[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