[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43936-43939]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20029]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-834-810]


Titanium Sponge From Kazakhstan: Initiation of Countervailing 
Duty Investigation

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


DATES: Applicable. September 13, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit Astvatsatrian at (202) 482-6412 
or Ariela Garvett at (202) 482-3609, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and 
Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petition

    On August 24, 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the 
Department) received a countervailing duty (CVD) Petition concerning 
imports of titanium sponge from Kazakhstan, filed in proper form on 
behalf of Titanium Metals Corporation (the petitioner). The CVD 
Petition was accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning 
imports of titanium sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan.\1\ The petitioner 
is a domestic producer of titanium sponge.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioner 
re: ``Titanium Sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan: Petition for the 
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties'' (August 24, 
2017) (the Petition).
    \2\ Id., Volume I of the Petition, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 30, 2017, the Department requested supplemental 
information pertaining to certain areas of the Petition.\3\ The 
petitioner filed responses to these requests on September 1, 2017.\4\ 
The petitioner filed revised scope language on September 11, 2017.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Letter from the Department, ``Petition for the 
Imposition of Countervailing and Antidumping Duties on Imports of 
Titanium Sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan: Supplemental Questions,'' 
dated August 30, 2017 (Kazakhstan CVD Supplemental Questionnaire).
    \4\ See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioner, 
re: ``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on 
Titanium Sponge from Kazakhstan: TIMET Response to Supplemental 
Questionnaire,'' (September 1, 2017) (Kazakhstan CVD Supplement).
    \5\ See Letter from the Department, ``Petitions for the 
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of 
Titanium Sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan: Supplemental Questions,'' 
dated September 8, 2017 (Second General Issues Supplemental 
Questionnaire).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Government of 
Kazakhstan (GOK) is providing countervailable subsidies, within the 
meaning of section 771(5) of the Act, to imports of titanium sponge 
from Kazakhstan, and that such imports are materially injuring, or 
threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing 
titanium sponge in the United States. Also, consistent with section 
702(b)(1) of the Act, for those alleged programs on which we are 
initiating a CVD investigation, the Petition is accompanied by 
information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its 
allegations.
    The Department finds that the petitioner filed this Petition on 
behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested 
party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also 
finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with 
respect to the initiation of the CVD investigation that the petitioner 
is requesting.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Period of Investigation

    Because the Petition was filed on August 24, 2017, the period of 
investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is titanium sponge from 
Kazakhstan. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, 
see the ``Scope of the Investigation,'' in the Appendix to this notice.

Comments on Scope of the Investigation

    During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions 
to, and received responses from, the petitioner pertaining to the 
proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would 
be an accurate reflection of the product for which the domestic 
industry is seeking relief.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Second General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire; see 
also Second General Issues Supplement, at Attachement D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we 
are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues 
regarding product coverage (scope).\9\ The Department will consider all 
comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will 
consult with the interested parties prior to the issuance of the 
preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual 
information,\10\ all such factual information should be limited to 
public information. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, 
the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments 
by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, which is 20 
calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal 
comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 
p.m. ET on Friday, October 13, 2017, which is 10 calendar days from the 
initial comments deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
    \10\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically 
using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing 
Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).\11\ An 
electronically

[[Page 43937]]

filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the 
time and date it is due. Documents exempted from the electronic 
submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) 
with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable 
deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order 
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and 
Compliance: Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 
(November 20, 2014) for details of the Department's electronic 
filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. 
Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx, and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations

    Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, the 
Department notified representatives of the GOK of the receipt of the 
Petition, and provided them the opportunity for consultations with 
respect to the CVD Petition.\12\ Consultations with Kazakhstan were 
held via conference call on September 7, 2017.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Letter to the Embassy of Kazakhstan, ``Countervailing 
Duty Petition on Titanium Sponge from Kazakhstan: Invitation for 
Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition'' (August 
28, 2017).
    \13\ See Memorandum, re: ``Consultations with Officials from the 
Government of Kazakhstan (GOK) Regarding the Countervailing Duty 
(CVD) Petition on Titanium Sponge from Kazakhstan'' (September 7, 
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support 
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of 
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of 
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department 
shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to 
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by 
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a 
statistically valid sampling method to poll the ``industry.''
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers, as a whole, of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine 
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute 
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the 
domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which 
is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has 
been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like 
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and 
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic 
like product,\14\ they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a 
separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's 
determination is subject to limitations of time and information. 
Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, 
such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary 
to law.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \15\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 
2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. 
Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in a 
petition).
    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not 
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope 
of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information 
submitted on the record, we have determined that titanium sponge, as 
defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product, and 
we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like 
product.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as 
applied to this case and information regarding industry support, see 
Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Titanium 
Sponge from Kazakhstan (Kazakhstan CVD Initiation Checklist), at 
Attachment II, ``Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Titanium Sponge from 
Japan and Kazakhstan.'' The checklist is dated concurrently with 
this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to 
documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records 
Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product 
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigation,'' in the Appendix to 
this notice. The petitioner provided its own 2016 production of the 
domestic like product, and compared this to the estimated total 
production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic 
industry.\17\ We relied on data the petitioner provided for purposes of 
measuring industry support.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 6-7 and Exhibit GEN-20.
    \18\ Id. For further discussion, see Kazakhstan CVD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the data provided in the Petition, General Issues 
Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department 
indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the 
Petition.\19\ First, the Petition established support from domestic 
producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total 
production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is 
not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry 
support (e.g., polling).\20\ Second, the domestic producers (or 
workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under 
section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or 
workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product.\21\ Finally, the 
domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for 
industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the 
domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for 
more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product 
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or 
opposition to, the Petition.\22\ Accordingly, the Department determines 
that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within 
the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Kazakhstan CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \20\ See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Kazakhstan 
CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \21\ See Kazakhstan CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on 
behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as 
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and that the petitioner has 
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD 
investigation that it is requesting the Department to initiate.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Injury Test

    Because Kazakhstan is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the

[[Page 43938]]

meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act 
applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine 
whether imports of the subject merchandise from Kazakhstan materially 
injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are 
benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are 
causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry 
producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioner 
alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold 
provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 24-25 and Exhibits GEN-5 
and GEN-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share; displacement of U.S. production by 
subject imports; underselling and price suppression or depression; 
decline in production, capacity utilization, hours worked, and earnings 
before interest and taxes; lost sales and revenues; and decline in 
pricing for downstream titanium products.\25\ We have assessed the 
allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat 
of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these 
allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the 
statutory requirements for initiation.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 1-3, 14-15, 18-47 and 
Exhibits GEN-1, GEN-2, GEN-5, GEN-6, GEN-10, GEN-12--GEN-15, GEN-
19--GEN-26, GEN-30, GEN-31, and GEN-33.
    \26\ See Kazakhstan CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, 
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and 
Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions 
Covering Titanium Sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of CVD Investigation

    Based on the examination of the CVD Petition, we find that the 
Petition meets the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Based on our 
review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to 
initiate a CVD investigation on three of the four alleged programs in 
Kazakhstan. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to 
initiate or not initiate on each program, see the Kazakhstan CVD 
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for 
this investigation is available on ACCESS.
    Therefore, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine 
whether imports of titanium sponge from Kazakhstan benefit from 
countervailable subsidies conferred by the Government of Kazakhstan. In 
accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), 
unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later 
than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
    Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous 
amendments to the AD and CVD laws were made.\27\ The 2015 law does not 
specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, 
the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced 
the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for 
amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to 
determinations of material injury by the ITC.\28\ The amendments to 
sections 776 and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations 
made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to this CVD 
investigation.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 
114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
    \28\ See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension 
Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice). 
The 2015 amendments may be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
    \29\ See Applicability Notice, 80 FR, at 46794-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary 
determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.

Respondent Selection

    Based on information from independent sources, the petitioner named 
one company as a producer/exporter of titanium sponge in 
Kazakhstan.\30\ Although the Department normally relies on the number 
of producers/exporters identified in the petition and/or import data 
from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to determine whether to 
select a limited number of producers/exporters for individual 
examination in a CVD investigation, the petitioner identified only one 
company as a producer/exporter of titanium sponge in Kazakhstan: Ust-
Kamenogorsk Titanium Magnesium Plant JSC (UKTMP). We currently know of 
no additional producers/exporters of merchandise under consideration 
from Kazakhstan and the petitioner provided information from 
independent sources as support.\31\ Accordingly, the Department intends 
to examine the sole producer/exporter in this investigation for 
Kazakhstan (i.e., the company cited above). Parties wishing to comment 
on respondent selection for Kazakhstan must do so within five days of 
the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Any such 
comments must be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the due date, 
and must be filed electronically via ACCESS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Petition, Volume I at 13; see also Kazakhstan CVD 
Supplement, at 1.
    \31\ See Petition, Volume I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been 
provided to the GOK via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will 
attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each 
exporter named in the Petition, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

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

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date 
on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of titanium sponge from Kazakhstan are 
materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. 
industry.\32\ A negative ITC determination will result in the 
investigation being terminated.\33\ Otherwise, this investigation will 
proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See section 703(a)(2) of the Act.
    \33\ See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) 
Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence 
submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available 
information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the 
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence 
placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than 
factual information described in (i)-(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires 
any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which 
subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 
\34\ and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct 
factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation 
identifying the information already on the record that the factual 
information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.\35\ Time

[[Page 43939]]

limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 
CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of 
factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review 
the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this 
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
    \35\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extensions of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the 
expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as 
otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request 
will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the 
time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are 
due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be 
considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. 
Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time 
limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for 
submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such 
a case, we will inform parties in a letter or memorandum setting forth 
the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests 
must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be 
made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances 
we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. 
Parties should review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 
(September 20, 2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information 
in this investigation.

Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding 
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\36\ 
Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 
351.303(g).\37\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if 
the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised 
certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \37\ See also Certification of Factual Information to Import 
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule). Answers to 
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule are available at 
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 this investigation should 
ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the 
filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 
777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: September 13, 2017.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the 
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix

Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is all forms and 
grades of titanium sponge, except as specified below. Titanium 
sponge is unwrought titanium metal that has not been melted. 
Expressly excluded from the scope of this investigation are:
    (1) Loose particles of unwrought titanium metal having a 
particle size of less than 20 mesh (0.84 mm);
    (2) alloyed or unalloyed briquettes of unwrought titanium metal 
that contain more than 0.2% oxygen on a dry weight basis; and
    (3) ultra[hyphen]high purity titanium sponge. In 
ultra[hyphen]high purity titanium sponge, metallic impurities do not 
exceed any of these amounts:

WT %

Aluminum 0.0005
Chromium 0.0001
Cobalt 0.0001
Copper 0.0002
Iron 0.0300
Manganese 0.0010
Nickel 0.0002
Vanadium 0.0002
Zirconium 0.0005
Carbon 0.0150
Hydrogen 0.0100
Nitrogen 0.0020
Oxygen 0.1000

    Titanium sponge is currently classified under subheading 
8108.20.0010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). The HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and 
customs purposes; the written description of the scope of this 
investigation is dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2017-20029 Filed 9-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P