100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft From Canada: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation, 24296-24301 [2017-10733]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
24296
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 101 / Friday, May 26, 2017 / Notices
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 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. Review Extension of
Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790
(September 20, 2013), available at
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-201309-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to
submitting factual information in this
investigation.
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual
information in an AD or CVD
proceeding must certify to the accuracy
and completeness of that information.38
Parties are hereby reminded that revised
certification requirements are in effect
for company/government officials, as
well as their representatives.
Investigations initiated on the basis of
petitions filed on or after August 16,
2013, and other segments of any AD or
CVD proceedings initiated on or after
August 16, 2013, should use the formats
for the revised certifications provided at
the end of the Final Rule.39 The
Department intends to reject factual
submissions if the submitting party does
not comply with the applicable revised
certification requirements.
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under
Administrative Protective Order (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.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Dated: May 17, 2017.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance.
[A–122–859]
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this
investigation is aircraft, regardless of seating
configuration, that have a standard 100- to
150-seat two-class seating capacity and a
minimum 2,900 nautical mile range, as these
terms are defined below.
‘‘Standard 100- to 150-seat two-class
seating capacity’’ refers to the capacity to
accommodate 100 to 150 passengers, when
eight passenger seats are configured for a 36inch pitch, and the remaining passenger seats
are configured for a 32-inch pitch. ‘‘Pitch’’ is
the distance between a point on one seat and
the same point on the seat in front of it.
‘‘Standard 100- to 150-seat two-class
seating capacity’’ does not delineate the
number of seats actually in a subject aircraft
or the actual seating configuration of a
subject aircraft. Thus, the number of seats
actually in a subject aircraft may be below
100 or exceed 150.
A ‘‘minimum 2,900 nautical mile range’’
means:
(i) able to transport between 100 and 150
passengers and their luggage on routes equal
to or longer than 2,900 nautical miles; or
(ii) covered by a U.S. Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) type certificate or
supplemental type certificate that also covers
other aircraft with a minimum 2,900 nautical
mile range.
The scope includes all aircraft covered by
the description above, regardless of whether
they enter the United States fully or partially
assembled, and regardless of whether, at the
time of entry into the United States, they are
approved for use by the FAA.
The merchandise covered by this
investigation is currently classifiable under
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS) subheading 8802.40.0040.
The merchandise may alternatively be
classifiable under HTSUS subheading
8802.40.0090. Although these HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written
description of the scope of the investigation
is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2017–10957 Filed 5–25–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
section 782(b) of the Act.
39 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
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/
factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
19:14 May 25, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft
From Canada: Initiation of Less-ThanFair-Value Investigation
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective May 17, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karine Gziryan at (202) 482–4081 or
Lilit Astvatsatrian at (202) 482–6412,
AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement &
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
38 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
International Trade Administration
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The Petition
On April 27, 2017, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) received
antidumping duty (AD) and
countervailing duty (CVD) petitions
concerning imports of 100- to 150-seat
large civil aircraft (aircraft) from
Canada, filed in proper form, on behalf
of The Boeing Company (Boeing) (the
petitioner).1 The petitioner is a domestic
producer of aircraft.2
On May 2, 2017, the Department
requested additional information and
clarification of certain areas of the
Petition.3 The petitioner filed responses
to these requests on May 4, 2017.4 On
May 9, 2017, the petitioner filed an
additional amendment to the Petition.5
In accordance with section 732(b) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act), the petitioner alleges that imports
1 See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from
the petitioner ‘‘In the Matter of 100- To 150-Seat
Large Civil Aircraft from Canada—Petitions for the
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties’’ (April 27, 2017) (the Petition).
2 See Petition, at 26.
3 See Department Letter re: Petition for the
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of
100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada:
Supplemental Questions, dated May 2, 2017
(General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire); see
also Department Letter re: Petition for the
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of
100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada:
Supplemental Questions, dated May 2, 2017
(Antidumping Supplemental Questionnaire).
4 See Letter from the petitioner re: 100- to 150Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada—Petitioner’s
Response to AD Supplemental Questionnaire, dated
May 4, 2017 (Petition Supplement); see also Letter
from the petitioner re: 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil
Aircraft from Canada—Petitioner’s Response to
Supplemental Questions, dated May 2, 2017
(General Issues Supplement).
5 See Letter from the petitioner re: 100- to 150Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada—Proposed
Scope Clarification, dated May 9, 2017 (Scope
Clarification).
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 101 / Friday, May 26, 2017 / Notices
of aircraft from Canada are being, or are
likely to be, sold in the United States at
less-than-fair value within the meaning
of section 731 of the Act, and that such
imports are threatening material injury
to an industry in the United States.
Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1)
of the Act, the Petition is accompanied
by information that is 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 AD investigation that
the petitioner is requesting.6
Period of Investigation
Because the Petition was filed on
April 27, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.204(b)(1), the period of
investigation (POI) is April 1, 2016,
through March 31, 2017.
Scope of the Investigation
The product covered by this
investigation is aircraft from Canada.
For a full description of the scope of this
investigation, see the ‘‘Scope of the
Investigation,’’ in Appendix I of this
notice.
Comments on Scope of the Investigation
We received additional information
from the petitioner pertaining to the
proposed scope, to ensure that the scope
language in the Petition would be an
accurate reflection of the products for
which the domestic industry is seeking
relief.7
As discussed in the preamble to the
Department’s regulations,8 we are
setting aside a period for interested
parties to raise issues regarding product
coverage (i.e., scope). The Department
will consider all comments received
from interested parties and, if necessary,
will consult with interested parties prior
to the issuance of the preliminary
determination in this investigation and
the companion CVD investigation
concurrently being initiated. If scope
comments include factual information,9
all such factual information should be
limited to public information. The
Department requests all interested
parties to submit such comments by
5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on
6 See ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the
Petition’’ section below.
7 See Scope Clarification.
8 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties,
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 2007).
9 See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:14 May 25, 2017
Jkt 241001
Tuesday, June 6, 2017, which is 20
calendar days from the signature date of
this notice. Any rebuttal comments,
which may include factual information
(and also should be limited to public
information), must be filed by 5:00 p.m.
ET on Friday, June 16, 2017, which is
10 calendar days from the deadline for
initial comments.10 All such comments
must be filed on the record of the
concurrent CVD investigation.
The Department requests that any
factual information the parties consider
relevant to the scope of the investigation
be submitted during this time 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 the Department and request
permission to submit the additional
information. As stated above, all such
comments and information must be
filed on the record of the concurrent
CVD investigation.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department
must be filed electronically using
Enforcement & Compliance’s
Antidumping Duty and Countervailing
Duty Centralized Electronic Service
System (ACCESS).11 An electronically
filed document must be received
successfully in its entirety by the time
and date it is due. Documents excepted
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.
Comments on Product Characteristics
for AD Questionnaire
The Department is giving interested
parties an opportunity to provide
comments on the appropriate physical
characteristics of aircraft to be reported
in response to the Department’s AD
questionnaire. This information will be
used to identify the key physical
characteristics of the merchandise under
consideration in order to report the
relevant costs of production accurately
10 See
19 CFR 351.303(b)(1).
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures;
Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR
39263 (July 6, 2011) 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.
11 See
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
24297
as well as to develop appropriate
product-comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any
information or comments that they
determine 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.
However, interested parties should note
that it is not always appropriate to use
all product characteristics as productcomparison criteria. The Department
bases product-comparison criteria on
meaningful commercial differences
between products. In other words,
although there may be numerous
physical product characteristics utilized
by manufacturers to describe aircraft, it
may be that only a select few product
characteristics are commercially
meaningful physical characteristics. In
addition, interested parties may
comment on the order in which the
physical characteristics should be used
in matching products. Generally, the
Department attempts to list the most
important physical characteristics first
and the least important characteristics
last.
In order to consider the suggestions of
interested parties in developing product
characteristics, all product
characteristics comments must be filed
by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 31, 2017. Any
rebuttal comments, which may include
factual information (and should be
limited to public information), must be
filed by 5:00 p.m. EST on June 12, 2017,
which is the first business day 10
calendar days from the deadline for
initial comments.12 All comments and
submissions to the Department must be
filed electronically using ACCESS, as
explained above.
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
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)
12 See 19 CFR 351.303(b)(1) (‘‘For both
electronically filed and manually filed documents,
if the applicable due date falls on a non-business
day, the Secretary will accept documents that are
filed on the next business day.’’)
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
24298
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 101 / Friday, May 26, 2017 / Notices
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,13 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.14
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. Based on our analysis of
the information submitted on the
record, we have determined that
aircraft, as defined in the scope,
constitutes a single domestic like
product and we have analyzed industry
13 See
section 771(10) of the Act.
14 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)).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:14 May 25, 2017
Jkt 241001
support in terms of that domestic like
product.15
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 Appendix I of this
notice. To establish industry support,
the petitioner provided its own
information regarding production of the
domestic like product in 2016.16 The
petitioner states that there are no other
producers of aircraft in the United
States; therefore, the Petition is
supported by 100 percent of the U.S.
industry.17
Our review of the data provided in the
Petition, the General Issues Supplement,
and other information readily available
to the Department indicates that the
petitioner has established industry
support for the Petition.18 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).19 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.20 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
15 For a discussion of the domestic like product
analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: 100- to 150-Seat
Large Civil Aircraft from Canada (Canada AD
Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of
Industry Support for the Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering 100- to 150Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada, (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.
16 See General Issues Supplement, at 3–4 and
Exhibit Supp.-8.
17 See Petition, at 26, 44–45 and Exhibits 44 and
67.
18 See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment II.
19 See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also
Canada AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
20 See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment II.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
expressing support for, or opposition to,
the Petition.21 Accordingly, the
Department determines that the Petition
was filed on behalf of the domestic
industry within the meaning of section
732(b)(1) of the Act.
The Department finds that the
petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of
the domestic industry because it is an
interested party as defined in section
771(9)(C) of the Act and it has
demonstrated sufficient industry
support with respect to the AD
investigation that it is requesting that
the Department initiate.22
Allegations and Evidence of Threat of
Material Injury and Causation
The petitioner alleges that the U.S.
industry producing the domestic like
product is threatened with material
injury, by reason of imports (or sales for
importation) of subject merchandise at
less than normal value (NV). In
addition, the petitioner alleges and
provides supporting evidence that there
is the potential that subject imports will
imminently exceed the negligibility
threshold provided under 771(24)(A) of
the Act. The petitioner’s arguments
regarding the potential for imports from
Canada to imminently exceed the
negligibility threshold are consistent
with the statutory criteria for
‘‘negligibility in threat analysis’’ under
section 771(24)(A)(iv) of the Act, which
provides that imports shall not be
treated as negligible if there is a
potential that subject imports from a
country will imminently exceed the
statutory requirements for
negligibility.23
The petitioner contends that the
threat of material injury is illustrated by
the domestic industry’s vulnerability,
existing unused production capacity
available to imminently and
substantially increase exports of subject
merchandise to the United States,
significant increase in the market
penetration of subject imports and
likelihood of further increase in the
volume and market penetration of
subject imports, adverse price effects on
domestic prices, and negative effects on
product development and production.24
We have assessed the allegations and
supporting evidence regarding threat of
material injury and causation, and we
have determined that these allegations
are properly supported by adequate
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 See
Petition, at 28–29 and Exhibit 44.
at 1–24, 28–29, 46–78 and Exhibits 1–12,
17, 21–22, 24, 36–39, 40–41, 43–54, 66, 97–106,
108–109; see also General Issues Supplement, at 2–
3 and Exhibits Supp.-6 and Supp.-7.
24 Id.,
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 101 / Friday, May 26, 2017 / Notices
24299
evidence, and meet the statutory
requirements for initiation.25
Cost of Production and Constructed
Value
Act, the estimated dumping margin for
aircraft is 79.82 percent.40
Allegation of Sales at Less-Than-Fair
Value
The following is a description of the
allegation of sales at less-than-fair value
upon which the Department based its
decision to initiate this AD investigation
of imports of aircraft from Canada. The
sources of data for the U.S. price and
NV, as well as, where applicable, related
price adjustments, are discussed in
greater detail in the initiation checklist,
issued concurrently with this notice.26
Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the
Act, COP consists of the cost of
manufacturing (COM); selling, general,
and administrative (SG&A) expenses;
financial expenses; and packing
expenses. The petitioner calculated
COM based on published information
and estimating tools that it uses in the
normal course of business.33 The
petitioner calculated the total recurring
manufacturing costs included in COM
by dividing the total estimated recurring
costs over the life cycle of Bombardier’s
C-Series program by the projected
number of units produced over the same
period based on Bombardier’s published
delivery schedule and announced
production rates.34 To calculate nonrecurring research and development, the
petitioner divided Bombardier’s
publicly disclosed non-recurring
expenses by the projected number of
units to be produced.35 To determine
factory overhead, SG&A, and financial
expense rates, the petitioner relied on
the data in Bombardier’s 2016 audited
financial statements.36
Because the home market price fell
below COP, pursuant to sections
773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act,
as noted above, the petitioner calculated
NV based on CV.37 Pursuant to section
773(e) of the Act, CV consists of COM,
SG&A, financial expenses, packing
expenses, and profit. The petitioner
calculated CV using the same average
COM, SG&A expenses, and financial
expenses used to calculate COP.38 Since
Bombardier’s financial statements
reflect a loss, and there are no other
financial statements available for a large
aircraft manufacturer in Canada, the
petitioner relied on Boeing’s 2016
audited financial statements to calculate
the CV profit rate.39
Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value
Investigation
Export Price
The petitioner based the U.S. price on
future aircraft purchase commitments
identified in the U.S. customer’s
financial statements that relate to a 2016
contract between the customer and the
Canadian producer, Bombardier, Inc.
(Bombardier), for the purchase of
Bombardier’s CS100 series aircraft.27
The petitioner made deductions from
the U.S. price for ancillary contract
charges consistent with industry
practice.28
Normal Value
Home Market Price
The petitioner provided home market
price information based on an article in
The Globe and Mail citing industry
sources as to the price to be paid by Air
Canada, after discounts, for aircraft
purchased from Bombardier.29 The
petitioner stated that the finalized order
related to the home market sale for an
aircraft model comparable to the aircraft
model sold in the United States.30
The petitioner provided information
indicating that sales of aircraft in the
home market were made at prices below
the cost of production (COP) and, as a
result, calculated NV based on
constructed value (CV).31 For further
discussion of COP and NV based on CV,
see below.32
25 See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and
Evidence of Threat of Material Injury and Causation
for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Petitions Covering 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil
Aircraft from Canada.
26 See generally Canada AD Initiation Checklist.
27 Id; see also Petition, at Exhibit 42.
28 Id; see also Petition, at 118–110 and Exhibits
1 and 42.
29 Id, at 6–7 see also Petition at 120 and Exhibits
41, 42, 148 and 154.
30 Id; see also Petition, at 120–121.
31 Id.
32 In accordance with section 505(a) of the Trade
Preferences Extension Act of 2015, amending
section 773(b)(2) of the Act, for these investigations,
the Department will request information necessary
to calculate the CV and COP to determine whether
there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect
that sales of the foreign like product have been
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:14 May 25, 2017
Jkt 241001
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by the
petitioner, there is reason to believe that
imports of aircraft from Canada, are
being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at less-than-fair value.
Based on a comparison of EP to NV
(based on CV), in accordance with
sections 772, and 773(a) and (e) of the
made at prices that represent less than the COP of
the product. The Department no longer requires a
COP allegation to conduct this analysis.
33 See Canada AD Initiation Checklist.
34 Id; see also Petition, at 123–124.
35 Id; see also Petition, at 124–125.
36 Id; see also Petition, at 125.
37 Id; see also Petition, at 126.
38 Id.
39 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Based upon our examination of the
AD Petition on aircraft from Canada, 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 aircraft from Canada are
being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at less-than-fair value. In
accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1),
unless postponed, we will make our
preliminary determination in this
investigation no later than 140 days
after the date of this initiation.
On June 29, 2015, the President of the
United States signed into law the Trade
Preferences Extension Act of 2015
(TPEA), which made numerous
amendments to the Act.41 The TPEA
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.42 The amendments to sections
771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are
applicable to all determinations made
on or after August 6, 2015, and,
therefore, apply to this investigation.43
Respondent Selection
Although the Department normally
relies on the number of producers/
exporters identified in the petition and/
or on import data from U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) to
determine whether to select a limited
number of producers/exporters for
individual examination in AD
investigations, the petitioner identified
only one company as a producer/
exporter of aircraft from Canada:
Bombardier, Inc. We currently know of
no additional producers/exporters of the
merchandise under consideration from
Canada and the petitioner provided
information from an independent source
as support. Accordingly, the Department
intends to examine the sole producer/
40 See
Canada AD Initiation Checklist.
Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015,
Public Law 114–27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
42 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).
43 Id., at 46794–95. The 2015 amendments may be
found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114thcongress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
41 See
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
24300
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 101 / Friday, May 26, 2017 / Notices
exporter identified in the petition.
Parties wishing to comment on
respondent selection must do so within
five days of the publication of this
notice in the Federal Register. Any such
comments must be submitted no later
than 5:00 p.m. ET on the due date, and
must be filed electronically via
ACCESS.
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section
732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), a copy of the public version
of the Petition has been provided to the
Government of Canada via ACCESS. To
the extent practicable, we will provide
a copy of the public version of the
Petition to the one known exporter
named in the Petition, consistent with
19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We will notify the ITC of our
initiation, as required by section 732(d)
of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine,
within 45 days after the date on which
the Petition was filed, whether there is
a reasonable indication that imports of
aircraft from Canada are materially
injuring, or threatening material injury
to, a U.S. industry.44 A negative ITC
determination will result in the
investigation being terminated; 45
otherwise, this investigation will
proceed according to statutory and
regulatory time limits.
Submission of Factual Information
Factual information is defined in 19
CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence
submitted in response to questionnaires;
(ii) evidence submitted in support of
allegations; (iii) publicly available
information to value factors under 19
CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR
351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on
the record by the Department; and (v)
evidence other than factual information
described in (i)–(iv). The regulation
requires any party, when submitting
factual information, to specify under
which subsection of 19 CFR
351.102(b)(21) the information is being
submitted 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. Time
limits for the submission of factual
44 See
section 733(a) of the Act.
45 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:14 May 25, 2017
Jkt 241001
information are addressed in 19 CFR
351.301, which provides specific time
limits based on the type of factual
information being submitted. Parties
should review the regulations prior to
submitting factual information in this
investigation.
Extension of Time Limits Regulation
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 CFR 19 351.301.
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 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. Review Extension of
Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790
(September 20, 2013), available at
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-201309-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to
submitting factual information in this
investigation.
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 are hereby reminded that revised
certification requirements are in effect
for company/government officials, as
well as their representatives.
Investigations initiated on the basis of
petitions filed on or after August 16,
2013, and other segments of any AD or
CVD proceedings initiated on or after
August 16, 2013, should use the formats
for the revised certifications provided at
the end of the Final Rule.47 The
Department intends to reject factual
46 See
section 782(b) of the Act.
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
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_
info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
47 See
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
submissions if the submitting party does
not comply with the applicable revised
certification requirements.
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under
Administrative Protective Order (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 in 19 CFR
351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act and
19 CFR 351.203(c).
Dated: May 17, 2017.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance.
Appendix
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this
investigation is aircraft, regardless of seating
configuration, that have a standard 100- to
150-seat two-class seating capacity and a
minimum 2,900 nautical mile range, as these
terms are defined below.
‘‘Standard 100- to 150-seat two-class
seating capacity’’ refers to the capacity to
accommodate 100 to 150 passengers, when
eight passenger seats are configured for a 36inch pitch, and the remaining passenger seats
are configured for a 32-inch pitch. ‘‘Pitch’’ is
the distance between a point on one seat and
the same point on the seat in front of it.
‘‘Standard 100- to 150-seat two-class
seating capacity’’ does not delineate the
number of seats actually in a subject aircraft
or the actual seating configuration of a
subject aircraft. Thus, the number of seats
actually in a subject aircraft may be below
100 or exceed 150.
A ‘‘minimum 2,900 nautical mile range’’
means:
(i) able to transport between 100 and 150
passengers and their luggage on routes equal
to or longer than 2,900 nautical miles; or
(ii) covered by a U.S. Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) type certificate or
supplemental type certificate that also covers
other aircraft with a minimum 2,900 nautical
mile range.
The scope includes all aircraft covered by
the description above, regardless of whether
they enter the United States fully or partially
assembled, and regardless of whether, at the
time of entry into the United States, they are
approved for use by the FAA.
The merchandise covered by this
investigation is currently classifiable under
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 101 / Friday, May 26, 2017 / Notices
States (HTSUS) subheading 8802.40.0040.
The merchandise may alternatively be
classifiable under HTSUS subheading
8802.40.0090. Although these HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written
description of the scope of the investigation
is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2017–10733 Filed 5–25–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–489–502]
Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes
and Tubes From Turkey: Rescission of
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review; 2016
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) is rescinding the
administrative review of the
countervailing duty order on circular
welded carbon steel pipes and tubes
from Turkey (steel pipes and tubes) for
the period January 1, 2016, through
December 31, 2016.
DATES: Effective May 26, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jolanta Lawska, AD/CVD Operations,
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–8362.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On May 9, 2017, based on a timely
request for review in accordance with
section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR
351.213(b) by Borusan Mannesmann
Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. and
Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S.
(collectively, Borusan),1 the Department
published in the Federal Register a
notice of initiation of an administrative
review of the countervailing duty order
on steel pipes and tubes from Turkey
covering the period January 1, 2016,
through December 31, 2016, in
accordance with 19 CFR
351.221(c)(1)(i).2 On May 9, 2017,
Borusan timely withdrew its request for
1 See Letter from Borusan, ‘‘Circular Welded
Carbon Steel Pipe and Tubes from Turkey, Case No.
C–489–502: Request for Administrative Review
(March 31, 2017).
2 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR
21513 (May 9, 2017) (Initiation Notice).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:14 May 25, 2017
Jkt 241001
24301
an administrative review.3 No other
party requested a review of these
producers and/or exporters of subject
merchandise.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.213(d)(4).
Rescission of Review
Dated: May 19, 2017.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the
Department will rescind an
administrative review, in whole or in
part, if the party that requested the
review withdraws its request within 90
days of the publication of the notice of
initiation of the requested review. In
this review, Borusan timely withdrew
its request by the 90-day deadline, and
no other party requested an
administrative review of the
countervailing duty order. As a result,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we
are rescinding the administrative review
of the countervailing duty order on steel
pipes and tubes from Turkey covering
the period January 1, 2016, through
December 31, 2016, in its entirety.
Assessment
The Department will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to
assess countervailing duties on all
appropriate entries. Because the
Department is rescinding this
administrative review in its entirety, the
entries to which this administrative
review pertained shall be assessed
countervailing duties at rates equal to
the cash deposit of estimated
countervailing duties required at the
time of entry, or withdrawal from
warehouse, for consumption, in
accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department
intends to issue appropriate assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.
Notification Regarding Administrative
Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a final
reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of
their responsibility concerning the
return or destruction of proprietary
information disclosed under APO in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3),
which continues to govern business
proprietary information in this segment
of the proceeding. Timely written
notification of the return or destruction
of APO materials, or conversion to
judicial protective order, is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the
regulations and terms of an APO is a
violation which is subject to sanction.
3 See Letter from Borusan, ‘‘Circular Welded
Carbon Steel Pipe and Tubes from Turkey, Case No.
C–489–502: Withdrawal of Request for
Administrative Review,’’ dated May 9, 2017.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
[FR Doc. 2017–10758 Filed 5–25–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–822, A–583–820]
Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers
From the People’s Republic of China
and Taiwan: Continuation of
Antidumping Duty Orders
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective May 26, 2017.
SUMMARY: As a result of the
determinations by the Department of
Commerce (the Department) and the
U.S. International Trade Commission
(ITC) that revocation of the antidumping
duty orders on certain helical spring
lock washers from the People’s Republic
of China (PRC) and Taiwan would likely
lead to continuation or recurrence of
dumping and material injury to an
industry in the United States, the
Department is publishing a notice of
continuation of the antidumping duty
orders.
AGENCY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andre Gziryan, AD/CVD Operations,
Office I, Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–2201.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
November 1, 2016, the Department
published the notice of initiation of the
fourth sunset review of the antidumping
duty orders on lock washers from the
PRC and Taiwan pursuant to section
751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act).1
As a result of its review, the
Department determined that revocation
of the antidumping duty orders on
certain helical spring lock washers from
the PRC and Taiwan would likely lead
to continuation or recurrence of
dumping and, therefore, notified the ITC
of the magnitude of the margins of
1 See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 81
FR 75808 (November 1, 2016).
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 101 (Friday, May 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24296-24301]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10733]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-122-859]
100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft From Canada: Initiation of
Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective May 17, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karine Gziryan at (202) 482-4081 or
Lilit Astvatsatrian at (202) 482-6412, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement &
Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On April 27, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
received antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) petitions
concerning imports of 100- to 150-seat large civil aircraft (aircraft)
from Canada, filed in proper form, on behalf of The Boeing Company
(Boeing) (the petitioner).\1\ The petitioner is a domestic producer of
aircraft.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioner
``In the Matter of 100- To 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from
Canada--Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties'' (April 27, 2017) (the Petition).
\2\ See Petition, at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 2, 2017, the Department requested additional information and
clarification of certain areas of the Petition.\3\ The petitioner filed
responses to these requests on May 4, 2017.\4\ On May 9, 2017, the
petitioner filed an additional amendment to the Petition.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Department Letter re: Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping Duties on Imports of 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil
Aircraft from Canada: Supplemental Questions, dated May 2, 2017
(General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire); see also Department
Letter re: Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on
Imports of 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada:
Supplemental Questions, dated May 2, 2017 (Antidumping Supplemental
Questionnaire).
\4\ See Letter from the petitioner re: 100- to 150-Seat Large
Civil Aircraft from Canada--Petitioner's Response to AD Supplemental
Questionnaire, dated May 4, 2017 (Petition Supplement); see also
Letter from the petitioner re: 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft
from Canada--Petitioner's Response to Supplemental Questions, dated
May 2, 2017 (General Issues Supplement).
\5\ See Letter from the petitioner re: 100- to 150- Seat Large
Civil Aircraft from Canada--Proposed Scope Clarification, dated May
9, 2017 (Scope Clarification).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports
[[Page 24297]]
of aircraft from Canada are being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at less-than-fair value within the meaning of section 731
of the Act, and that such imports are threatening material injury to an
industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1)
of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information that is
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 AD 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 April 27, 2017, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2016,
through March 31, 2017.
Scope of the Investigation
The product covered by this investigation is aircraft from Canada.
For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the
``Scope of the Investigation,'' in Appendix I of this notice.
Comments on Scope of the Investigation
We received additional information from the petitioner pertaining
to the proposed scope, to ensure that the scope language in the
Petition would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the
domestic industry is seeking relief.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Scope Clarification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,\8\ we
are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues
regarding product coverage (i.e., scope). The Department will consider
all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will
consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the
preliminary determination in this investigation and the companion CVD
investigation concurrently being initiated. If scope comments include
factual information,\9\ all such factual information should be limited
to public information. The Department requests all interested parties
to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Tuesday, June
6, 2017, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this
notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information
(and also should be limited to public information), must be filed by
5:00 p.m. ET on Friday, June 16, 2017, which is 10 calendar days from
the deadline for initial comments.\10\ All such comments must be filed
on the record of the concurrent CVD investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296,
27323 (May 19, 2007).
\9\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21).
\10\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department requests that any factual information the parties
consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during
this time 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 the Department and
request permission to submit the additional information. As stated
above, all such comments and information must be filed on the record of
the concurrent CVD investigation.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically
using Enforcement & Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing
Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).\11\ An
electronically filed document must be received successfully in its
entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents excepted 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) for details of the
Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect
on August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at
https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at
https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaire
The Department is giving interested parties an opportunity to
provide comments on the appropriate physical characteristics of
aircraft to be reported in response to the Department's AD
questionnaire. This information will be used to identify the key
physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration in
order to report the relevant costs of production accurately as well as
to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that
they determine 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. However,
interested parties should note that it is not always appropriate to use
all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. The
Department bases product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial
differences between products. In other words, although there may be
numerous physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to
describe aircraft, it may be that only a select few product
characteristics are commercially meaningful physical characteristics.
In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the
physical characteristics should be used in matching products.
Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical
characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in
developing product characteristics, all product characteristics
comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 31, 2017. Any rebuttal
comments, which may include factual information (and should be limited
to public information), must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EST on June 12,
2017, which is the first business day 10 calendar days from the
deadline for initial comments.\12\ All comments and submissions to the
Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b)(1) (``For both electronically filed
and manually filed documents, if the applicable due date falls on a
non-business day, the Secretary will accept documents that are filed
on the next business day.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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)
[[Page 24298]]
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,\13\ 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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\14\ 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. Based on our analysis of the information
submitted on the record, we have determined that aircraft, 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in
this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist:
100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada (Canada AD
Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry
Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions
Covering 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada,
(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 Appendix I of this
notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own
information regarding production of the domestic like product in
2016.\16\ The petitioner states that there are no other producers of
aircraft in the United States; therefore, the Petition is supported by
100 percent of the U.S. industry.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See General Issues Supplement, at 3-4 and Exhibit Supp.-8.
\17\ See Petition, at 26, 44-45 and Exhibits 44 and 67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the General Issues
Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department
indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the
Petition.\18\ 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).\19\ 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.\20\ 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.\21\ Accordingly, the Department determines
that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within
the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\19\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Canada AD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\20\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\21\ 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 it has demonstrated
sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigation that
it is requesting that the Department initiate.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations and Evidence of Threat of Material Injury and Causation
The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the
domestic like product is threatened with material injury, by reason of
imports (or sales for importation) of subject merchandise at less than
normal value (NV). In addition, the petitioner alleges and provides
supporting evidence that there is the potential that subject imports
will imminently exceed the negligibility threshold provided under
771(24)(A) of the Act. The petitioner's arguments regarding the
potential for imports from Canada to imminently exceed the
negligibility threshold are consistent with the statutory criteria for
``negligibility in threat analysis'' under section 771(24)(A)(iv) of
the Act, which provides that imports shall not be treated as negligible
if there is a potential that subject imports from a country will
imminently exceed the statutory requirements for negligibility.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Petition, at 28-29 and Exhibit 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner contends that the threat of material injury is
illustrated by the domestic industry's vulnerability, existing unused
production capacity available to imminently and substantially increase
exports of subject merchandise to the United States, significant
increase in the market penetration of subject imports and likelihood of
further increase in the volume and market penetration of subject
imports, adverse price effects on domestic prices, and negative effects
on product development and production.\24\ We have assessed the
allegations and supporting evidence regarding threat of material injury
and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are
properly supported by adequate
[[Page 24299]]
evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Id., at 1-24, 28-29, 46-78 and Exhibits 1-12, 17, 21-22,
24, 36-39, 40-41, 43-54, 66, 97-106, 108-109; see also General
Issues Supplement, at 2-3 and Exhibits Supp.-6 and Supp.-7.
\25\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III,
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Threat of Material Injury
and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions
Covering 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegation of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value
The following is a description of the allegation of sales at less-
than-fair value upon which the Department based its decision to
initiate this AD investigation of imports of aircraft from Canada. The
sources of data for the U.S. price and NV, as well as, where
applicable, related price adjustments, are discussed in greater detail
in the initiation checklist, issued concurrently with this notice.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See generally Canada AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Export Price
The petitioner based the U.S. price on future aircraft purchase
commitments identified in the U.S. customer's financial statements that
relate to a 2016 contract between the customer and the Canadian
producer, Bombardier, Inc. (Bombardier), for the purchase of
Bombardier's CS100 series aircraft.\27\ The petitioner made deductions
from the U.S. price for ancillary contract charges consistent with
industry practice.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Id; see also Petition, at Exhibit 42.
\28\ Id; see also Petition, at 118-110 and Exhibits 1 and 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
Home Market Price
The petitioner provided home market price information based on an
article in The Globe and Mail citing industry sources as to the price
to be paid by Air Canada, after discounts, for aircraft purchased from
Bombardier.\29\ The petitioner stated that the finalized order related
to the home market sale for an aircraft model comparable to the
aircraft model sold in the United States.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Id, at 6-7 see also Petition at 120 and Exhibits 41, 42,
148 and 154.
\30\ Id; see also Petition, at 120-121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner provided information indicating that sales of
aircraft in the home market were made at prices below the cost of
production (COP) and, as a result, calculated NV based on constructed
value (CV).\31\ For further discussion of COP and NV based on CV, see
below.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Id.
\32\ In accordance with section 505(a) of the Trade Preferences
Extension Act of 2015, amending section 773(b)(2) of the Act, for
these investigations, the Department will request information
necessary to calculate the CV and COP to determine whether there are
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign
like product have been made at prices that represent less than the
COP of the product. The Department no longer requires a COP
allegation to conduct this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of Production and Constructed Value
Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost
of manufacturing (COM); selling, general, and administrative (SG&A)
expenses; financial expenses; and packing expenses. The petitioner
calculated COM based on published information and estimating tools that
it uses in the normal course of business.\33\ The petitioner calculated
the total recurring manufacturing costs included in COM by dividing the
total estimated recurring costs over the life cycle of Bombardier's C-
Series program by the projected number of units produced over the same
period based on Bombardier's published delivery schedule and announced
production rates.\34\ To calculate non-recurring research and
development, the petitioner divided Bombardier's publicly disclosed
non-recurring expenses by the projected number of units to be
produced.\35\ To determine factory overhead, SG&A, and financial
expense rates, the petitioner relied on the data in Bombardier's 2016
audited financial statements.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist.
\34\ Id; see also Petition, at 123-124.
\35\ Id; see also Petition, at 124-125.
\36\ Id; see also Petition, at 125.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the home market price fell below COP, pursuant to sections
773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, as noted above, the
petitioner calculated NV based on CV.\37\ Pursuant to section 773(e) of
the Act, CV consists of COM, SG&A, financial expenses, packing
expenses, and profit. The petitioner calculated CV using the same
average COM, SG&A expenses, and financial expenses used to calculate
COP.\38\ Since Bombardier's financial statements reflect a loss, and
there are no other financial statements available for a large aircraft
manufacturer in Canada, the petitioner relied on Boeing's 2016 audited
financial statements to calculate the CV profit rate.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Id; see also Petition, at 126.
\38\ Id.
\39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to
believe that imports of aircraft from Canada, are being, or are likely
to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. Based on a
comparison of EP to NV (based on CV), in accordance with sections 772,
and 773(a) and (e) of the Act, the estimated dumping margin for
aircraft is 79.82 percent.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation
Based upon our examination of the AD Petition on aircraft from
Canada, 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 aircraft from Canada are being, or are
likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. In
accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary
determination in this investigation no later than 140 days after the
date of this initiation.
On June 29, 2015, the President of the United States signed into
law the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 (TPEA), which made
numerous amendments to the Act.\41\ The TPEA 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.\42\ The amendments to
sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are applicable to all
determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply
to this investigation.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law
114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
\42\ 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).
\43\ Id., at 46794-95. The 2015 amendments may be found at
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respondent Selection
Although the Department normally relies on the number of producers/
exporters identified in the petition and/or on import data from U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to determine whether to select a
limited number of producers/exporters for individual examination in AD
investigations, the petitioner identified only one company as a
producer/exporter of aircraft from Canada: Bombardier, Inc. We
currently know of no additional producers/exporters of the merchandise
under consideration from Canada and the petitioner provided information
from an independent source as support. Accordingly, the Department
intends to examine the sole producer/
[[Page 24300]]
exporter identified in the petition. Parties wishing to comment on
respondent selection must do so within five days of the publication of
this notice in the Federal Register. Any such comments must be
submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the due date, and must be filed
electronically via ACCESS.
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been
provided to the Government of Canada via ACCESS. To the extent
practicable, we will provide a copy of the public version of the
Petition to the one known exporter named in the Petition, consistent
with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
732(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date
on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable
indication that imports of aircraft from Canada are materially
injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.\44\ A
negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being
terminated; \45\ otherwise, this investigation will proceed according
to statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See section 733(a) of the Act.
\45\ 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 the Department; and (v) evidence other than
factual information described in (i)-(iv). The regulation requires any
party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which
subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
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. 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. Parties should review the regulations
prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.
Extension of Time Limits Regulation
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 CFR 19 351.301. 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 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. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR
57790 (September 20, 2013), available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual
information in this investigation.
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\46\
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are
in effect for company/government officials, as well as their
representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions
filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD
proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the
formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final
Rule.\47\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised
certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\47\ 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
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
Administrative Protective Order (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 in 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
Dated: May 17, 2017.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this investigation is aircraft,
regardless of seating configuration, that have a standard 100- to
150-seat two-class seating capacity and a minimum 2,900 nautical
mile range, as these terms are defined below.
``Standard 100- to 150-seat two-class seating capacity'' refers
to the capacity to accommodate 100 to 150 passengers, when eight
passenger seats are configured for a 36-inch pitch, and the
remaining passenger seats are configured for a 32-inch pitch.
``Pitch'' is the distance between a point on one seat and the same
point on the seat in front of it.
``Standard 100- to 150-seat two-class seating capacity'' does
not delineate the number of seats actually in a subject aircraft or
the actual seating configuration of a subject aircraft. Thus, the
number of seats actually in a subject aircraft may be below 100 or
exceed 150.
A ``minimum 2,900 nautical mile range'' means:
(i) able to transport between 100 and 150 passengers and their
luggage on routes equal to or longer than 2,900 nautical miles; or
(ii) covered by a U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
type certificate or supplemental type certificate that also covers
other aircraft with a minimum 2,900 nautical mile range.
The scope includes all aircraft covered by the description
above, regardless of whether they enter the United States fully or
partially assembled, and regardless of whether, at the time of entry
into the United States, they are approved for use by the FAA.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is currently
classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
[[Page 24301]]
States (HTSUS) subheading 8802.40.0040. The merchandise may
alternatively be classifiable under HTSUS subheading 8802.40.0090.
Although these HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the
investigation is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2017-10733 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
