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 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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http:// enforcement.trade.gov/remands/index.html. 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 http://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 http://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 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, Commerce 
published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents 
Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). 
Parties wishing to participate in 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