100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft From Canada: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation, 24296-24301 [2017-10733]

Download as PDF 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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 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.\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 
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 
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