82 FR 43939 - Titanium Sponge From Japan and Kazakhstan: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 181 (September 20, 2017)

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43939-43944]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20028]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588-877, A-834-809]


Titanium Sponge From Japan and Kazakhstan: Initiation of Less-
Than-Fair-Value Investigations

AGENCY: 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: 

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

[[Page 43940]]

revised scope language on September 11, 2017.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 Duties on Titanium 
Sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan: TIMET Response to Supplemental 
General Questions;'' (August 31, 2017) (General Issues Supplement); 
see also ``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 
Titanium Sponge from Japan: TIMET Response to Supplemental 
Questionnaire;'' (Japan AD Supplement) and ``Petition for the 
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Titanium Sponge from Kazakhstan: 
TIMET Response to Supplemental Questionnaire.'' (Kazakhstan AD 
Supplement). Each of these documents is dated August 31, 2017; see 
also Letter from the petitioner, ``Petition for the Imposition of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Titanium Sponge from Japan 
and Kazakhstan: TIMET Response to September 6, 2017,'' dated 
September 7, 2017 (Second Supplement); see also Letter from the 
petitioner, ``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties on Titanium Sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan: 
TIMET Rsponse to September 8, 2017 Supplemental Questions, dated 
Septeber (Second General Issues Supplement).
    \5\ See Second General Issues Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of titanium 
sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan are being, or are likely to be, sold 
in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of 
section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, 
or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing 
titanium sponge in the United States. Also, consistent with section 
732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information 
reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.
    The Department finds that the petitioner filed these Petitions 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 AD investigations that the petitioner 
is requesting.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the 
Petitions'' section, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    Because the Petitions were filed on August 24, 2017, the period of 
investigation (POI) for these investigations is July 1, 2016, through 
June 30, 2017.

Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is titanium sponge from 
Japan and Kazakhstan. For a full description of the scope of these 
investigations, see the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in the 
Appendix to this notice.

Comments on Scope of the Investigations

    During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions 
to, and received responses from, the petitioner pertaining to the 
proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would 
be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic 
industry is seeking relief.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Second General Issues Questionnaire; see also Second 
General Issues Supplement, at Attachment 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).\8\ The Department will consider all 
comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will 
consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the 
preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual 
information,\9\ 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.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
    \9\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ``factual 
information'').
    \10\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 titanium sponge 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires

    The Department will provide interested parties an opportunity to 
comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of titanium sponge 
to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This 
information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics 
of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant 
costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate 
product-comparison criteria.
    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that 
they believe are relevant to the development of an accurate list of 
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to 
which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product 
characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is 
not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-
comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful 
commercial differences among products. In other words, although there 
may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers 
to describe titanium sponge, it may be that only a select few product 
characteristics are commercially meaningful physical characteristics. 
In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the 
physical characteristics should be used in matching products. 
Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical 
characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.
    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in 
developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all

[[Page 43941]]

product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on 
October 3, 2017. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on 
October 13, 2017. All comments and submissions to the Department must 
be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the 
records of the Japan and Kazakhstan less-than-fair-value 
investigations.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support 
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of 
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of 
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, 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,\12\ 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.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \13\ 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 investigations. 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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as 
applied to these cases and information regarding industry support, 
see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Titanium 
Sponge from Japan (Japan AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, 
``Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Titanium Sponge from Japan 
and Kazakhstan;'' see also Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation 
Checklist: Titanium Sponge from Kazakhstan (Kazakhstan AD Initiation 
Checklist), at Attachment II, ``Analysis of Industry Support for the 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Titanium 
Sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan.'' These checklists are 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 
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product 
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in the Appendix to 
this notice. 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.\15\ We relied on data the petitioner provided for purposes of 
measuring industry support.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 6-7 and Exhibit GEN-20.
    \16\ Id. For further discussion, see Japan AD Initiation 
Checklist and Kazakhstan AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the data provided in the Petitions and other 
information readily available to the Department indicates that the 
petitioner has established industry support for the Petitions.\17\ 
First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or 
workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of 
the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required 
to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., 
polling).\18\ Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the 
statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) 
of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the 
Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of 
the domestic like product.\19\ Finally, the domestic producers (or 
workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under 
section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or 
workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of 
the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of 
the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the 
Petitions.\20\ Accordingly, the Department determines that the 
Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the 
meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Japan AD Initiation Checklist and Kazakhstan AD 
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \18\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Japan AD 
Initiation Checklist and Kazakhstan AD Initiation Checklist, at 
Attachment II.
    \19\ See Japan AD Initiation Checklist and Kazakhstan AD 
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions 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 AD 
investigations that it is requesting the Department to initiate.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the 
domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened 
with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject 
merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the 
petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility 
threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Volume I of the Petitions, 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;

[[Page 43942]]

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.\23\ 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.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Volume I of the Petitions, 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.
    \24\ See Japan AD 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 (Attachment III); 
and Kazakhstan AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate AD investigations of imports of titanium sponge from Japan and 
Kazakhstan. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments 
relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the 
country-specific initiation checklists.

Export Price

    For Japan, the petitioner based U.S. export prices (EPs) on price 
quotes for sales of titanium sponge produced in, and exported from, 
Japan and offered for sale in the United States, and on average unit 
values (AUVs) obtained from official import statistics.\25\ For 
Kazakhstan, the petitioner based U.S. EP on an AUV obtained from 
official import statistics.\26\ Where applicable, the petitioner made 
deductions from U.S. price for movement expenses.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Japan AD Initiation Checklist.
    \26\ See Kazakhstan AD Initiation Checklist.
    \27\ See Japan AD Initiation Checklist; and Kazakhstan AD 
Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    The petitioner was unable to obtain any prices of sales (or offers 
for sale) of titanium sponge in Kazakhstan.\28\ Additionally, although 
the petitioner was able to obtain a range of titanium sponge prices in 
Japan during the 2017 fiscal year from the publication Nihon Keizai 
Shimbun, the petitioner provided evidence indicating that these prices 
may be based on affiliated-party sales and thus may not be arm's length 
prices.\29\ As a result, the petitioner contends that these home market 
prices are not usable for determining normal value.\30\ Furthermore, 
for both Japan and Kazakhstan, the petitioner stated that it was unable 
to find usable third-country titanium sponge prices.\31\ Therefore, for 
both Japan and Kazakhstan, the petitioner based NV on constructed value 
(CV). For further discussion of the cost of production (COP) and NV 
based on CV, see the section ``Normal Value Based on Constructed 
Value'' below.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The petitioner cited a newspaper article which quotes the 
President of Ust-Kamenogorsk Titanium Magnesium Plant JSC (UKTMP) 
(the sole producer of titanium sponge in Kazakhstan according to the 
petitioner) as saying ``100% of UKTMP products are exported. . .'' 
See Kazakhstan AD Supplement, at 2-3 and Exhibit B.
    \29\ See Volume II-a of the Petitions, at 6-8; see also Japan AD 
Supplement at 3-4.; see also Japan Second Supplement, at 1.
    \30\ See Japan Second Supplement, at 1.
    \31\ See Japan Second Supplement, at 1-2.
    \32\ In accordance with section 505(a) of the Trade Preferences 
Extension Act of 2015, amending section 773(b)(2) of the Act, for 
all of the investigations, the Department will request information 
necessary to calculate the CV and COP to determine whether there are 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign 
like product have been made at prices that represent less than the 
COP of the product. The Department no longer requires a COP 
allegation to conduct this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the cost of 
manufacturing (COM), selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) 
expenses, financial expenses, and profit. The petitioner determined the 
COM of titanium sponge by adding together the costs of raw materials, 
labor, maintenance, electricity, other supplies, and factory overhead, 
as applicable, incurred by the petitioner, adjusted, where possible, 
for known differences from costs in Japan and Kazakhstan during a 
contemporaneous period to the POI. Specifically, the petitioner 
adjusted for known differences in costs by using publicly available 
labor and energy rates for Japan and Kazakhstan. The petitioner based 
prices for raw materials, maintenance, other supplies and factory 
overhead on the petitioner's own costs as such costs in Japan and 
Kazakhstan were not reasonably available to the petitioner. The 
petitioner calculated SG&A expenses, financial expense, and profit 
based on the experience of Japanese and Kazakh producers of identical 
merchandise.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Japan AD Initiation Checklist and Kazakhstan AD 
Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to 
believe that imports of titanium sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan are 
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair 
value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 
and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for titanium sponge 
from Japan and Kazakhstan are as follows: Japan--69.69% to 95.20% 
percent; \34\ and Kazakhstan--42.22%.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Japan AD Initiation Checklist. The petitioner also 
calculated margins based on a comparison between EP and the home 
market prices. However, because the petitioner contends that the 
home market prices are not usable for purposes of determining normal 
value, we have relied on the estimated dumping margins based on the 
comparison between EP and CV for purposes of the initiation.
    \35\ See Kazakhstan AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations

    Based upon our examination of the AD Petitions, we find that the 
Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, 
we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of 
titanium sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan are being, or are likely to 
be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance 
with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless 
postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations in these 
investigations no later than 140 days after the date of this 
initiation. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to 
initiate or not initiate on each program, see the Japan AD Initiation 
Checklist and Kazakhstan AD Initiation Checklist. Public versions of 
the initiation checklists for these investigations are available on 
ACCESS.
    Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous 
amendments to the AD and CVD law were made.\36\ 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.\37\ The amendments to 
sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are applicable to all 
determinations made on or after

[[Page 43943]]

August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to these AD investigations.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 
114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
    \37\ 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).
    \38\ Id. at 46794-95. The 2015 amendments may be found at 
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Respondent Selection

    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 AD 
investigations, the petitioner identified only two companies as 
producers/exporters of titanium sponge from Japan: Osaka Titanium 
Technologies Co., Ltd. and Toho Titanium Company., Ltd.; and one 
company as a producer/exporter of titanium sponge form Kazakhstan: 
UKTMP. We currently know of no additional producers/exporters of the 
merchandise under consideration from Japan or Kazakhstan and the 
petitioner provided information from an independent source as support 
for its claim that there are only two producers/exporters or titanium 
sponge in Japan and only one producer/exporter or titanium sponge in 
Kazakhstan.\39\ Accordingly, the Department intends to examine the 
producers/exporters identified in the Petitions for these 
investigations. Parties wishing to comment on respondent selection 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit GEN-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been 
provided to the governments of Japan and Kazakhstan via ACCESS. To the 
extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public 
version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as 
provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

    We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date 
on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of titanium sponge from Japan and/or Kazakhstan 
are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. 
industry. A negative ITC determination for any country will result in 
the investigation being terminated with respect to that country. 
Otherwise, these investigations 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 
\40\ 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.\41\ Time limits for 
the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, 
which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual 
information being submitted. Interested parties should review the 
regulations prior to submitting factual information in these 
investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
    \41\ 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 http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information 
in these investigations.

Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding 
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\42\ 
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are 
in effect for company/government officials, as well as their 
representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions 
filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD 
proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the 
formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final 
Rule.\43\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the 
submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \43\ See Certification of Factual Information to Import 
Administration during Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also 
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at 
http://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 these investigations 
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 732(c)(2) 
and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).


[[Page 43944]]


    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 Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations 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 these investigations 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 these 
investigations is dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2017-20028 Filed 9-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P