[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 42 (Monday, March 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7330-7337]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03818]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-122-864, A-201-850, A-570-102]
Certain Fabricated Structural Steel From Canada, Mexico, and the
People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value
Investigations
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Applicable February 25, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Goldberger at (202) 482-4136
(Canada); Alice Maldonado at (202) 482-4682 (the People's Republic of
China (China)); and Jeffrey Pedersen at (202) 482-2769 (Mexico); 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 antidumping duty (AD) Petitions concerning imports of certain
fabricated structural steel (fabricated structural steel) from Canada,
China, and Mexico, 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 AD Petitions
were accompanied by countervailing duty (CVD) Petitions concerning
imports of fabricated structural steel from Canada, China, and Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 7, 2019, Commerce requested supplemental information
pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions in separate supplemental
[[Page 7331]]
questionnaires.\2\ Responses to the supplemental questionnaires were
filed on February 11 and 12, 2019.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Commerce Letters, ``Re: Petitions for the Imposition of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Fabricated
Structural Steel from Canada, the People's Republic of China, and
Mexico: Supplemental Questions;'' ``Re: Petition for the Imposition
of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain Fabricated Structural
Steel from Canada: Supplemental Questions;'' ``Re: Petition for the
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain Fabricated
Structural Steel from Mexico: Supplemental Questions;'' and ``Re:
Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of
Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from the People's Republic of
China: Supplemental Questions.'' All of these documents are dated
February 7, 2019.
\3\ See the petitioner's Letters, ``Re: Certain Fabricated
Structural Steel from Canada: Responses to Supplemental Questions on
Canada AD Volume III of the Petition'' (Canada AD Supplement); ``Re:
Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Mexico: Response to
Supplemental Questions on Mexico AD Volume III of the Petition''
(Mexico AD Supplement); and ``Re: Certain Fabricated Structural
Steel from the People's Republic of China: Responses to Supplemental
Questions on China AD Volume IV of the Petition'' (China AD
Supplement). All of these documents are dated February 11, 2019; see
also Petitioner's Letter, ``Re: 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of fabricated
structural steel from Canada, China, and Mexico are being, or are
likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV)
within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are
materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic
industry producing fabricated structural steel in the United States.
Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are
accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner
supporting its allegations.
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 AD 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 ``Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist:
Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada (Canada AD
Initiation Checklist); Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation
Checklist: Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from the People's
Republic of China (China AD Initiation Checklist); and Antidumping
Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Fabricated
Structural Steel from Mexico (Mexico AD 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Periods of Investigation
Because the Petitions were filed on February 4, 2019, and amended
on February 21, 2019, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of
investigation (POI) for the Canada and Mexico investigations is January
1, 2018, through December 31, 2018. Because China is a non-market
economy (NME) country, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the POI for
the China investigation is July 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018.
Scope of the Investigations
The product covered by these investigations is fabricated
structural steel from Canada, China, and Mexico. 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\
[[Page 7332]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires
Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment
on the appropriate physical characteristics of fabricated structural
steel to be reported in response to Commerce's AD questionnaires. This
information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics
of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors of
production (FOPs) accurately, as well as to develop appropriate
product-comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that
they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to
which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product
characteristics, and (2) product comparison criteria. We note that it
is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product
comparison criteria. We base product comparison criteria on meaningful
commercial differences among products. In other words, although there
may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers
to describe fabricated structural steel, it may be that only a select
few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful
physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment
on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in
matching products. Generally, Commerce attempts to list the most
important physical characteristics first and the least important
characteristics last.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in
developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product
characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on March 18,
2019, which is the next business day after 20 calendar days from the
signature date of this notice.\12\ Any rebuttal comments must be filed
by 5:00 p.m. ET on March 25, 2019. All comments and submissions to
Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above,
on the record of each of the AD investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) 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,\13\ 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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\14\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT
2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F.
Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the
petition).
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope
of the Petitions.\15\ 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.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 14-16 and Exhibit I-5;
see also General Issues Supplement, at 1-3.
\16\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as
applied to these cases and information regarding industry support,
see Canada AD 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); China AD
Initiation Checklist at Attachment II; and Mexico AD Initiation
Checklist at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data
contained in the 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.\17\ 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.\18\ The petitioner compared its production to the estimated
total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic
industry.\19\ We relied on data provided by the petitioner for purposes
of measuring industry support.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2-3 and Exhibit I-4.
\18\ Id. at 2-3 and Exhibits I-3 and I-4; see also General
Issues Supplement, at 3-6.
\19\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2-3.
\20\ Id. at 2-3 and Exhibit I-3 and I-4; see also General Issues
Supplement, at 3-6. For further discussion, see Canada AD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II; China AD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment II; and Mexico AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7333]]
On February 12 and February 13, 2019, we received comments on
industry support from Canada, the provincial government of
Qu[eacute]bec, and Mexico, respectively.\21\ The petitioner responded
to the Canada's and Mexico's comments on February 19, 2019.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Letter from the Government of Canada, the Government of
Qu[eacute]bec, and Export Development Canada, ``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 (Canada Letter); see
also Letter from the Government of Mexico, ``Fabricated Structural
Steel from Mexico (A-201-850 and C-201-851)--Request to Dismiss
Petitions or Otherwise Postpone Initiation,'' dated February 13,
2019 (Mexico Letter).
\22\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 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.\24\ In addition, the petitioner subsequently clarified and
amended the Petitions on February 21, 2019, in response to the comments
from Canada, Mexico, and Corey.\25\ During consultations held with
respect to the Canada and Mexico CVD petitions, Canada and Mexico
discussed industry support comments and provided additional comments in
the respective CVD consultation papers.\26\ On February 22, 2019, we
received additional comments on industry support from Canada,
Qu[eacute]bec, and Mexico.\27\ The petitioner responded to Canada's,
Qu[eacute]bec's, and Mexico's comments on February 25, 2019.\28\ For
further discussion of these comments, see the country-specific AD
initiation checklists, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 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.
\25\ See Amendment to the Petitions.
\26\ 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.
\27\ See Letter from Qu[eacute]bec, ``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.
\28\ 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.\29\ First, the Petitions established support from domestic
producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total
production of the domestic like product and, as such, Commerce is not
required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support
(e.g., polling).\30\ Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have
met the statutory criteria for industry support under section
732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers)
who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total
production of the domestic like product.\31\ Finally, the domestic
producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry
support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic
producers (or workers) who support the 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.\32\ Accordingly, Commerce determines that the Petitions
were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of
section 732(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; China
AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; and Mexico AD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II.
\30\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Canada AD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; China AD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II; and Mexico AD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment II.
\31\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; China
AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; and Mexico AD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II.
\32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the
domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened
with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject
merchandise sold at LTFV. In addition, the petitioner alleges that
subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under
section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 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.\34\ 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.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Id. at 11-41 and Exhibits I-3, I-5, I-8, I-10 through I-22;
see also General Issues Supplement, at 6.
\35\ See Canada AD 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 AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III; see also Mexico AD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations of Sales at LTFV
The following is a description of the allegation of sales at LTFV
upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate AD investigations of
imports of fabricated structural steel from Canada, China, and Mexico.
The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S.
price and normal value (NV) are discussed in greater detail in the AD
Initiation Checklist for each country.
Export Price
For China and Mexico, the petitioner based export price (EP) on
pricing information for fabricated structural steel produced in, and
exported from, those countries and sold or offered for sale in the
United States.\36\ For China, the petitioner deducted from U.S. price
foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight
and insurance, and U.S. port expenses.\37\ For
[[Page 7334]]
Mexico, the petitioner deducted from U.S. price foreign inland freight,
foreign brokerage and handling, U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S.
inland freight.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See China and Mexico AD Initiation Checklists; see also See
Volume IV of the Petition, at 3 and Exhibit IV-2.
\37\ See Volume IV of the Petition at 4; see also China AD
Supplement, at Exhibit IV--Supp-2.
\38\ See the Mexico AD Initiation Checklist at 7-8 and Volume IV
of the Petition at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constructed Export Price
For Canada, because the petitioner had reason to believe that the
sale was made on a constructed export price (CEP) basis,\39\ the
petitioner based CEP on pricing information for fabricated structural
steel produced in Canada by a Canadian producer and sold or offered for
sale in the United States.\40\ The petitioner made deductions from U.S.
price for foreign inland freight (including foreign inland insurance
and foreign brokerage and handling), U.S. inland freight, and U.S.
brokerage and handling charges.\41\ The petitioner also deducted
further manufacturing expenses and CEP profit from U.S. price.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See Canada AD Supplement, at 1. The petitioner requested
business proprietary treatment for the information regarding why it
believes the offer for sale was made on a CEP basis.
\40\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist.
\41\ Id.
\42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
For Canada and Mexico, the petitioner was unable to obtain
information relating to the prices charged for fabricated structural
steel in Canada and Mexico, or any third country market.\43\ The
petitioner noted that fabricated structural steel is a specialized
product which is sold to specific classes of customers and for special
projects and, with few exceptions, no two fabricated structural steel
projects are identical.\44\ Because home market and third country
prices were not reasonably available, the petitioners calculated NV
based on constructed value (CV). For further discussion of CV, see the
section ``Normal Value Based on Constructed Value'' below.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See Canada and Mexico AD Initiation Checklists.
\44\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 11; and Volume III of the
Petition, at 9.
\45\ In accordance section 773(b)(2) of the Act, for this
investigation, Commerce will request information necessary to
calculate the CV and cost of production (COP) to determine whether
there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the
foreign like product have been made at prices that represent less
than the COP of the product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to China, Commerce considers China to be an NME
country.\46\ In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any
determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in
effect until revoked by Commerce. Therefore, we continue to treat China
as an NME country for purposes of the initiation of this investigation.
Accordingly, NV in China is appropriately based on factors of
production (FOPs) valued in a surrogate market economy country, in
accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Aluminum Foil
from the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value and Postponement of
Final Determination, 82 FR 50858, 50861 (November 2, 2017), and
accompanying decision memorandum, China's Status as a Non-Market
Economy, unchanged in Certain Aluminum Foil from the People's
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 83 FR 9282 (March 5, 2018).
\47\ See China AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Petitions claim Brazil is an appropriate surrogate country for
China because it is a market economy country that is at a level of
economic development comparable to that of China, and it is a
significant producer of identical merchandise.\48\ The Petitions
provided publicly-available information from Brazil to value all
FOPs.\49\ However, the Petitions relied upon the financial statement of
Grupo Carso, S.A.B. de C.V. (Carso), a Mexican producer of fabricated
structural steel, to value financial ratios (i.e., manufacturing
overhead, selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and
profit) because the petitioner stated that it attempted to locate the
financial ratios of a producer of identical or comparable merchandise
in Brazil; however, ``many companies within Brazil have reported net
losses for their most recent fiscal years or have been required to
report `qualified' financial statements.'' \50\ Therefore, based on the
information provided by the petitioner, we determine that it is
appropriate to use Brazil as the primary surrogate country, but rely on
the financial statement of a Mexican producer of fabricated structural
steel to value financial ratios, for initiation purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See Volume IV of the Petition, at 9-10 and Exhibit IV-11.
\49\ Id. at 16 and Exhibit IV-17
\50\ Id. at 18 and Exhibits IV-10 and IV-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments
regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly
available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled
date of the preliminary determination.
Factors of Production
Because information regarding the volume of inputs consumed by the
Chinese producer/exporter was not reasonably available, the Petitions
used the product-specific consumption rates of a U.S. fabricated
structural steel producer as a surrogate to estimate the Chinese
manufacturer's FOPs.\51\ The Petitions valued the estimated FOPs using
surrogate values from Brazil, as noted above.\52\ The Petitions used an
average exchange rate to convert the data to U.S. dollars, where
applicable.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Id. at 11 and Exhibit IV-12.
\52\ Id. at 16 and Exhibits IV-17; see also China AD Supplement
at Exhibit IV-Supp-3.
\53\ See Volume IV of the Petition at 15 and Exhibit IV-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value Based on Constructed Value
As noted above, because home market and third country prices were
not available for Mexico and Canada, the Petitions based NV on CV.\54\
Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the cost of
manufacturing (COM), SG&A expenses, financial expenses, and profit.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See Volume II of the Petition at 11; and Volume III of the
Petition at 9.
\55\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist and Mexico AD Initiation
Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Canada and Mexico, the Petitions calculated the COM based on
the input factors of production and usage rates from a U.S. producer of
fabricated structural steel. The input factors of production were
valued using publicly available data on costs specific to Canada and
Mexico during the proposed POI.\56\ Specifically, the prices for raw
materials (and propane for Canada) were valued using publicly available
import and domestic price data for Canada and Mexico.\57\ Labor and
energy costs were valued using publicly available sources for Canada
and Mexico.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Id.
\57\ Id.
\58\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Canada, the Petitions relied on the fiscal year (FY) 2017
audited financial statements of Empire Industries Limited (Empire), a
Canadian producer of fabricated structural steel, to determine the per-
unit factory overhead costs associated with the production of
fabricated structural steel.\59\ The Petitions also relied on Empire's
FY 2017 audited financial statements to determine the SG&A expense
ratio used to calculate the per-unit SG&A expenses and the financial
expense ratio \60\ used to calculate the per-unit financial
expenses.\61\ To determine the profit rate, the Petitions relied on
Empire's FY 2017 audited financial statements.\62\ Because
[[Page 7335]]
Empire operated at a loss for FY 2017, the Petitions conservatively did
not include an amount for profit in the calculation of CV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ See Volume II of the Petition at 18 and Exhibit II-22A and
Exhibit II-22B.
\60\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist.
\61\ Id.
\62\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Mexico, the Petitions calculated factory overhead, SG&A,
interest and profit based on the 2017 audited financial statements of
Carso, a Mexican producer of fabricated structural steel.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ See Mexico AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by the Petitions, there is reason to
believe that imports of fabricated structural steel from Canada, China,
and Mexico are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at
LTFV. Based on comparisons of EP, or CEP, to NV in accordance with
sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for
fabricated structural steel for each of the countries covered by this
initiation are as follows: (1) Canada--30.41 percent; \64\ (2) China--
222.35 percent; \65\ and (3) Mexico--30.58 percent.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist.
\65\ See China AD Initiation Checklist.
\66\ See Mexico AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of LTFV Investigations
Based upon the examination of the Petitions and supplemental
responses, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section
732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations to
determine whether imports of fabricated structural steel from Canada,
China, and Mexico are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United
States at LTFV. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary
determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this
initiation.
Respondent Selection
With respect to Canada and Mexico, the petitioner named 50
companies in Canada \67\ and 18 companies in Mexico,\68\ as producers/
exporters of fabricated structural steel. Following standard practice
in AD investigations involving market economy countries, 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 respondents in Canada and
Mexico based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S.
imports under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS) numbers listed with the scope in the Appendix,
below.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-7.
\68\ Id.
\69\ See, e.g., Polyester Textured Yarn from India and the
People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value
Investigations, 83 FR 58223, 58227 (November 19, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to China, the petitioners named 220 producers/
exporters of fabricated structural steel in China. In AD investigations
involving NME countries, Commerce selects respondents based on quantity
and value (Q&V) questionnaires in cases where it cannot individually
examine each company based upon its resources. After considering the
large number of producers and exporters identified in the Petition, and
considering the resources that must be used by Commerce to mail Q&V
questionnaires to all of these companies, Commerce has determined that
we do not have sufficient administrative resources to mail Q&V
questionnaires to all 220 identified producers and exporters.
Therefore, Commerce has determined to limit the number of Q&V
questionnaires it will send out to exporters and producers based on CBP
data for imports during the POI under the appropriate HTSUS numbers
listed with the scope in the Appendix, below. Accordingly, Commerce
will send Q&V questionnaires to the largest producers and exporters
that are identified in the CBP data for which there is address
information on the record.
On February 25, 2019, Commerce released CBP data on imports of
fabricated structural steel from Canada, China, and Mexico under APO to
all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated
that interested parties wishing to comment on the CBP data must do so
within three business days of the publication date of the notice of
initiation of these investigations.\70\ We further stated that we will
not accept rebuttal comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ See Memoranda, ``Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of
Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada: Release of U.S.
Customs and Border Protection Data;'' ``Less-Than-Fair-Value
Investigation of Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from the
People's Republic of China: Release of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection Data;'' and ``Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of
Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Mexico: Release of U.S.
Customs and Border Protection Data,'' dated February 25, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, Commerce will post the Q&V questionnaire along with
filing instructions on the Enforcement and Compliance website at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp. In accordance with our standard
practice for respondent selection in AD cases involving NME countries,
we intend to base respondent selection on the responses to the Q&V
questionnaire that we receive.
Producers/exporters of fabricated structural steel from China that
do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response
to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy of the Q&V questionnaire
from Enforcement & Compliance's website. The Q&V response must be
submitted by the relevant Chinese exporters/producers no later than
5:00 p.m. ET on March 15, 2019. All Q&V responses must be filed
electronically via ACCESS.
Separate Rates
In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation,
exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.\71\
The specific requirements for submitting a separate-rate application in
the China investigation are outlined in detail in the application
itself, which is available on Commerce's website at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. The separate-rate
application will be due 30 days after publication of this initiation
notice.\72\ Exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate
application and are selected as mandatory respondents will be eligible
for consideration for separate-rate status only if they respond to all
parts of Commerce's AD questionnaire as mandatory respondents. Commerce
requires that companies from China submit a response to both the Q&V
questionnaire and the separate-rate application by the respective
deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status.
Companies not filing a timely Q&V response will not receive separate-
rate consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation
involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at
http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf (Policy Bulletin
05.1).
\72\ Although in past investigations this deadline was 60 days,
consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(a), which states that ``the Secretary
may request any person to submit factual information at any time
during a proceeding,'' this deadline is now 30 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Combination Rates
Commerce will calculate combination rates for certain respondents
that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The
Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:
{w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates
only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now
assign in its NME Investigation will be specific to those producers
that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note,
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the
producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the
[[Page 7336]]
period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory
respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as
well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-
average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is
referred to as the application of ``combination rates'' because such
rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more
producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply
only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and
produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of
investigation.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been
provided to the governments of 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
732(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.\74\ A negative ITC determination for any
country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect
to that country.\75\ Otherwise, the investigations will proceed
according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ See section 733(a) of the Act.
\75\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of Factual Information
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i)
Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence
submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available
information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence
placed on the record by 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 \76\ 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.\77\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
\77\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particular Market Situation Allegation
Section 504 of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 amended
the Act by adding the concept of particular market situation (PMS) for
purposes of CV under section 773(e) of the Act.\78\ Section 773(e) of
the Act states that ``if a particular market situation exists such that
the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind
does not accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary
course of trade, the administering authority may use another
calculation methodology under this subtitle or any other calculation
methodology.'' When an interested party submits a PMS allegation
pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce will respond to such a
submission consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v). If Commerce finds
that a PMS exists under section 773(e) of the Act, then it will modify
its dumping calculations appropriately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law
114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither section 773(e) of the Act nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v) set a
deadline for the submission of PMS allegations and supporting factual
information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act,
Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual
information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should
an interested party wish to submit a PMS allegation and supporting new
factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do
so no later than 20 days after submission of a respondent's initial
section D questionnaire response.
Extensions of Time Limits
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the
expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as
otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request
will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the
time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are
due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be
considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date.
Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time
limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for
submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such
a case, we will inform parties in a letter or memorandum 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.\79\
Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR
351.303(g).\80\ Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\80\ See also Certification of Factual Information to Import
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule). Answers to
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule are available at
http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, 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 732(c)(2)
and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
[[Page 7337]]
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 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. 2019-03818 Filed 3-1-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P