(5) of the Act, to imports of titanium sponge
from Kazakhstan, and that such imports are materially injuring, or
threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing
titanium sponge in the United States. Also, consistent with section
702(b)(1) of the Act, for those alleged programs on which we are
initiating a CVD investigation, the Petition is accompanied by
information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its
allegations.
The Department finds that the petitioner filed this Petition on
behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested
party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also
finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with
respect to the initiation of the CVD investigation that the petitioner
is requesting.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See ``Determination of Industry Support for the Petition''
section, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigation
Because the Petition was filed on August 24, 2017, the period of
investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Investigation
The product covered by this investigation is titanium sponge from
Kazakhstan. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
see the ``Scope of the Investigation,'' in the Appendix to this notice.
Comments on Scope of the Investigation
During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions
to, and received responses from, the petitioner pertaining to the
proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would
be an accurate reflection of the product for which the domestic
industry is seeking relief.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Second General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire; see
also Second General Issues Supplement, at Attachement D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we
are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues
regarding product coverage (scope).\9\ The Department will consider all
comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will
consult with the interested parties prior to the issuance of the
preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual
information,\10\ all such factual information should be limited to
public information. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires,
the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments
by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, which is 20
calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal
comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00
p.m. ET on Friday, October 13, 2017, which is 10 calendar days from the
initial comments deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule,
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
\10\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department requests that any factual information the parties
consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted
during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that
additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the
investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department
and request permission to submit the additional information. All such
comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and
CVD investigations.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically
using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing
Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).\11\ An
electronically
[[Page 43937]]
filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the
time and date it is due. Documents exempted from the electronic
submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form)
with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable
deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and
Compliance: Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046
(November 20, 2014) for details of the Department's electronic
filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011.
Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx, and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consultations
Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, the
Department notified representatives of the GOK of the receipt of the
Petition, and provided them the opportunity for consultations with
respect to the CVD Petition.\12\ Consultations with Kazakhstan were
held via conference call on September 7, 2017.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Letter to the Embassy of Kazakhstan, ``Countervailing
Duty Petition on Titanium Sponge from Kazakhstan: Invitation for
Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition'' (August
28, 2017).
\13\ See Memorandum, re: ``Consultations with Officials from the
Government of Kazakhstan (GOK) Regarding the Countervailing Duty
(CVD) Petition on Titanium Sponge from Kazakhstan'' (September 7,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination of Industry Support for the Petition
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department
shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a
statistically valid sampling method to poll the ``industry.''
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the
producers, as a whole, of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which
is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has
been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic
like product,\14\ they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a
separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's
determination is subject to limitations of time and information.
Although this may result in different definitions of the like product,
such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary
to law.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\15\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT
2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F.
Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in a
petition).
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope
of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information
submitted on the record, we have determined that titanium sponge, as
defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product, and
we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like
product.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as
applied to this case and information regarding industry support, see
Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Titanium
Sponge from Kazakhstan (Kazakhstan CVD Initiation Checklist), at
Attachment II, ``Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Titanium Sponge from
Japan and Kazakhstan.'' The checklist is dated concurrently with
this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to
documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records
Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data
contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigation,'' in the Appendix to
this notice. The petitioner provided its own 2016 production of the
domestic like product, and compared this to the estimated total
production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic
industry.\17\ We relied on data the petitioner provided for purposes of
measuring industry support.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 6-7 and Exhibit GEN-20.
\18\ Id. For further discussion, see Kazakhstan CVD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, General Issues
Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department
indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the
Petition.\19\ First, the Petition established support from domestic
producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total
production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is
not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry
support (e.g., polling).\20\ Second, the domestic producers (or
workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under
section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product.\21\ Finally, the
domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for
industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the
domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for
more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or
opposition to, the Petition.\22\ Accordingly, the Department determines
that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within
the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Kazakhstan CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\20\ See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Kazakhstan
CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\21\ See Kazakhstan CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on
behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and that the petitioner has
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD
investigation that it is requesting the Department to initiate.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury Test
Because Kazakhstan is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the
[[Page 43938]]
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act
applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine
whether imports of the subject merchandise from Kazakhstan materially
injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are
benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are
causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry
producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioner
alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold
provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 24-25 and Exhibits GEN-5
and GEN-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share; displacement of U.S. production by
subject imports; underselling and price suppression or depression;
decline in production, capacity utilization, hours worked, and earnings
before interest and taxes; lost sales and revenues; and decline in
pricing for downstream titanium products.\25\ We have assessed the
allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat
of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these
allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the
statutory requirements for initiation.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 1-3, 14-15, 18-47 and
Exhibits GEN-1, GEN-2, GEN-5, GEN-6, GEN-10, GEN-12--GEN-15, GEN-
19--GEN-26, GEN-30, GEN-31, and GEN-33.
\26\ See Kazakhstan CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III,
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and
Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions
Covering Titanium Sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of CVD Investigation
Based on the examination of the CVD Petition, we find that the
Petition meets the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Based on our
review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to
initiate a CVD investigation on three of the four alleged programs in
Kazakhstan. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to
initiate or not initiate on each program, see the Kazakhstan CVD
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for
this investigation is available on ACCESS.
Therefore, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine
whether imports of titanium sponge from Kazakhstan benefit from
countervailable subsidies conferred by the Government of Kazakhstan. In
accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1),
unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later
than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous
amendments to the AD and CVD laws were made.\27\ The 2015 law does not
specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015,
the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced
the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for
amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to
determinations of material injury by the ITC.\28\ The amendments to
sections 776 and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations
made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to this CVD
investigation.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law
114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
\28\ See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension
Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice).
The 2015 amendments may be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
\29\ See Applicability Notice, 80 FR, at 46794-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary
determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
Respondent Selection
Based on information from independent sources, the petitioner named
one company as a producer/exporter of titanium sponge in
Kazakhstan.\30\ Although the Department normally relies on the number
of producers/exporters identified in the petition and/or import data
from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to determine whether to
select a limited number of producers/exporters for individual
examination in a CVD investigation, the petitioner identified only one
company as a producer/exporter of titanium sponge in Kazakhstan: Ust-
Kamenogorsk Titanium Magnesium Plant JSC (UKTMP). We currently know of
no additional producers/exporters of merchandise under consideration
from Kazakhstan and the petitioner provided information from
independent sources as support.\31\ Accordingly, the Department intends
to examine the sole producer/exporter in this investigation for
Kazakhstan (i.e., the company cited above). Parties wishing to comment
on respondent selection for Kazakhstan must do so within five days of
the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Any such
comments must be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the due date,
and must be filed electronically via ACCESS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Petition, Volume I at 13; see also Kazakhstan CVD
Supplement, at 1.
\31\ See Petition, Volume I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been
provided to the GOK via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will
attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each
exporter named in the Petition, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
702(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date
on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable
indication that imports of titanium sponge from Kazakhstan are
materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S.
industry.\32\ A negative ITC determination will result in the
investigation being terminated.\33\ Otherwise, this investigation will
proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See section 703(a)(2) of the Act.
\33\ See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of Factual Information
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i)
Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence
submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available
information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence
placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than
factual information described in (i)-(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires
any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which
subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
\34\ and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct
factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation
identifying the information already on the record that the factual
information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.\35\ Time
[[Page 43939]]
limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19
CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of
factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review
the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
\35\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extensions of Time Limits
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the
expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as
otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request
will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the
time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are
due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be
considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date.
Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time
limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for
submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such
a case, we will inform parties in a letter or memorandum setting forth
the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests
must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be
made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances
we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits.
Parties should review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790
(September 20, 2013), available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information
in this investigation.
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\36\
Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR
351.303(g).\37\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if
the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised
certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\37\ See also Certification of Factual Information to Import
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule). Answers to
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule are available at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the
Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should
ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the
filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and
777(i) of the Act.
Dated: September 13, 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
Scope of the Investigation
The product covered by this investigation is all forms and
grades of titanium sponge, except as specified below. Titanium
sponge is unwrought titanium metal that has not been melted.
Expressly excluded from the scope of this investigation are:
(1) Loose particles of unwrought titanium metal having a
particle size of less than 20 mesh (0.84 mm);
(2) alloyed or unalloyed briquettes of unwrought titanium metal
that contain more than 0.2% oxygen on a dry weight basis; and
(3) ultra[hyphen]high purity titanium sponge. In
ultra[hyphen]high purity titanium sponge, metallic impurities do not
exceed any of these amounts:
WT %
Aluminum 0.0005
Chromium 0.0001
Cobalt 0.0001
Copper 0.0002
Iron 0.0300
Manganese 0.0010
Nickel 0.0002
Vanadium 0.0002
Zirconium 0.0005
Carbon 0.0150
Hydrogen 0.0100
Nitrogen 0.0020
Oxygen 0.1000
Titanium sponge is currently classified under subheading
8108.20.0010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS). The HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and
customs purposes; the written description of the scope of this
investigation is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2017-20029 Filed 9-19-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
