83 FR 58533 - Magnesium From Israel: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value 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 58533-58538]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25300]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-508-812]


Magnesium From Israel: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value 
Investigation

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

DATES: Applicable November 13, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Hansen at (202) 482-3683 or 
Minoo Hatten (202) 482-1690; 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 an antidumping duty (AD) 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 AD 
Petition was accompanied by a countervailing duty (CVD) Petition 
concerning imports of magnesium from Israel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    On October 29, 2018, and November 5, 2018, Commerce requested 
supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petition 
in three separate supplemental questionnaires, two addressing Volume I 
of the Petition and the other addressing Volume III of the Petition 
(i.e., the AD allegation).\2\ The petitioner filed its responses to the 
supplemental questionnaires on October

[[Page 58534]]

31, 2018, and November 2, 2018, and November 6, 2018.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Commerce Letters, ``Re: Petition for the Imposition of 
Antidumping Duties on Imports of Magnesium from Israel: Supplemental 
Questions,'' dated October 29, 2018, ``Re: Petitions for the 
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of 
Magnesium from Israel: Supplemental Questions,'' dated October 29, 
2018, and 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.
    \3\ See the petitioner's Letters, ``Re: 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), ``Re: Magnesium from Israel/
Petitioner's Response to the Department's Questions Regarding the 
Petition Volume III (Antidumping),'' dated November 2, 2018 (AD 
Issues Supplement), and ``Re: Magnesium from Israel/Petitioner's 
Response to the Department's November 5, 2018 Request,'' dated 
November 6, 2018 (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 magnesium 
from Israel are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States 
at less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 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 magnesium in the 
United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the 
Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the 
petitioner supporting its allegation.
    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 AD 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, pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 
2017, through September 30, 2018.

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, 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-S8; 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, which 
is 10 calendar days from the initial comments deadline.\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Product Characteristics

    Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment 
on the appropriate physical characteristics of magnesium to be reported 
in response to Commerce's AD questionnaire. This information will be 
used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject 
merchandise in order to develop appropriate product-comparison 
criteria.
    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that 
they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of 
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to 
which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product 
characteristics, and (2) 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 magnesium, it may be that only a select few product 
characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical 
characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the 
order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching 
products. Generally, Commerce 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 product 
characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on December 3, 
2018, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this 
notice.\10\ Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on 
December 13, 2018. All comments and submissions to Commerce must be 
filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of 
the AD investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets

[[Page 58535]]

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, 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,\11\ 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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \12\ 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 Petition.\13\ 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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 11-17; see also General 
Issues Supplement, at 1 and Exhibits S-1 through S-7.
    \14\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as 
applied to this case and information regarding industry support, see 
``Enforcement and Compliance Office of AD/CVD Operations Antidumping 
Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Magnesium from Israel'' (AD 
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, and hereby adopted by, 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 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.\15\ 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.\16\ 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).\17\ 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.\18\ We relied on data provided by the 
petitioner for purposes of measuring industry support.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 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.
    \16\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 1-2 and Exhibits I-3 and 
I-4.
    \17\ Id. at 1 and Exhibit I-2.
    \18\ 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.
    \19\ Id. For further discussion, see AD 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.\20\ 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).\21\ Second, the 
domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for 
industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the 
domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at 
least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like 
product.\22\ Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the 
statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) 
of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the 
Petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the 
domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry 
expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \21\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \22\ See AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \23\ 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 AD investigation that 
it is requesting that Commerce initiate.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 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.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 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

[[Page 58536]]

employment variables; decline in the domestic industry's financial 
performance; and lost sales and revenues.\26\ 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.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id. at 18-30 and Exhibits I-5, I-6, I-10, I-12, I-14, and 
I-15.
    \27\ See AD 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations of Sales at LTFV

    The following is a description of the allegation of sales at LTFV 
upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate an AD investigation 
of imports of magnesium from Israel. The sources of data for the 
deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed 
in greater detail in the AD Initiation Checklist.

Export Price

    The petitioner based U.S. export price (EP) on the delivered prices 
for actual sales and/or offers for sale of magnesium produced in Israel 
by Dead Sea Magnesium, Ltd. (DSM) to unaffiliated customers in the 
United States.\28\ Where appropriate, the petitioner made deductions 
from U.S. price for U.S. inland freight from warehouse to customer, 
U.S. warehousing charges, U.S. inland freight from port to warehouse, 
U.S. brokerage and handling charges, ocean freight and insurance, 
Israeli brokerage and handling, and Israeli inland freight.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Volume III of the Petition at 6 and Exhibit III-8.
    \29\ See Volume III of the Petition, at 6-7 and Exhibits III-10 
through III-12; see also AD Issues Supplement, at 1-3 and Exhibits 
III-S2, III-S3 and III-S9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    The petitioner contends that the Israeli home market is not viable, 
because the domestic consumption of magnesium in Israel is estimated to 
be minimal due to the lack of manufacturing assets in the magnesium 
consuming industries, and therefore, home market prices would not be an 
appropriate basis for NV.\30\ The petitioner provided information 
indicating that the third-country prices were below the cost of 
production (COP), and therefore, the petitioner based NV on constructed 
value (CV).\31\ The petitioner based NV on the average unit values 
(AUVs) of Brazilian imports of magnesium from Israel.\32\ The 
petitioner made deductions for Israeli brokerage and handling and 
inland freight.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Volume III of the Petition, at 3; see also AD Issues 
Supplement, at 4.
    \31\ See AD Initiation Checklist.
    \32\ See Volume III of the Petition, at 4 and Exhibit III-6.
    \33\ See Volume III of the Petition, at 4 and Exhibit III-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, CV consists of the cost 
of manufacturing; selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses; 
financial expenses; profit; and packing expenses.
    The petitioner based its usage rates on its own production 
experience as a U.S. producer of magnesium, for January 2017 through 
December 2017, and from DSM-specific information contained in a 2013 
third-party report entitled ``Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Magnesium 
in Vehicle Construction,'' which was initiated by the International 
Magnesium Association (IMA LCA Study). The petitioner valued the 
material, labor, and energy inputs indicated in the IMA LCA Study based 
on the petitioner's experience or based on the applicable per-unit 
values in Israel.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner relied on the 2017 financial statements of DSM's 
parent, Israel Chemicals, Ltd. (ICL), to determine the per-unit factory 
overhead costs associated with the production of magnesium.\35\ The 
petitioner also relied on the 2017 ICL financial statements to 
determine the SG&A expense ratio used to calculate the per-unit SG&A 
expenses and the financial expense ratio \36\ used to calculate the 
per-unit financial expenses.\37\ The petitioner calculated profit for 
CV based on the segmented financial results published in ICL's 2017 
financial statements.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Id.
    \36\ See AD Initiation Checklist.
    \37\ Id.
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to 
believe that imports of magnesium from Israel are being, or are likely 
to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on 
comparisons of EP to CV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the 
Act, the estimated dumping margins for magnesium covered by this 
initiation range from 92.06 percent to 130.61 percent.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of LTFV Investigation

    Based upon the examination of the Petition, we find that the 
Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, 
we are initiating an AD investigation to determine whether imports of 
magnesium from Israel are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 
United States at LTFV. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our 
preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of this 
initiation.

Respondent Selection

    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 AD 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.\40\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petition have been 
provided to the government of Israel 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 
732(d) of the Act.

[[Page 58537]]

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.\41\ A 
negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being 
terminated.\42\ Otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to 
statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See section 733(a) of the Act.
    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's 
regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to 
specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information 
is being submitted \43\ 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.\44\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
    \44\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Particular Market Situation Allegation

    Section 504 of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 amended 
the Act by adding the concept of particular market situation (PMS) for 
purposes of constructed value (CV) under section 773(e) of the Act.\45\ 
Section 773(e) of the Act states that ``if a particular market 
situation exists such that the cost of materials and fabrication or 
other processing of any kind does not accurately reflect the cost of 
production in the ordinary course of trade, the administering authority 
may use another calculation methodology under this subtitle or any 
other calculation methodology.'' When an interested party submits a PMS 
allegation pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce will respond 
to such a submission consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v). If 
Commerce finds that a PMS exists under section 773(e) of the Act, then 
it will modify its dumping calculations appropriately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 
114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Neither section 773(e) of the Act nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v) set a 
deadline for the submission of PMS allegations and supporting factual 
information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, 
Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual 
information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should 
an interested party wish to submit a PMS allegation and supporting new 
factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do 
so no later than 20 days after submission of a respondent's initial 
Section D questionnaire response.

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 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.\46\ 
Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 
351.303(g).\47\ Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the 
submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \47\ 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 
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 732(c)(2) 
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)

[[Page 58538]]

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. 2018-25300 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P