Our Sites

Commerce investigates fabricated structural steel imports

Canada, China, and Mexico are targeted for possible trade penalties

The White House's next step in shoring up the domestic steel industry is investigating antidumping and subsidization claims on fabricated structural steel that comes from Canada, China, and Mexico.

The U.S. opened a new front on the war against steel imports with the Feb. 28 announcement that the Department of Commerce was going to investigate possible dumping and subsidization of imported fabricated structural steel from Canada, China, and Mexico.

Any new tariffs on imports of those products would depend on a finding by the U.S. International Trade Commission that the imports in question are injuring U.S. steel manufacturers. In opening the investigation, the Commerce Department was responding to a petition from the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Full Member Subgroup, filed on Feb. 4. Commerce is opening separate new antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) investigations.

AISC estimated the total domestic consumption of fabricated structural steel at 4.7 million tons, with U.S. structural steel fabricators providing 3.4 million tons. Imports, mostly from the three countries being investigated, make up the other 1.3 million tons. The AISC is particularly concerned at the rapid growth of structural steel imports in recent years.

In the AD investigation, the Commerce Department will determine whether imports of fabricated structural steel are being dumped in the U.S. market at less than fair value. The alleged dumping margins are 30.41 percent for Canada, 222.35 percent for China, and 30.58 percent for Mexico.

In the CVD investigation, the Commerce Department will determine whether the same imports are receiving unfair government subsidies. Allegations suggest that Canada enjoys 44 subsidy programs, including tax programs, grant programs, loan programs, export insurance programs, and equity programs. China is said to have 26 subsidy programs, including tax programs, grant programs, debt restructuring programs, and export subsidy programs. Mexico is alleged to have 19 subsidy programs, including grant programs, tax programs, export programs, and loan programs. The Commerce Department is scheduled to make its final determinations on these cases by July 15 for the CVD investigations and Sept. 30 for the AD investigations, but those dates may be extended.

Changes to OSHA’s Beryllium Standard Lauded

The metalworking and manufacturing communities have blessed changes to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s beryllium standard, making it likely the agency will finalize those very soon. The National Association of Manufacturers issued a statement saying it is “pleased that OSHA has now proposed to clarify certain ancillary provisions to simplify compliance burdens.”

OSHA issued a new standard in 2017. It included staggered compliance deadlines, the most recent in December 2018. That deadline greatly affected some ancillary provisions, which OSHA decided it wanted to change. For example, the December 2018 proposed rule made changes to the definition of a “beryllium work area,” which triggers workplace requirements. Business and labor groups have now weighed in on that proposed rule.

“OSHA’s proposed changes to the standard are supported by scientific evidence in the record and are legally justified in accordance with OSHA’s obligations under the OSH Act,” said Sandra Crawford, president of Mead Metals Inc. “The proposed changes will make the beryllium standard workable and eliminate regulatory uncertainty.”

Even the AFL-CIO, which was instrumental in convincing OSHA to announce the new standard in 2017, is happy with the changes.

“This new proposal specific to general industry not only retains the feasible permissible exposure limit (PEL) of the original beryllium standard, but also retains ancillary provisions necessary to reduce health risks further that the PEL alone cannot achieve,” Rebecca L. Reindel, senior safety and health specialist, AFL-CIO, said.

Other compliance obligations under the standard do not commence until late 2019 or 2020.

About the Author

Stephen Barlas

Contributing Writer

Stephen Barlas is a freelance writer that has more than 30 years of experience covering Congress, the White House, and the many regulatory agencies found in Washington, D.C. He has covered issues affecting the metal fabricating industry for The FABRICATOR for more than a decade.