Certain Fabricated Structural Steel From Canada, Mexico, and the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 7339-7344 [2019-03819]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 42 / Monday, March 4, 2019 / Notices
information to support their assertion
that there have been no material
changes to SVW’s raw material
suppliers and only minor changes to its
customer base before and following its
name change.18
Based on the aforementioned
evidence on the record, we
preliminarily determine that SVW is the
successor-in-interest to Sichuan SVW,
as the change in the business’ name was
not accompanied by significant changes
to its management and operations,
production facilities, supplier
relationships, or customer base. Thus,
we preliminarily determine that SVW
operates as essentially the same
business entity as Sichuan SVW, that
SVW is the successor-in-interest to
Sichuan SVW, and that SVW should
receive the same antidumping duty cash
deposit rate with respect to subject
merchandise as its predecessor.
Public Comment
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any
interested party may request a hearing
within 30 days of publication of this
notice. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may
submit case briefs not later than 30 days
after the date of publication of this
notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues
raised in the case briefs, may be filed no
later than five days after the case briefs,
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d).
Parties who submit case or rebuttal
briefs are encouraged to submit with
each argument: (1) A statement of the
issue; (2) a brief summary of the
argument; and (3) a table of
authorities.19 All comments are to be
filed electronically using Enforcement
and Compliance’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (ACCESS),
available to registered users at https://
access.trade.gov and in the Central
Records Unit, Room B8024, of the main
Department of Commerce building, and
must also be served on interested
parties. An electronically filed
document must be received successfully
in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Time on the day it is due.20
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e),
we will issue the final results of this
changed circumstances review no later
than 270 days after the date on which
this review was initiated, or within 45
days if all parties agree to our
preliminary finding. This notice is
published in accordance with sections
751(b)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19
18 Id.
19 See
20 See
19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).
19 CFR 351.303(b).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:33 Mar 01, 2019
Jkt 247001
CFR 351.216(b), 351.221(b) and
351.221(c)(3).
Dated: February 26, 2019.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations,
performing the non-exclusive functions and
duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019–03821 Filed 3–1–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–122–865, C–201–851, C–570–103]
Certain Fabricated Structural Steel
From Canada, Mexico, and the
People’s Republic of China: Initiation
of Countervailing Duty Investigations
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Applicable February 25, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Whitley Herndon at (202) 482–6274
(Canada), Thomas Martin (202) 482–
3936 or Trisha Tran at (202) 482–4852
(Mexico), or Darla Brown at (202) 482–
1791 (People’s Republic of China
(China)), AD/CVD Operations,
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
The Petitions
On February 4, 2019, the U.S.
Department of Commerce (Commerce)
received countervailing duty (CVD)
Petitions concerning imports of certain
fabricated structural steel (fabricated
structural steel) from Canada, Mexico,
and China, which were subsequently
amended on February 21, 2019.1 The
Petitions, as amended, were filed in
proper form by a subgroup of the
American Institute of Steel
Construction, LLC, a trade association
representing domestic producers of
fabricated structural steel. Specifically,
the petitioner is the American Institute
of Steel Construction Full Member
Subgroup (the petitioner). The CVD
Petitions were accompanied by
antidumping duty (AD) Petitions
concerning imports of fabricated
1 See the petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Petitions for the
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties on Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from
Canada, Mexico, and the People’s Republic of
China,’’ dated February 4, 2019, as amended on
February 21, 2019 (the Petitions).
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7339
structural steel from Canada, Mexico,
and China.
During the period February 7 through
February 14, 2019, Commerce requested
supplemental information pertaining to
certain aspects of the Petitions in
separate supplemental questionnaires.2
Responses to the supplemental
questionnaires were filed between
February 12 and February 19, 2019.3
In accordance with section 702(b)(1)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), the petitioner alleges that the
Governments of Canada, Mexico, and
China, as well as the Canadian
provincial governments of Alberta,
British Colombia (BC), Manitoba, New
Brunswick, Ontario, Que´bec, Prince
Edward Island (PEI) and Saskatchewan,
are providing countervailable subsidies,
within the meaning of sections 701 and
771(5) of the Act, to producers of
fabricated structural steel in Canada,
Mexico, and China and that imports of
such products are materially injuring, or
threatening material injury to, the
domestic industry producing fabricated
structural steel in the United States.
Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those
alleged programs on which we are
initiating CVD investigations, the
Petitions are accompanied by
information reasonably available to the
petitioner supporting their allegations.
2 See Commerce Letters, ‘‘Petitions for the
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties on Imports of Certain Fabricated Structural
Steel from Canada, the People’s Republic of China,
and Mexico: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated
February 7, 2019, ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain
Fabricated Structural Steel from the People’s
Republic of China (China): Supplemental
Questions,’’ dated February 7, 2019, ‘‘Petition for
the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain
Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada:
Supplemental Questions,’’ dated February 8, 2019,
‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing
Duties on Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from
Mexico: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated February
8, 2019, and ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain
Fabricated Structural Steel from Mexico: Additional
Supplemental Questions,’’ dated February 14, 2019.
3 See the petitioner’s Letters, ‘‘Certain Fabricated
Structural Steel from Canada, Mexico, and the
People’s Republic of China: Responses to
Supplemental Questions on General and Injury
Volume I of the Petition,’’ dated February 12, 2019
(General Issues Supplement), ‘‘Certain Fabricated
Structural Steel from Canada: Responses to
Supplemental Questions on Canada CVD Volume V
of the Petition,’’ dated February 12, 2019, ‘‘Certain
Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada: Responses
to Supplemental Questions on Mexico CVD Volume
VI of the Petition,’’ dated February 12, 2019,
‘‘Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from the
People’s Republic of China: Responses to
Supplemental Questions on China CVD Volume VII
of the Petition,’’ dated February 12, 2019, and
‘‘Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Mexico:
Responses to Second Supplemental Questions in
CVD Volume VI of the Petition,’’ dated February 19,
2019.
E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM
04MRN1
7340
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 42 / Monday, March 4, 2019 / Notices
Section 771(9)(E) of the Act states that
‘‘a trade or business association’’ is an
interested party if ‘‘a majority’’ of its
‘‘members manufacture, produce, or
wholesale a domestic like product in the
United States. Based on information
contained in the petitioner’s amended
Petition submission of February 21,
2019,4 as well as its prior submissions
pertaining to the membership of the
American Institute of Steel
Construction, LLC,5 Commerce finds
that the petitioner satisfactorily showed
that a majority of its members
manufacture, produce, or wholesale a
domestic like product in the United
States, and therefore the Petitions, as
amended, have been filed on behalf of
the domestic industry. Commerce also
finds that the petitioner demonstrated
sufficient industry support with respect
to the initiation of the requested CVD
investigations.6
Period of Investigations
Because the Petitions were filed on
February 4, 2019, and amended on
February 21, 2019, the period of
investigation for each investigation is
January 1, 2018, through December 31,
2018.
Scope of the Investigations
The product covered by these
investigations is fabricated structural
steel from Canada, Mexico, and China.
For a full description of the scope of
these investigations, see the Appendix
to this notice.
Scope Comments
During our review of the Petitions,
Commerce contacted the petitioner
regarding the proposed scope language
to ensure that the scope language in the
Petitions is an accurate reflection of the
products for which the domestic
4 See the petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Certain Fabricated
Structural Steel from Canada, Mexico, and the
People’s Republic of China: Amendment to Petition
to Clarify Petitioner,’’ dated February 21, 2019
(Amendment to the Petitions) at 2.
5 See the petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Petitions for the
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties on Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from
Canada, Mexico, and the People’s Republic of
China,’’ dated February 4, 2019 at Exhibit I–2.
6 See ‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation
Initiation Checklist: Certain Fabricated Structural
Steel from Canada (Canada CVD Initiation
Checklist); Countervailing Duty Investigation
Initiation Checklist: Certain Fabricated Structural
Steel from the People’s Republic of China (China
CVD Initiation Checklist); and Countervailing Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain
Fabricated Structural Steel from Mexico (Mexico
CVD Initiation Checklist). These checklists are
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:33 Mar 01, 2019
Jkt 247001
industry is seeking relief.7 As a result,
the scope of the Petitions was modified
to clarify the description of merchandise
covered by the Petitions. The
description of the merchandise covered
by these initiations, as described in the
Appendix to this notice, reflects these
clarifications.
As discussed in the Preamble to
Commerce’s regulations, we are setting
aside a period for interested parties to
raise issues regarding product coverage
(scope), including potential overlap
with existing orders.8 To the extent that
the scope of any of these investigations
overlaps with existing AD/CVD orders,
any products covered by that overlap
will be excluded from the scope of the
relevant investigation. Commerce will
consider all comments received from
interested parties and, if necessary, will
consult with interested parties prior to
the issuance of the preliminary
determination. If scope comments
include factual information,9 all such
factual information should be limited to
public information. To facilitate
preparation of its questionnaires,
Commerce requests that all interested
parties submit scope comments by 5:00
p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on March 18,
2019, which is the next business day
after 20 calendar days from the
signature date of this notice. Any
rebuttal comments, which may include
factual information, must be filed by
5:00 p.m. ET on March 28, 2019, which
is 10 calendar days from the initial
comments deadline.10
Commerce requests that any factual
information parties consider relevant to
the scope of the investigations be
submitted during this period. However,
if a party subsequently finds that
additional factual information
pertaining to the scope of the
investigations may be relevant, the party
may contact Commerce and request
permission to submit the additional
information. All such submissions must
be filed on the records of the concurrent
AD and CVD investigations.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to Commerce must be
filed electronically using Enforcement
7 See Memorandum, ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on
Imports of Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from
Canada, the People’s Republic of China, and
Mexico: Phone Call with Counsel to the Petitioner,’’
dated February 21, 2019; see also the petitioner’s
Letter, ‘‘Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from
Canada, Mexico, and the People’s Republic of
China: Revision to Scope,’’ dated February 22, 2019.
8 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties,
Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
9 See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ‘‘factual
information’’).
10 See 19 CFR 351.303(b).
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and 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 exempted from the
electronic submission requirements
must be filed manually (i.e., in paper
form) with Enforcement and
Compliance’s APO/Dockets Unit, Room
18022, U.S. Department of Commerce,
1401 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20230, and stamped
with the date and time of receipt by the
applicable deadlines.
Consultations
Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i)
and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified
representatives of Canada, Mexico, and
China of the receipt of the Petitions and
provided them the opportunity for
consultations with respect to the CVD
Petitions.12 Commerce held
consultations with Canada and Mexico,
on February 19, 2019.13 China did not
request consultations.
Determination of Industry Support for
the Petitions
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires
that a petition be filed on behalf of the
domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A)
of the Act provides that a petition meets
this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the
petition account for: (i) At least 25
percent of the total production of the
domestic like product; and (ii) more
than 50 percent of the production of the
domestic like product produced by that
portion of the industry expressing
support for, or opposition to, the
11 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures;
Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR
39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and
Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System
Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) for details
of Commerce’s electronic filing requirements,
effective August 5, 2011. Information on help using
ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/
help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://
access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on
%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
12 See Commerce Letters, ‘‘Certain Fabricated
Structural Steel from Canada, Invitation for
Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty
Petition’’ dated February 5, 2019, ‘‘Countervailing
Duty Petition on Certain Fabricated Structural Steel
from Mexico,’’ dated February 6, 2019, and
‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Fabricated
Structural Steel from the People’s Republic of
China,’’ dated February 5, 2019.
13 See Memorandum, ‘‘Consultations with
Officials from the Government of Canada Regarding
the Countervailing Duty Petition Concerning
Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada,’’ and ‘‘ExParte Meeting with Officials from the Government
of Mexico on the Countervailing Duty Petition on
Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Mexico,’’
both dated February 19, 2019.
E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM
04MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 42 / Monday, March 4, 2019 / Notices
petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D)
of the Act provides that, if the petition
does not establish support of domestic
producers or workers accounting for
more than 50 percent of the total
production of the domestic like product,
Commerce shall: (i) Poll the industry or
rely on other information in order to
determine if there is support for the
petition, as required by subparagraph
(A); or (ii) determine industry support
using a statistically valid sampling
method to poll the ‘‘industry.’’
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines
the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers, as a
whole, of a domestic like product. Thus,
to determine whether a petition has the
requisite industry support, the statute
directs Commerce to look to producers
and workers who produce the domestic
like product. The International Trade
Commission (ITC), which is responsible
for determining whether ‘‘the domestic
industry’’ has been injured, must also
determine what constitutes a domestic
like product in order to define the
industry. While both Commerce and the
ITC must apply the same statutory
definition regarding the domestic like
product,14 they do so for different
purposes and pursuant to a separate and
distinct authority. In addition,
Commerce’s determination is subject to
limitations of time and information.
Although this may result in different
definitions of the like product, such
differences do not render the decision of
either agency contrary to law.15
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
Petitions.16 Based on our analysis of the
information submitted on the record, we
have determined that fabricated
structural steel, as defined in the scope,
constitutes a single domestic like
product, and we have analyzed industry
14 See
section 771(10) of the Act.
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)).
16 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 14–16 and
Exhibit I–5; see also General Issues Supplement, at
1–3.
15 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:33 Mar 01, 2019
Jkt 247001
support in terms of that domestic like
product.17
In determining whether the petitioner
has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A)
of the Act, we considered the industry
support data contained in the Petitions
with reference to the domestic like
product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of the
Investigations,’’ in the Appendix to this
notice. To establish industry support,
the petitioner provided its own
production of the domestic like product
in 2017.18 The petitioner estimated the
production of the domestic like product
for the entire domestic industry based
on shipment data, because production
data for the entire domestic industry are
not available, and shipments are a close
approximation of production in the
fabricated structural steel industry.19
The petitioner compared its production
to the estimated total production of the
domestic like product for the entire
domestic industry.20 We relied on data
provided by the petitioner for purposes
of measuring industry support.21
From February 12 through February
13, 2019, we received comments on
industry support from Canada, Quebec,
and Mexico, respectively.22 The
petitioner responded to Canada’s and
Mexico’s comments on February 19,
2019.23
On February 19, 2019, we received
comments on industry support from
17 For a discussion of the domestic like product
analysis as applied to these cases and information
regarding industry support, see Canada CVD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II, Analysis of
Industry Support for the Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain
Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada, the
People’s Republic of China, and Mexico
(Attachment II); see also China CVD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II; Mexico CVD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II.
18 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2–3 and
Exhibit I–4.
19 Id. at 2–3 and Exhibits I–3 and I–4; see also
General Issues Supplement, at 3–6.
20 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2–3.
21 Id. at 2–3 and Exhibit I–3 and I–4; see also
General Issues Supplement, at 3–6. For further
discussion, see Canada CVD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment II; China CVD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment II; and Mexico CVD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II.
22 See Mexico Letter, ‘‘Fabricated Structural Steel
from Mexico (A–201–850 and C–201–851)—Request
to Dismiss Petitions or Otherwise Postpone
Initiation,’’ dated February 13, 2019; see also
Canada Letter, ‘‘Fabricated Structural Steel from
Canada (A–122–864 and C–122–865)—Request for
Postponement of Initiation and Disclosure of
Members of Petitioner American Institute of Steel
Construction and Identities of Known Domestic
Producers,’’ dated February 12, 2019; see also
Mexico Letter, ‘‘Fabricated Structural Steel from
Mexico (C–201–851)—Submission of Consultations
Paper,’’ dated February 20, 2019.
23 See the petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Certain Fabricated
Structural Steel from Canada and Mexico: Response
to Respondents’ Request to Reject Petitions or
Postpone Initiation,’’ dated February 19, 2019 (the
petitioner’s Response).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7341
Corey, S.A. de C.V. (Corey), a Mexican
producer and exporter of fabricated
structural steel.24
The petitioner responded to the
comments from Corey on February 21,
2019.25 In addition, the petitioner
subsequently clarified and amended the
Petitions on February 21, 2019 in
response to comments from Canada,
Mexico, and Corey.26 During
consultations held with respect to the
Canada and Mexico CVD petitions, the
both Canada and Mexico discussed
industry support comments and
provided additional comments in the
respective CVD consultation papers.27
On February 22, 2019, we received
additional comments on industry
support from Canada, Quebec and
Mexico.28 The petitioner responded to
those comments on February 25, 2019.29
For further discussion of these
comments, see the country-specific CVD
initiation checklists, at Attachment II.
Our review of the data provided in the
Petitions, the General Issues
Supplement, and other information
readily available to Commerce indicates
that the petitioner has established
industry support for the Petitions.30
First, the Petitions established support
from domestic producers (or workers)
accounting for more than 50 percent of
24 See Letter from Corey, ‘‘Fabricated Structural
Steel from Mexico: Standing Challenge—Request to
Decline Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Investigations,’’ dated
February 19, 2019.
25 See the petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Certain Fabricated
Structural Steel from Canada and Mexico: Response
to Respondents’ Standing Challenge and Request to
Decline Initiation,’’ dated February 21, 2019.
26 See Amendment to the Petitions.
27 See Ex-Parte Memorandum, ‘‘Meeting with
Officials from the Government of Mexico on the
Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Fabricated
Structural Steel from Mexico’’ dated February 19,
2019; see also Memorandum, ‘‘Countervailing Duty
Petition on Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from
Canada: GOC Consultations,’’ dated February 21,
2019; see also Letter from Mexico, ‘‘Fabricated
Structural Steel from Mexico (C–201–851)—
Submission of Consultations Paper,’’ dated
February 20, 2019; see also Letter from Canada,
‘‘Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada (A–122–
864 and C–122–865)—Consultations Paper.
28 See Letter from the GOQ, ‘‘Fabricated
Structural Steel from Canada, (A–122–864 and C–
122–865): Response to AISC Amendment to
Petition,’’ dated February 22, 2019; see also Letter
from Canada, ‘‘Fabricated Structural Steel from
Canada (A–122–864 and C–122–865)—Response to
AISC Amendment to Petition,’’ dated February 22,
2019; see also Letter from Mexico, ‘‘Fabricated
Structural Steel from Mexico (C–201–851, A–201–
850)—Comments on Change of Petitioner,’’ dated
February 22, 2019.
29 See Letter from the petitioner, ‘‘Certain
Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada, Mexico,
and the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated
February 25, 2019.
30 See Canada CVD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment II; China CVD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment II; and Mexico CVD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II.
E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM
04MRN1
7342
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 42 / Monday, March 4, 2019 / Notices
the total production of the domestic like
product and, as such, Commerce is not
required to take further action in order
to evaluate industry support (e.g.,
polling).31 Second, the domestic
producers (or workers) have met the
statutory criteria for industry support
under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petitions
account for at least 25 percent of the
total production of the domestic like
product.32 Finally, the domestic
producers (or workers) have met the
statutory criteria for industry support
under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petitions
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 Petitions.33 Accordingly, Commerce
determines that the Petitions were filed
on behalf of the domestic industry
within the meaning of section 702(b)(1)
of the Act.
Commerce finds that the petitioner
filed the Petitions on behalf of the
domestic industry because it is an
interested party as defined in section
771(9)(E) of the Act, and it has
demonstrated sufficient industry
support with respect to the CVD
investigations that it is requesting that
Commerce initiate.34
Injury Test
Because Canada, China, and Mexico
are ‘‘Subsidies Agreement Countries’’
within the meaning of section 701(b) of
the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act
applies to these investigations.
Accordingly, the ITC must determine
whether imports of the subject
merchandise from Canada, China, and/
or Mexico materially injure, or threaten
material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
The petitioners allege that imports of
the subject merchandise are benefitting
from countervailable subsidies and that
such imports are causing, or threaten to
cause, material injury to the U.S.
industry producing the domestic like
product. In addition, the petitioner
alleges that subject imports exceed the
31 Id.;
see also section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act.
Canada CVD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment II; China CVD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment II; and Mexico CVD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II.
33 Id.
34 Id.
32 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:33 Mar 01, 2019
Jkt 247001
negligibility threshold provided for
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.35
The petitioner contends that the
industry’s injured condition is
illustrated by the significant volume and
increasing market share of subject
imports; reduced market share of the
U.S. industry; underselling and price
depression or suppression; declines in
production, shipments, and capacity
utilization; negative impact on
employment variables; decline in the
domestic industry’s financial
performance; and lost sales and
revenues.36 We have assessed the
allegations and supporting evidence
regarding material injury, threat of
material injury, causation, negligibility,
as well as cumulation, and we have
determined that these allegations are
properly supported by adequate
evidence, and meet the statutory
requirements for initiation.37
Initiation of CVD Investigations
Based on the examination of the
Petitions, we find that the Petitions
meet the requirements of section 702 of
the Act. Therefore, we are initiating
CVD investigations to determine
whether imports of fabricated structural
steel from Canada, Mexico, and China
benefit from countervailable subsidies
conferred by the governments of these
countries. In accordance with section
703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will
make our preliminary determination no
later than 65 days after the date of this
initiation.
Canada
Based on our review of the Petition,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation on 43 of the 44 alleged
programs. For a full discussion of the
basis for our decision to initiate on each
program, see Canada CVD Initiation
Checklist. A public version of the
initiation checklist for this investigation
is available on ACCESS.
Mexico
Based on our review of the Petition,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
35 See
Volume I of the Petitions, at 22 and Exhibit
I–8.
36 Id.
at 11–35 and Exhibits I–3, I–5, I–8, I–10
through I–22.
37 See Canada CVD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and
Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions
Covering Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from
Canada, the People’s Republic of China, and Mexico
(Attachment III); see also China CVD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment III; see also Mexico CVD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
investigation on 17 of the 19 alleged
programs. For a full discussion of the
basis for our decision to initiate on each
program, see Mexico CVD Initiation
Checklist. A public version of the
initiation checklist for this investigation
is available on ACCESS.
China
Based on our review of the Petition,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation, in whole or part, on 25 of
the 26 alleged programs. For a full
discussion of the basis for our decision
to initiate on each program, see China
CVD Initiation Checklist. A public
version of the initiation checklist for
this investigation is available on
ACCESS.
Respondent Selection
In the Petitions, the petitioner named
50 companies in Canada,38 18
companies in Mexico,39 and 220
companies in China,40 as producers/
exporters of fabricated structural steel.
Commerce intends to follow its standard
practice in CVD investigations and
calculate company-specific subsidy
rates in these investigations. In the
event Commerce determines that the
number of companies is large and it
cannot individually examine each
company based upon Commerce’s
resources, where appropriate,
Commerce intends to select mandatory
respondents based on U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S.
imports of fabricated structural steel
from Canada, Mexico, and China during
the POI under the appropriate
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States numbers listed in the
‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in the
Appendix.
On February 20, 2019, Commerce
released CBP data under Administrative
Protective Order (APO) to all parties
with access to information protected by
APO and indicated that interested
parties wishing to comment regarding
the CBP data and respondent selection
must do so within three business days
of the publication date of the notice of
initiation of these CVD investigations.41
38 See
Volume I of the Petition at Exhibit I–7.
39 Id.
40 Id.
41 See Memorandum, ‘‘Countervailing Duty
Investigation of Certain Fabricated Structural Steel
from Canada: Releasing U.S. Customs and Border
Protection Data,’’ Memorandum, ‘‘Countervailing
Duty Petition on Certain Fabricated Structural Steel
from Mexico: Release of Customs Data from U.S.
Customs and Border Protection,’’ and
Memorandum, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on
Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from the
People’s Republic of China: Release of Customs
Data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection,’’
each dated February 20, 2019.
E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM
04MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 42 / Monday, March 4, 2019 / Notices
Commerce will not accept rebuttal
comments regarding the CBP data or
respondent selection.
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under APO
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b).
Instructions for filing such applications
may be found on the Commerce’s
website at https://enforcement.trade.gov/
apo.
Comments must be filed
electronically using ACCESS. An
electronically filed document must be
received successfully, in its entirety, by
ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on
the date noted above. We intend to
finalize our decisions regarding
respondent selection within 20 days of
publication of this notice.
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section
702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public versions
of the Petitions have been provided to
Canada, China, and Mexico via
ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we
will attempt to provide a copy of the
public version of the Petitions to each
exporter named in the Petitions, as
provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We will notify the ITC of our
initiation, as required by section 702(d)
of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine,
within 45 days after the date on which
the Petitions were filed, whether there
is a reasonable indication that imports
of fabricated structural steel from
Canada, China, and/or Mexico are
materially injuring, or threatening
material injury to, a U.S. industry.42 A
negative ITC determination in any
country will result in the investigation
being terminated with respect to that
country.43 Otherwise, these
investigations 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 Commerce; and (v)
evidence other than factual information
described in (i)–(iv). Section 351.301(b)
of Commerce’s regulations requires any
party, when submitting factual
information, to specify under which
subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the
information is being submitted 44 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.45 Time limits for the
submission of factual information are
addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which
provides specific time limits based on
the type of factual information being
submitted. Interested parties should
review the regulations prior to
submitting factual information in these
investigations.
Extensions of Time Limits
Parties may request an extension of
time limits before the expiration of a
time limit established under 19 CFR
351.301, or as otherwise specified by the
Secretary. In general, an extension
request will be considered untimely if it
is filed after the expiration of the time
limit established under 19 CFR 351.301.
For submissions that are due from
multiple parties simultaneously, an
extension request will be considered
untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET
on the due date. Under certain
circumstances, we may elect to specify
a different time limit by which
extension requests will be considered
untimely for submissions which are due
from multiple parties simultaneously. In
such a case, we will inform parties in
the letter or memorandum of the
deadline (including a specified time) by
which extension requests must be filed
to be considered timely. An extension
request must be made in a separate,
stand-alone submission; under limited
circumstances we will grant untimelyfiled requests for the extension of time
limits. Parties should 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 these
investigations.
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual
information in an AD or CVD
proceeding must certify to the accuracy
and completeness of that information.46
Parties must use the certification
formats provided in 19 CFR
44 See
19 CFR 351.301(b).
19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
46 See section 782(b) of the Act.
42 See
section 703(a)(2) of the Act.
43 See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:33 Mar 01, 2019
45 See
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7343
351.303(g).47 Commerce intends to
reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with
the applicable certification
requirements.
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under APO
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On
January 22, 2008, Commerce published
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Documents Submission
Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR
3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing
to participate in these investigations
should ensure that they meet the
requirements of these procedures (e.g.,
the filing of letters of appearance as
discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
Dated: February 25, 2019.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations,
performing the non-exclusive functions and
duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix—Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise covered by these
investigations is carbon and alloy fabricated
structural steel. Fabricated structural steel is
made from steel in which: (1) Iron
predominates, by weight, over each of the
other contained elements; and (2) the carbon
content is two percent or less by weight.
Fabricated structural steel products are steel
products that have been fabricated for
erection or assembly into structures,
including, but not limited to, buildings
(commercial, office, institutional, and multifamily residential); industrial and utility
projects; parking decks; arenas and
convention centers; medical facilities; and
ports, transportation and infrastructure
facilities. Fabricated structural steel is
manufactured from carbon and alloy
(including stainless) steel products such as
angles, columns, beams, girders, plates,
flange shapes (including manufactured
structural shapes utilizing welded plates as a
substitute for rolled wide flange sections),
channels, hollow structural section (HSS)
shapes, base plates, and plate-work
components. Fabrication includes, but is not
limited to cutting, drilling, welding, joining,
bolting, bending, punching, pressure fitting,
molding, grooving, adhesion, beveling, and
riveting and may include items such as
fasteners, nuts, bolts, rivets, screws, hinges,
or joints.
The inclusion, attachment, joining, or
assembly of non-steel components with
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.
E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM
04MRN1
7344
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 42 / Monday, March 4, 2019 / Notices
fabricated structural steel does not remove
the fabricated structural steel from the scope.
Fabricated structural steel is covered by the
scope of the investigations regardless of
whether it is painted, varnished, or coated
with plastics or other metallic or nonmetallic substances and regardless of
whether it is assembled or partially
assembled, such as into modules,
modularized construction units, or subassemblies of fabricated structural steel.
Subject merchandise includes fabricated
structural steel that has been assembled or
further processed in the subject country or a
third country, including but not limited to
painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting,
drilling, welding, joining, bolting, punching,
bending, beveling, riveting, galvanizing,
coating, and/or slitting or any other
processing that would not otherwise remove
the merchandise from the scope of the
investigations if performed in the country of
manufacture of the fabricated structural steel.
Specifically excluded from the scope of
these investigations are:
1. Fabricated steel concrete reinforcing bar
(rebar) if: (i) It is a unitary piece of fabricated
rebar, not joined, welded, or otherwise
connected with any other steel product or
part; or (ii) it is joined, welded, or otherwise
connected only to other rebar.
2. Fabricated structural steel for bridges
and bridge sections that meets American
Association of State and Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) bridge
construction requirements or any state or
local derivatives of the AASHTO bridge
construction requirements.
3. Pre-engineered metal building systems,
which are defined as complete metal
buildings that integrate steel framing, roofing
and walls to form one, pre-engineered
building system, that meet Metal Building
Manufacturers Association guide
specifications. Pre-engineered metal building
systems are typically limited in height to no
more than 60 feet or two stories.
4. Steel roof and floor decking systems that
meet Steel Deck Institute standards.
5. Open web steel bar joists and joist
girders that meet Steel Joist Institute
specifications.
The products subject to the investigations
are currently classified in the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
under subheadings: 7308.90.3000,
7308.90.6000, and 7308.90.9590.
The products subject to the investigations
may also enter under the following HTSUS
subheadings: 7216.91.0010, 7216.91.0090,
7216.99.0010, 7216.99.0090, 7222.40.6000,
7228.70.6000, 7301.10.0000, 7301.20.1000,
7301.20.5000, 7308.40.0000, 7308.90.9530,
and 9406.90.0030.
The HTSUS subheadings above are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes only. The written description of the
scope of the investigations is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2019–03819 Filed 3–1–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:33 Mar 01, 2019
Jkt 247001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–433–812]
Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-toLength Plate From Austria: Notice of
Court Decision Not in Harmony With
Final Determination in Less Than Fair
Value Investigation and Notice of
Amended Final Determination and
Order Pursuant to Court Decision
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On February 12, 2019, the
United States Court of International
Trade (CIT or the Court) sustained the
final results of redetermination
pertaining to the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV) investigation of certain carbon
and alloy steel cut-to-length plate (CTL
plate) from Austria for the period of
investigation from April 1, 2015,
through March 31, 2016. The
Department of Commerce (Commerce) is
notifying the public that the final
judgment in this case is not in harmony
with the Final Determination and Order
of the investigation and that Commerce
is amending the Final Determination
and Order with respect to the cash
deposit rate assigned to voestalpine
Grobblech GmbH, voestalpine Steel
Service Center GmbH, Bohler Edelstahl
GmbH & Co KG, Bohler Bleche GmbH &
Co KG, and Bohler International GmbH,
(collectively, voestalpine) and the allothers rate.
DATES: Applicable February 22, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Madeline Heeren, AD/CVD Operations,
Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–9179.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On April 4, 2017, Commerce
published its affirmative Final
Determination of sales at less than fair
value, in which it determined a
weighted-average dumping margin of
53.72 percent for voestalpine.1 The
1 In accordance with section 771(33)(F) of the Act,
we determined that the following companies were
affiliated and should be treated as a single entity for
purposes of the investigation: voestalpine
Grobblech, voestalpine Steel Service Center GmbH,
Bohler Edelstahl GmbH & Co KG, Bohler Bleche
GmbH & Co KG, and Bohler International GmbH.
See Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length
Plate from Austria: Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 82 FR
16366, 16367 (April 4, 2017) (Final Determination)
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
antidumping duty order was published
on May 25, 2017.2 The Final
Determination was appealed to the CIT
by voestalpine, and on July 9, 2018, the
CIT sustained, in part, and remanded, in
part, Commerce’s Final Determination.3
Specifically, the Court remanded the
Final Determination directing
Commerce to design a model-match
methodology that accounts for
commercially significant physical
differences among products due to alloy
content and to recalculate dumping
margins in accordance with the revised
model-match methodology.4 On October
9, 2018, Commerce issued its final
results of redetermination pursuant to
remand in accordance with the CIT’s
order.5 On remand, Commerce, under
respectful protest,6 used the alternative
model-match methodology voestalpine
proposed during the investigation to
account for all commercially significant
physical differences, including alloy
content, and recalculated voestalpine’s
weighted-average dumping margin and
the all-others rate using the revised
model-match methodology.7 On
February 12, 2019, the CIT sustained
Commerce’s Remand Redetermination.8
Therefore, the effective date of this
notice is February 22, 2019.
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,9 as clarified
by Diamond Sawblades,10 the United
States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit (CAFC) held that, pursuant to
section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (the Act), Commerce must
publish a notice of a court decision that
is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with a Commerce
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum (IDM).
2 See Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-ToLength Plate from Austria, Belgium, France, the
Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Japan, the
Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Amended Final
Affirmative Antidumping Determinations for
France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the
Republic of Korea and Taiwan, and Antidumping
Duty Orders, 82 FR 24096 (May 25, 2017) (Order).
3 See Bohler Bleche GmbH & Co. KG, et al., v.
United States, 324 F. Supp. 3d 1344 (CIT July 9,
2018) (Bohler)
4 Id. at 1354–1355.
5 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Order Bohler Bleche GmbH & Co. KG, v.
United States, Court No. 17–00163, Slip Op. 18–86
(CIT July 9, 2018), dated October 9, 2018 (Remand
Redetermination), available at https://
enforcement.trade.gov/remands/.
6 See Viraj Grp., Ltd. v. United States, 343 F.3d
1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
7 See Remand Redetermination.
8 See Bohler Bleche GmbH & Co. KG, et al., v.
United States, Court No. 17–00163, Slip Op. 19–19
(CIT February 12, 2019).
9 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).
10 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(Diamond Sawblades).
E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM
04MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 42 (Monday, March 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7339-7344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03819]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-122-865, C-201-851, C-570-103]
Certain Fabricated Structural Steel From Canada, Mexico, and the
People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty
Investigations
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Applicable February 25, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Whitley Herndon at (202) 482-6274
(Canada), Thomas Martin (202) 482-3936 or Trisha Tran at (202) 482-4852
(Mexico), or Darla Brown at (202) 482-1791 (People's Republic of China
(China)), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petitions
On February 4, 2019, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce)
received countervailing duty (CVD) Petitions concerning imports of
certain fabricated structural steel (fabricated structural steel) from
Canada, Mexico, and China, which were subsequently amended on February
21, 2019.\1\ The Petitions, as amended, were filed in proper form by a
subgroup of the American Institute of Steel Construction, LLC, a trade
association representing domestic producers of fabricated structural
steel. Specifically, the petitioner is the American Institute of Steel
Construction Full Member Subgroup (the petitioner). The CVD Petitions
were accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) Petitions concerning imports
of fabricated structural steel from Canada, Mexico, and China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See the petitioner's Letter, ``Petitions for the Imposition
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Fabricated
Structural Steel from Canada, Mexico, and the People's Republic of
China,'' dated February 4, 2019, as amended on February 21, 2019
(the Petitions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the period February 7 through February 14, 2019, Commerce
requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the
Petitions in separate supplemental questionnaires.\2\ Responses to the
supplemental questionnaires were filed between February 12 and February
19, 2019.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Commerce Letters, ``Petitions for the Imposition of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain
Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada, the People's Republic of
China, and Mexico: Supplemental Questions,'' dated February 7, 2019,
``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of
Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from the People's Republic of
China (China): Supplemental Questions,'' dated February 7, 2019,
``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain
Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada: Supplemental Questions,''
dated February 8, 2019, ``Petition for the Imposition of
Countervailing Duties on Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from
Mexico: Supplemental Questions,'' dated February 8, 2019, and
``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of
Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Mexico: Additional
Supplemental Questions,'' dated February 14, 2019.
\3\ See the petitioner's Letters, ``Certain Fabricated
Structural Steel from Canada, Mexico, and the People's Republic of
China: Responses to Supplemental Questions on General and Injury
Volume I of the Petition,'' dated February 12, 2019 (General Issues
Supplement), ``Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada:
Responses to Supplemental Questions on Canada CVD Volume V of the
Petition,'' dated February 12, 2019, ``Certain Fabricated Structural
Steel from Canada: Responses to Supplemental Questions on Mexico CVD
Volume VI of the Petition,'' dated February 12, 2019, ``Certain
Fabricated Structural Steel from the People's Republic of China:
Responses to Supplemental Questions on China CVD Volume VII of the
Petition,'' dated February 12, 2019, and ``Certain Fabricated
Structural Steel from Mexico: Responses to Second Supplemental
Questions in CVD Volume VI of the Petition,'' dated February 19,
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Governments of
Canada, Mexico, and China, as well as the Canadian provincial
governments of Alberta, British Colombia (BC), Manitoba, New Brunswick,
Ontario, Qu[eacute]bec, Prince Edward Island (PEI) and Saskatchewan,
are providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections
701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of fabricated structural steel
in Canada, Mexico, and China and that imports of such products are
materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic
industry producing fabricated structural steel in the United States.
Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for
those alleged programs on which we are initiating CVD investigations,
the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to
the petitioner supporting their allegations.
[[Page 7340]]
Section 771(9)(E) of the Act states that ``a trade or business
association'' is an interested party if ``a majority'' of its ``members
manufacture, produce, or wholesale a domestic like product in the
United States. Based on information contained in the petitioner's
amended Petition submission of February 21, 2019,\4\ as well as its
prior submissions pertaining to the membership of the American
Institute of Steel Construction, LLC,\5\ Commerce finds that the
petitioner satisfactorily showed that a majority of its members
manufacture, produce, or wholesale a domestic like product in the
United States, and therefore the Petitions, as amended, have been filed
on behalf of the domestic industry. Commerce also finds that the
petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the
initiation of the requested CVD investigations.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See the petitioner's Letter, ``Certain Fabricated Structural
Steel from Canada, Mexico, and the People's Republic of China:
Amendment to Petition to Clarify Petitioner,'' dated February 21,
2019 (Amendment to the Petitions) at 2.
\5\ See the petitioner's Letter, ``Petitions for the Imposition
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Fabricated
Structural Steel from Canada, Mexico, and the People's Republic of
China,'' dated February 4, 2019 at Exhibit I-2.
\6\ See ``Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation
Checklist: Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada (Canada
CVD Initiation Checklist); Countervailing Duty Investigation
Initiation Checklist: Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from the
People's Republic of China (China CVD Initiation Checklist); and
Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain
Fabricated Structural Steel from Mexico (Mexico CVD Initiation
Checklist). These checklists are 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigations
Because the Petitions were filed on February 4, 2019, and amended
on February 21, 2019, the period of investigation for each
investigation is January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018.
Scope of the Investigations
The product covered by these investigations is fabricated
structural steel from Canada, Mexico, and China. For a full description
of the scope of these investigations, see the Appendix to this notice.
Scope Comments
During our review of the Petitions, Commerce contacted the
petitioner regarding the proposed scope language to ensure that the
scope language in the Petitions is an accurate reflection of the
products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.\7\ As a
result, the scope of the Petitions was modified to clarify the
description of merchandise covered by the Petitions. The description of
the merchandise covered by these initiations, as described in the
Appendix to this notice, reflects these clarifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Memorandum, ``Petitions for the Imposition of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain
Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada, the People's Republic of
China, and Mexico: Phone Call with Counsel to the Petitioner,''
dated February 21, 2019; see also the petitioner's Letter, ``Certain
Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada, Mexico, and the People's
Republic of China: Revision to Scope,'' dated February 22, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are
setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding
product coverage (scope), including potential overlap with existing
orders.\8\ To the extent that the scope of any of these investigations
overlaps with existing AD/CVD orders, any products covered by that
overlap will be excluded from the scope of the relevant investigation.
Commerce will consider all comments received from interested parties
and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the
issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include
factual information,\9\ all such factual information should be limited
to public information. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires,
Commerce requests that all interested parties submit scope comments by
5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on March 18, 2019, which is the next
business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of this
notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information,
must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on March 28, 2019, which is 10 calendar
days from the initial comments deadline.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule,
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
\9\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ``factual
information'').
\10\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce requests that any factual information parties consider
relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this
period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual
information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be
relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to
submit the additional information. All such submissions must be filed
on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using
Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).\11\ An electronically
filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the
time and date it is due. Documents exempted from the electronic
submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form)
with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC
20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable
deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and
Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046
(November 20, 2014) for details of Commerce's electronic filing
requirements, effective August 5, 2011. Information on help using
ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a
handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consultations
Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce
notified representatives of Canada, Mexico, and China of the receipt of
the Petitions and provided them the opportunity for consultations with
respect to the CVD Petitions.\12\ Commerce held consultations with
Canada and Mexico, on February 19, 2019.\13\ China did not request
consultations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Commerce Letters, ``Certain Fabricated Structural Steel
from Canada, Invitation for Consultations to Discuss the
Countervailing Duty Petition'' dated February 5, 2019,
``Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Fabricated Structural
Steel from Mexico,'' dated February 6, 2019, and ``Countervailing
Duty Petition on Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from the
People's Republic of China,'' dated February 5, 2019.
\13\ See Memorandum, ``Consultations with Officials from the
Government of Canada Regarding the Countervailing Duty Petition
Concerning Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada,'' and ``Ex-Parte
Meeting with Officials from the Government of Mexico on the
Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Fabricated Structural Steel
from Mexico,'' both dated February 19, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support
for, or opposition to, the
[[Page 7341]]
petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if
the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or
workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of
the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) Poll the industry or
rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for
the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine
industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll
the ``industry.''
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the
producers, as a whole, of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute
directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which
is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has
been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like
product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the
ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic
like product,\14\ they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a
separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce's determination
is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may
result in different definitions of the like product, such differences
do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\15\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT
2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F.
Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in 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 Petitions.\16\ Based on our analysis of the information
submitted on the record, we have determined that fabricated structural
steel, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like
product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that
domestic like product.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 14-16 and Exhibit I-5;
see also General Issues Supplement, at 1-3.
\17\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as
applied to these cases and information regarding industry support,
see Canada CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II, Analysis of
Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Petitions Covering Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada,
the People's Republic of China, and Mexico (Attachment II); see also
China CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; Mexico CVD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data
contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in the Appendix to
this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its
own production of the domestic like product in 2017.\18\ The petitioner
estimated the production of the domestic like product for the entire
domestic industry based on shipment data, because production data for
the entire domestic industry are not available, and shipments are a
close approximation of production in the fabricated structural steel
industry.\19\ The petitioner compared its production to the estimated
total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic
industry.\20\ We relied on data provided by the petitioner for purposes
of measuring industry support.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2-3 and Exhibit I-4.
\19\ Id. at 2-3 and Exhibits I-3 and I-4; see also General
Issues Supplement, at 3-6.
\20\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2-3.
\21\ Id. at 2-3 and Exhibit I-3 and I-4; see also General Issues
Supplement, at 3-6. For further discussion, see Canada CVD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; China CVD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II; and Mexico CVD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From February 12 through February 13, 2019, we received comments on
industry support from Canada, Quebec, and Mexico, respectively.\22\ The
petitioner responded to Canada's and Mexico's comments on February 19,
2019.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Mexico Letter, ``Fabricated Structural Steel from
Mexico (A-201-850 and C-201-851)--Request to Dismiss Petitions or
Otherwise Postpone Initiation,'' dated February 13, 2019; see also
Canada Letter, ``Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada (A-122-864
and C-122-865)--Request for Postponement of Initiation and
Disclosure of Members of Petitioner American Institute of Steel
Construction and Identities of Known Domestic Producers,'' dated
February 12, 2019; see also Mexico Letter, ``Fabricated Structural
Steel from Mexico (C-201-851)--Submission of Consultations Paper,''
dated February 20, 2019.
\23\ See the petitioner's Letter, ``Certain Fabricated
Structural Steel from Canada and Mexico: Response to Respondents'
Request to Reject Petitions or Postpone Initiation,'' dated February
19, 2019 (the petitioner's Response).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 19, 2019, we received comments on industry support from
Corey, S.A. de C.V. (Corey), a Mexican producer and exporter of
fabricated structural steel.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Letter from Corey, ``Fabricated Structural Steel from
Mexico: Standing Challenge--Request to Decline Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations,'' dated February
19, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner responded to the comments from Corey on February 21,
2019.\25\ In addition, the petitioner subsequently clarified and
amended the Petitions on February 21, 2019 in response to comments from
Canada, Mexico, and Corey.\26\ During consultations held with respect
to the Canada and Mexico CVD petitions, the both Canada and Mexico
discussed industry support comments and provided additional comments in
the respective CVD consultation papers.\27\ On February 22, 2019, we
received additional comments on industry support from Canada, Quebec
and Mexico.\28\ The petitioner responded to those comments on February
25, 2019.\29\ For further discussion of these comments, see the
country-specific CVD initiation checklists, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See the petitioner's Letter, ``Certain Fabricated
Structural Steel from Canada and Mexico: Response to Respondents'
Standing Challenge and Request to Decline Initiation,'' dated
February 21, 2019.
\26\ See Amendment to the Petitions.
\27\ See Ex-Parte Memorandum, ``Meeting with Officials from the
Government of Mexico on the Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain
Fabricated Structural Steel from Mexico'' dated February 19, 2019;
see also Memorandum, ``Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain
Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada: GOC Consultations,'' dated
February 21, 2019; see also Letter from Mexico, ``Fabricated
Structural Steel from Mexico (C-201-851)--Submission of
Consultations Paper,'' dated February 20, 2019; see also Letter from
Canada, ``Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada (A-122-864 and C-
122-865)--Consultations Paper.
\28\ See Letter from the GOQ, ``Fabricated Structural Steel from
Canada, (A-122-864 and C-122-865): Response to AISC Amendment to
Petition,'' dated February 22, 2019; see also Letter from Canada,
``Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada (A-122-864 and C-122-
865)--Response to AISC Amendment to Petition,'' dated February 22,
2019; see also Letter from Mexico, ``Fabricated Structural Steel
from Mexico (C-201-851, A-201-850)--Comments on Change of
Petitioner,'' dated February 22, 2019.
\29\ See Letter from the petitioner, ``Certain Fabricated
Structural Steel from Canada, Mexico, and the People's Republic of
China,'' dated February 25, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the General
Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce
indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the
Petitions.\30\ First, the Petitions established support from domestic
producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of
[[Page 7342]]
the total production of the domestic like product and, as such,
Commerce is not required to take further action in order to evaluate
industry support (e.g., polling).\31\ Second, the domestic producers
(or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under
section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product.\32\ Finally, the
domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for
industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the
domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions 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 Petitions.\33\ Accordingly, Commerce determines that
the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the
meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Canada CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II;
China CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; and Mexico CVD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\31\ Id.; see also section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act.
\32\ See Canada CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II;
China CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; and Mexico CVD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of
the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in
section 771(9)(E) of the Act, and it has demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the CVD investigations that it is
requesting that Commerce initiate.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury Test
Because Canada, China, and Mexico are ``Subsidies Agreement
Countries'' within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section
701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the
ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from
Canada, China, and/or Mexico materially injure, or threaten material
injury to, a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
The petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are
benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are
causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry
producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioner
alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold
provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 22 and Exhibit I-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by the significant volume and increasing market share of
subject imports; reduced market share of the U.S. industry;
underselling and price depression or suppression; declines in
production, shipments, and capacity utilization; negative impact on
employment variables; decline in the domestic industry's financial
performance; and lost sales and revenues.\36\ We have assessed the
allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat
of material injury, causation, negligibility, as well as cumulation,
and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by
adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for
initiation.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Id. at 11-35 and Exhibits I-3, I-5, I-8, I-10 through I-22.
\37\ See Canada CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III,
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and
Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions
Covering Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada, the
People's Republic of China, and Mexico (Attachment III); see also
China CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III; see also Mexico
CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of CVD Investigations
Based on the examination of the Petitions, we find that the
Petitions meet the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore,
we are initiating CVD investigations to determine whether imports of
fabricated structural steel from Canada, Mexico, and China benefit from
countervailable subsidies conferred by the governments of these
countries. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary
determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
Canada
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 43 of the 44
alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision
to initiate on each program, see Canada CVD Initiation Checklist. A
public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is
available on ACCESS.
Mexico
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 17 of the 19
alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision
to initiate on each program, see Mexico CVD Initiation Checklist. A
public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is
available on ACCESS.
China
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation, in whole or
part, on 25 of the 26 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the
basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see China CVD
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for
this investigation is available on ACCESS.
Respondent Selection
In the Petitions, the petitioner named 50 companies in Canada,\38\
18 companies in Mexico,\39\ and 220 companies in China,\40\ as
producers/exporters of fabricated structural steel. Commerce intends to
follow its standard practice in CVD investigations and calculate
company-specific subsidy rates in these investigations. In the event
Commerce determines that the number of companies is large and it cannot
individually examine each company based upon Commerce's resources,
where appropriate, Commerce intends to select mandatory respondents
based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports
of fabricated structural steel from Canada, Mexico, and China during
the POI under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States numbers listed in the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in the
Appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See Volume I of the Petition at Exhibit I-7.
\39\ Id.
\40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 20, 2019, Commerce released CBP data under
Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to
information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties
wishing to comment regarding the CBP data and respondent selection must
do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice
of initiation of these CVD investigations.\41\
[[Page 7343]]
Commerce will not accept rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or
respondent selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See Memorandum, ``Countervailing Duty Investigation of
Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada: Releasing U.S.
Customs and Border Protection Data,'' Memorandum, ``Countervailing
Duty Petition on Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Mexico:
Release of Customs Data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection,''
and Memorandum, ``Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Fabricated
Structural Steel from the People's Republic of China: Release of
Customs Data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection,'' each dated
February 20, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such
applications may be found on the Commerce's website at https://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.
Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An
electronically filed document must be received successfully, in its
entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the date noted above.
We intend to finalize our decisions regarding respondent selection
within 20 days of publication of this notice.
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public versions of the Petitions have been
provided to Canada, China, and Mexico via ACCESS. To the extent
practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of
the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided
under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
702(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date
on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable
indication that imports of fabricated structural steel from Canada,
China, and/or Mexico are materially injuring, or threatening material
injury to, a U.S. industry.\42\ A negative ITC determination in any
country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect
to that country.\43\ Otherwise, these investigations will proceed
according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See section 703(a)(2) of the Act.
\43\ See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of Factual Information
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i)
Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence
submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available
information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence
placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual
information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's
regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to
specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information
is being submitted \44\ 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.\45\ Time limits for the submission of factual information are
addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based
on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties
should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information
in these investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
\45\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extensions of Time Limits
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the
expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as
otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request
will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the
time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are
due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be
considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date.
Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time
limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for
submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such
a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum of the
deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must
be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in
a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will
grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Parties
should review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790
(September 20, 2013), available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information
in these investigations.
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\46\
Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR
351.303(g).\47\ Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\47\ See 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
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, Commerce
published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents
Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008).
Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure
that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing
of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and
777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
Dated: February 25, 2019.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix--Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise covered by these investigations is carbon and
alloy fabricated structural steel. Fabricated structural steel is
made from steel in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over
each of the other contained elements; and (2) the carbon content is
two percent or less by weight. Fabricated structural steel products
are steel products that have been fabricated for erection or
assembly into structures, including, but not limited to, buildings
(commercial, office, institutional, and multi-family residential);
industrial and utility projects; parking decks; arenas and
convention centers; medical facilities; and ports, transportation
and infrastructure facilities. Fabricated structural steel is
manufactured from carbon and alloy (including stainless) steel
products such as angles, columns, beams, girders, plates, flange
shapes (including manufactured structural shapes utilizing welded
plates as a substitute for rolled wide flange sections), channels,
hollow structural section (HSS) shapes, base plates, and plate-work
components. Fabrication includes, but is not limited to cutting,
drilling, welding, joining, bolting, bending, punching, pressure
fitting, molding, grooving, adhesion, beveling, and riveting and may
include items such as fasteners, nuts, bolts, rivets, screws,
hinges, or joints.
The inclusion, attachment, joining, or assembly of non-steel
components with
[[Page 7344]]
fabricated structural steel does not remove the fabricated
structural steel from the scope.
Fabricated structural steel is covered by the scope of the
investigations regardless of whether it is painted, varnished, or
coated with plastics or other metallic or non-metallic substances
and regardless of whether it is assembled or partially assembled,
such as into modules, modularized construction units, or sub-
assemblies of fabricated structural steel.
Subject merchandise includes fabricated structural steel that
has been assembled or further processed in the subject country or a
third country, including but not limited to painting, varnishing,
trimming, cutting, drilling, welding, joining, bolting, punching,
bending, beveling, riveting, galvanizing, coating, and/or slitting
or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the
merchandise from the scope of the investigations if performed in the
country of manufacture of the fabricated structural steel.
Specifically excluded from the scope of these investigations
are:
1. Fabricated steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) if: (i) It
is a unitary piece of fabricated rebar, not joined, welded, or
otherwise connected with any other steel product or part; or (ii) it
is joined, welded, or otherwise connected only to other rebar.
2. Fabricated structural steel for bridges and bridge sections
that meets American Association of State and Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) bridge construction requirements
or any state or local derivatives of the AASHTO bridge construction
requirements.
3. Pre-engineered metal building systems, which are defined as
complete metal buildings that integrate steel framing, roofing and
walls to form one, pre-engineered building system, that meet Metal
Building Manufacturers Association guide specifications. Pre-
engineered metal building systems are typically limited in height to
no more than 60 feet or two stories.
4. Steel roof and floor decking systems that meet Steel Deck
Institute standards.
5. Open web steel bar joists and joist girders that meet Steel
Joist Institute specifications.
The products subject to the investigations are currently
classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) under subheadings: 7308.90.3000, 7308.90.6000, and
7308.90.9590.
The products subject to the investigations may also enter under
the following HTSUS subheadings: 7216.91.0010, 7216.91.0090,
7216.99.0010, 7216.99.0090, 7222.40.6000, 7228.70.6000,
7301.10.0000, 7301.20.1000, 7301.20.5000, 7308.40.0000,
7308.90.9530, and 9406.90.0030.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and
customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the
investigations is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2019-03819 Filed 3-1-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
