83 FR 58529 - Magnesium From Israel: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 224 (November 20, 2018)

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58529-58532]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25293]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-508-813]


Magnesium From Israel: Initiation of Countervailing Duty 
Investigation

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

DATES: Applicable November 13, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lana Nigro at (202) 482-1779 or Ethan 
Talbott at (202) 482-1030, 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 October 24, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) 
received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of 
magnesium from Israel, filed in proper form on behalf of US Magnesium 
LLC (the petitioner), a domestic producer of magnesium.\1\ The CVD 
Petition was accompanied by an antidumping (AD) Petition concerning 
imports of magnesium imports from Israel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the petitioner's Letter, ``Petitions for the Imposition 
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Magnesium 
from Israel,'' dated October 24, 2018 (Petition).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 26 and 29, 2018, and November 5 and 7, 2018, Commerce 
requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the 
Petition in four separate supplemental questionnaires, two addressing 
Volume I of the Petition and two addressing Volume II of the Petition 
(i.e., the CVD allegation).\2\ The petitioner filed responses to these 
requests on October 30 and 31, 2018, and November 6 and 9, 2018.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Commerce Letters, ``Petition for the Imposition of 
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Magnesium from Israel: 
Supplemental Questions,'' dated October 26, 2018, ``Petition for the 
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Magnesium from 
Israel: Supplemental Questions,'' dated October 29, 2018, 
Memorandum, ``RE: Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Magnesium from Israel--Phone 
Call with Counsel to the Petitioner,'' dated November 5, 2018, and 
``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of 
Magnesium from Israel: Supplemental Questions,'' dated November 7, 
2018.
    \3\ See the petitioner's letters, ``Magnesium from Israel/
Responses to Supplemental Questions on the Countervailing Duty 
Volume of the Petition'' dated October 30, 2018 (CVD Supplement), 
``Magnesium from Israel/Petitioner's Response to the Department's 
Questions Regarding the General Issues Volume of the Petition'' 
dated October 31, 2018 (General Issues Supplement), ``Magnesium from 
Israel/Petitioner's Response to the Department's November 5, 2018 
Request,'' dated November 6, 2018 (Second General Issues 
Supplement), and ``Magnesium from Israel/Responses to Second 
Supplemental Questions on the Countervailing Duty Volume of the 
Petition,'' dated November 9, 2018 (Second CVD Supplemental).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Government of Israel 
(GOI) is providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of 
sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of magnesium in Israel 
and that imports of such products are materially injuring, or 
threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing 
magnesium in the United States. Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we 
are initiating a CVD investigation, the Petition is accompanied by 
information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting their 
allegations.
    Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of 
the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as 
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the 
petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the 
initiation of the requested CVD investigation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the 
Petition'' section, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    Because the Petition was filed on October 24, 2018, the period of 
investigation is January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.

Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is magnesium from Israel. 
For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the 
Appendix to this notice.

Scope Comments

    During our review of the Petition, Commerce contacted the 
petitioner regarding the proposed scope language to ensure that the 
scope language in the Petition is an accurate reflection of the 
products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.\5\ As a 
result of the petitioner's submission, the scope of the Petition was 
modified to clarify the description of merchandise covered by the 
Petition. The description of the merchandise covered by this 
initiation, as described in the Appendix to this notice, reflects these 
clarifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See General Issues Supplement, at 1-4 and Exhibit I-S-8; see 
also Second General Issues Supplement at, 2 and Exhibit I-S14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are 
setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding 
product coverage (scope).\6\ Commerce will consider all comments 
received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with 
interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary 
determination. If scope comments include factual information,\7\ all 
such factual information should be limited to public information. To 
facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that 
all interested parties submit scope comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time 
(ET) on December 3, 2018, 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 December 13, 2018.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
    \7\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ``factual 
information'').
    \8\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b). Rebuttal comments are normally due 10 
days after the comment deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commerce requests that any factual information parties consider 
relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this 
period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual 
information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be 
relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to 
submit the additional information. All such submissions must be filed 
on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

Filing Requirements

    All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using 
Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty 
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).\9\

[[Page 58530]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order 
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and 
Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 
(November 20, 2014) for details of Commerce's electronic filing 
requirements, effective August 5, 2011. Information on 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, Commerce 
notified representatives of the GOI of the receipt of the Petition and 
provided them the opportunity for consultations with respect to the CVD 
Petition.\10\ Commerce held consultations with the GOI on November 9, 
2018.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Commerce letter, ``Countervailing Duty Petition on 
Magnesium from Israel,'' dated October 25, 2018.
    \11\ See Memorandum, ``Consultations with Officials from the 
Government of Israel Regarding the Countervailing Duty Petition 
Concerning Magnesium from Israel,'' dated November 9, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, Commerce shall: (i) 
Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if 
there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or 
(ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling 
method to poll the ``industry.''
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers, as a whole, of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine 
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute 
directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the 
domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which 
is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has 
been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like 
product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the 
ITC 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, Commerce's determination 
is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may 
result in different definitions of the like product, such differences 
do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.\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 the 
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.\14\ Based on our analysis of the information 
submitted on the record, we have determined that magnesium, as defined 
in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product, and we have 
analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 11-17; see also General 
Issues Supplement, at 1 and Exhibits S-1 through S-7.
    \15\ 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: Magnesium 
from Israel (Israel CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, 
Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Petitions Covering Magnesium from Israel (Attachment II). This 
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. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its 
own production of the domestic like product in 2017.\16\ The petitioner 
also provided letters of support from MagPro LLC and Advanced Magnesium 
Alloys Corporation, providing each company's 2017 production of the 
domestic like product and stating each company's support for the 
Petition.\17\ In addition, the petitioner provided a letter of support 
from the United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, 
Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, which 
represents workers employed in the production of the domestic like 
product at the petitioner's plant in Rowley, UT (Local 8319).\18\ The 
petitioner compared the production of the supporters of the Petition to 
the estimated total production of the domestic like product for the 
entire domestic industry.\19\ We relied on data provided by the 
petitioner for purposes of measuring industry support.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 2 and Exhibits I-5 and I-
6; see also General Issues Supplement, at 7-8 and Exhibit I-S13.
    \17\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 1-2 and Exhibits I-3 and 
I-4.
    \18\ Id. at 1 and Exhibit I-2.
    \19\ Id. at 2-3 and Exhibits I-5 and I-6; see also General 
Issues Supplement, at 6-8 and Exhibits I-S12 and I-S13.
    \20\ Id. For further discussion, see Israel CVD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the General Issues 
Supplement, the Second General Issues Supplement, and other information 
readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has 
established industry support for the Petition.\21\ 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, Commerce is not required to take further action 
in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).\22\ 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.\23\ 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

[[Page 58531]]

expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Id.; see also section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act.
    \23\ See Israel CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of 
the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in 
sections 732(b)(1) and 771(9)(C) of the Act, and it has demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that 
it is requesting that Commerce initiate.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Injury Test

    Because Israel is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the 
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 Israel 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.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 21 and Exhibit I-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by the significant volume and increasing market share of 
subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price 
depression or suppression; declines in capacity, production, U.S. 
shipments, and capacity utilization; decline in employment variables; 
decline in the domestic industry's financial performance; and lost 
sales and revenues.\27\ We have assessed the allegations and supporting 
evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and 
causation, and determined that these allegations are properly supported 
by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for 
initiation.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id. at 18-30 and Exhibits I-5, I-6, I-10, I-12, I-14, and 
I-15.
    \28\ See Israel CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, 
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and 
Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions 
Covering Magnesium from Israel (Attachment III).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of CVD Investigation

    Based on the examination of the Petition, we find that the Petition 
meets the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we are 
initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether imports of 
magnesium from Israel benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred 
by the GOI. 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.
    Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on each of the 
subsidy programs alleged in the Petition, with certain limitations. For 
a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each 
program, see Israel CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the 
initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS.

Respondent Selection

    Although Commerce normally relies on import data from using United 
States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) import statistics to 
determine whether to select a limited number of producers/exporters for 
individual examination in CVD investigations, the petitioner identified 
only one company in Israel, i.e., Dead Sea Magnesium, Ltd., as a 
producer/exporter of magnesium and provided independent, third-party 
information as support.\29\ The petitioner developed this list using 
ship manifest data published by CBP's Automated Manifest System and 
supported it with independent, third-party information.\30\ We 
currently know of no additional producers/exporters of magnesium from 
Israel. Accordingly, Commerce intends to examine all known producers/
exporters (i.e., DSM). We invite interested parties to comment on this 
issue. Such comments may include factual information within the meaning 
of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21). Parties wishing to comment must do so within 
three business days of the publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register. Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An 
electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its 
entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. ET 
by the specified deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Volume I of the Petition, at Exhibits I-8 and I-12, 
Volume III of the Petition, at Exhibit III-2 (ship manifest data 
published by CBP's Automated Manifest System), and General Issues 
Supplement at 1.
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), copies of the public versions of the Petition have been 
provided to the GOI 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 Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date 
on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of magnesium from Israel are materially 
injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.\31\ A 
negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being 
terminated.\32\ Otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to 
statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See section 703(a)(2) of the Act.
    \32\ 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 Commerce; 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 
\33\ 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.\34\ 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 this 
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
    \34\ 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

[[Page 58532]]

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 the 
letter or memorandum of the deadline (including a specified time) by 
which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An 
extension request must be made in a separate, 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 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.\35\ 
Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 
351.303(g).\36\ Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the 
submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \36\ 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, Commerce 
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 and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

    Dated: November 13, 2018.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the 
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix

Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are primary and 
secondary pure and alloy magnesium metal, regardless of chemistry, 
raw material source, form, shape, or size (including, without 
limitation, magnesium cast into ingots, slabs, t-bars, rounds, sows, 
billets, and other shapes, and magnesium ground, chipped, crushed, 
or machined into raspings, granules, turnings, chips, powder, 
briquettes, and any other shapes). Magnesium is a metal or alloy 
containing at least 50 percent by actual weight the element 
magnesium. Primary magnesium is produced by decomposing raw 
materials into magnesium metal. Secondary magnesium is produced by 
recycling magnesium-based scrap into magnesium metal. The magnesium 
covered by this investigation also includes blends of primary 
magnesium, scrap, and secondary magnesium.
    The subject merchandise includes the following pure and alloy 
magnesium metal products made from primary and/or secondary 
magnesium: (1) Products that contain at least 99.95 percent 
magnesium, by actual weight (generally referred to as ``ultra-pure'' 
or ``high purity'' magnesium); (2) products that contain less than 
99.95 percent but not less than 99.8 percent magnesium, by actual 
weight (generally referred to as ``pure'' magnesium); and (3) 
chemical combinations of magnesium and other material(s) in which 
the magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 
percent, by actual weight, whether or not conforming to an ``ASTM 
Specification for Magnesium Alloy.''
    The scope of this investigation excludes mixtures containing 90 
percent or less magnesium in granular or powder form by actual 
weight and one or more of certain non-magnesium granular materials 
to make magnesium-based reagent mixtures, including lime, calcium 
metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide, calcium carbonate, carbon, 
slag coagulants, fluorspar, nepheline syenite, feldspar, alumina 
(A1203), calcium aluminate, soda ash, hydrocarbons, graphite, coke, 
silicon, rare earth metals/mischmetal, cryolite, silica/fly ash, 
magnesium oxide, periclase, ferroalloys, dolomite lime, and 
colemanite.
    The merchandise subject to this investigation is classifiable 
under items 8104.11.0000, 8104.19.0000, and 8104.30.0000 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although 
the HTSUS items are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
the written description of the merchandise under investigation is 
dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2018-25293 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P