Notification of Investigation Канада


Содержание поста:

Notification Of Investigation And Procedural Comments

This document is available in two formats: this web page (for browsing content) and PDF (comparable to original document formatting). To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Williams Natural Gas Company Docket No. RP95-3-000

NOTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATION AND PROCEDURAL COMMENTS

On October 5, 1994, Williams Natural Gas Company filed Revised Gas Tariff sheets requesting that they go into effect on November 5, 1994. Simultaneously, Williams filed a Stipulation and Agreement that would settle any disputes concerning the lawfulness of the proposed tariff changes. The Stipulation and Agreement was filed pursuant to FERC Rule of Procedure, 602 (18 C.F.R.), which requires filing of such settlements with the Commission in certain circumstances. The provisions of the Stipulation and Agreement would allow Williams to direct bill up to $75 million in unrecovered purchased gas costs to some of its customers.

The Department of Justice has no position on Williams request for FERC approval of the $75 million cost passthrough aspect of the Stipulation and Agreement. The Stipulation and Agreement further states, however, that two contracts entered into by Western Resources, Inc., are «essential elements of the Stipulation and Agreement» that would settle this docket. The two contracts are a gas purchase agreement between Western Resources and Amoco, and a long term transportation contract between Western Resources and Williams. Although Williams does not claim that either contract directly affects the gas tariff at issue here, the proposed order submitted by Williams includes a broad finding that the Stipulation and Agreement is «fair and reasonable and in the public interest.» Thus, while the long-term transportation contract with Western is not before the Commission in this proceeding, (1) Williams appears to be seeking not only approval of the passthrough, but also an implicit finding that the long-term transportation contract is in the public interest within the meaning of the Natural Gas Act.

The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice is currently investigating conduct by Williams and Western Resources relating to the provision of natural gas transportation services to Western that may constitute violations of federal antitrust law. In particular, the Department is investigating conduct by Williams and WRI that may have had the purpose or effect of unlawfully excluding competition in the transportation of natural gas. The long-term transportation contract between Western Resources and Williams is within the scope of the investigation. Although the Department cannot predict the outcome of its investigation, if the investigation reveals that either Williams or Western has violated the antitrust laws, appropriate relief might include a federal court order that modifies or enjoins the long-term transportation contract between Williams and Western.

It is well-settled that neither the Commissions approval under the Natural Gas Act of the Stipulation and Agreement in this proceeding, nor its approval of the long-term transportation contract in a subsequent proceeding, would confer antitrust immunity on the transportation contract between Williams and Western or prevent a federal district court from imposing appropriately-tailored relief under the antitrust laws that would cure exclusionary or other anticompetitive effects of that contract. Hartigan v. Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Corp., 730 F. Supp. 826, 936 (C.D. Ill. 1990), citing, California v. FPC, 369 U.S. 482, 486 (1962). The Commission may, however, wish to stay or defer any proceedings with respect to the long-term transportation contract pending the completion of the Departments antitrust investigation. By so doing, the Commission would have the opportunity to weigh the results of the Departments antitrust investigation in assessing whether the contract is in the public interest within the meaning of the Natural Gas Act. In any event, the Department requests that the Commission avoid any suggestion that it is reviewing the legality of the long-term transportation contract under the Natural Gas Act in this proceeding relating to the settlement of disputes concerning the proposed gas tariff.

Respectfully submitted,
Anne K. Bingaman
Assistant Attorney General
Antitrust Division

Robert E. Litan
Deputy Assistant Attorney
General
Antitrust Division

Roger W. Fones
Chief
Transportation, Energy, and
Agriculture Section
Antitrust Division

____________»/s/»____________
Michael D. Billiel
Attorney
Transportation, Energy, and
Agriculture Section

____________»/s/»____________
Jade Alice Eaton
Attorney
Transportation, Energy, and
Agriculture Section

Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
555 4th Street, N.W.
Room 9104
Washington, D. C. 20001
(202) 307-6666

Dated: October 20, 1994

1. The transportation contract has not yet been filed with the Commission, although it also must be reviewed by the Commission under the Natural Gas Act to determine whether it is in the public interest before it can be placed into effect.

Canada watchdog’s investigation finds Facebook broke privacy laws

Thursday Apr 25, 2020

OTTAWA: Facebook Inc broke Canadian privacy laws when it collected the information of some 600,000 citizens, a top watchdog said on Thursday, pledging to seek a court order to force the social media giant to change its practices.

Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien made his comments while releasing the results of an investigation, opened a year ago, into a data sharing scandal involving Facebook and the now-defunct British political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica.

Though Facebook has acknowledged a “major breach of trust” in the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the company disputed the results of the Canadian probe, Therrien said.

“Facebook’s refusal to act responsibly is deeply troubling given the vast amount of sensitive personal information users have entrusted to this company,” said Therrien.

“Their privacy framework was empty, and their vague terms were so elastic that they were not meaningful for privacy protection,” he added.

Facebook was not immediately available for comment.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner does not have the power to levy financial penalties, but it can seek court orders to force an entity to follow its recommendations.

The Canadian investigation revealed “critical weaknesses” in the current legislation, Therrien added, urging lawmakers to give his office more sanctioning power.

Canadian Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould, who this month said the government might have to regulate Facebook and other social media companies unless they did more to help combat foreign meddling in this October’s election, will react later on Thursday, a spokeswoman said.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform

308 documents in the last year

Government Contracts

54 documents in the last year

Stock & Commodities Trading

451 documents in the last year

Economic Sanctions & Foreign Assets Control

677 documents in the last year

Safety Zone; Sunken Vessel Salvage; Port Sutton Channel; Tampa, Flor > by the Coast Guard on 11/18/2020

Endangered & Threatened Species

826 documents in the last year

Fishery Management

1379 documents in the last year

Taking of Marine Mammals

247 documents in the last year

Parks & Recreation

809 documents in the last year

Evaluation of the Mandela Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders

Immigration & Border Control

283 documents in the last year

Cultural Objects Imported for Exhibition

81 documents in the last year

International Trade (Anti-Dumping)

904 documents in the last year

Controlled Exports (CCL & USML)

38 documents in the last year

Crystal Springs Hatchery Program Termination Environmental Impact Statement

Broadband Policy

164 documents in the last year

Patent, Trademark, and Copyright

1588 documents in the last year

Energy Efficiency & Renewable Resources

310 documents in the last year

Climate Change

197 documents in the last year

Withdrawal of Approval of Abbreviated New Drug Applications for Fentanyl Transdermal Systems

Automobile Safety & Fuel Economy

36 documents in the last year

Oil and Gas Leasing

25 documents in the last year

Air Travel

90 documents in the last year

Trade Adjustment Assistance

66 documents in the last year

Smallpox Infection: Developing Drugs for Treatment or Prevention; Gu > by the Food and Drug Administration on 11/18/2020

Health Care Reform

129 documents in the last year

Veterans Educational Benefits

5 documents in the last year

Veterans Employment & Training

25 documents in the last year

Disaster Declarations & Assistance

932 documents in the last year

Explore Agencies

Explore Topics (CFR Indexing Terms)

Current Issue 226 Pages

  • 91 documents from 35 agencies
  • 78 Notices
  • 1 Presidential Document
  • 6 Proposed Rules
  • 6 Rules

Go to a specific date

Explore

« Prev October Next »
S M T W T F S
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
« Prev November
S M T W T F S
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

The Public Inspection page on FederalRegister.gov offers a preview of documents scheduled to appear in the next day’s Federal Register issue. The Public Inspection page may also include documents scheduled for later issues, at the request of the issuing agency.

Special Filing
Regular Filing

Go to a specific date

Explore

« Prev October Next »
S M T W T F S
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
« Prev November
S M T W T F S
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Executive Orders view

The President of the United States manages the operations of the Executive branch of Government through Executive orders.

Proclamations view

The President of the United States communicates information on holidays, commemorations, special observances, trade, and policy through Proclamations.

Other Presidential Documents view

The President of the United States issues other types of documents, including but not limited to; memoranda, notices, determinations, letters, messages, and orders.

The Federal Register

The Daily Journal of the United States Government

Legal Status

This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.

The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA’s archives.gov.

The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.

Legal Status

Notice

Certain Fabricated Structural Steel From Canada, Mexico, and the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Document Details
Document Statistics
Document Statistics
Enhanced Content — Table of Contents

This tables of contents is a navigational tool, processed from the headings within the legal text of Federal Register documents. This repetition of headings to form internal navigation links has no substantive legal effect.

Enhanced Content — Table of Contents
Enhanced Content — Submit Public Comment
  • This feature is not available for this document.
Enhanced Content — Submit Public Comment
Enhanced Content — Read Public Comments
  • This feature is not available for this document.
Enhanced Content — Read Public Comments
Enhanced Content — Sharing
Enhanced Content — Sharing
Enhanced Content — Document Print View
Enhanced Content — Document Print View
Enhanced Content — Document Tools

These tools are designed to help you understand the official document better and aid in comparing the online edition to the print edition.

These markup elements allow the user to see how the document follows the Document Drafting Handbook that agencies use to create their documents. These can be useful for better understanding how a document is structured but are not part of the published document itself.

Enhanced Content — Document Tools
Enhanced Content — Developer Tools
This document is available in the following developer friendly formats:

More information and documentation can be found in our developer tools pages.

Enhanced Content — Developer Tools
Official Content
Official Content
Public Inspection

This PDF is the current document as it appeared on Public Inspection on 03/01/2020 at 8:45 am.

If you are using public inspection listings for legal research, you should verify the contents of the documents against a final, official edition of the Federal Register. Only official editions of the Federal Register provide legal notice to the public and judicial notice to the courts under 44 U.S.C. 1503 & 1507. Learn more here.

Public Inspection
Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

AGENCY:

Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

DATES:

Applicable February 25, 2020.

Start Further Info

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Whitley Herndon at (202) 482-6274 (Canada), Thomas Martin (202) 482-3936 or Trisha Tran at (202) 482-4852 (Mexico), or Darla Brown at (202) 482-1791 (People’s Republic of China (China)), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petitions

On February 4, 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received countervailing duty (CVD) Petitions concerning imports of certain fabricated structural steel (fabricated structural steel) from Canada, Mexico, and China, which were subsequently amended on February 21, 2020. [1] The Petitions, as amended, were filed in proper form by a subgroup of the American Institute of Steel Construction, LLC, a trade association representing domestic producers of fabricated structural steel. Specifically, the petitioner is the American Institute of Steel Construction Full Member Subgroup (the petitioner). The CVD Petitions were accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) Petitions concerning imports of fabricated structural steel from Canada, Mexico, and China.

During the period February 7 through February 14, 2020, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions in separate supplemental questionnaires. [2] Responses to the supplemental questionnaires were filed between February 12 and February 19, 2020. [3]

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Governments of Canada, Mexico, and China, as well as the Canadian provincial governments of Alberta, British Colombia (BC), Manitoba, New Brunswick, Ontario, Québec, Prince Edward Island (PEI) and Saskatchewan, are prov > Start Printed Page 7340

Section 771(9)(E) of the Act states that “a trade or business association” is an interested party if “a majority” of its “members manufacture, produce, or wholesale a domestic like product in the United States. Based on information contained in the petitioner’s amended Petition submission of February 21, 2020, [4] as well as its prior submissions pertaining to the membership of the American Institute of Steel Construction, LLC, [5] Commerce finds that the petitioner satisfactorily showed that a majority of its members manufacture, produce, or wholesale a domestic like product in the United States, and therefore the Petitions, as amended, have been filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the requested CVD investigations. [6]

Period of Investigations

Because the Petitions were filed on February 4, 2020, and amended on February 21, 2020, the period of investigation for each investigation is January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020.

Scope of the Investigations

The product covered by these investigations is fabricated structural steel from Canada, Mexico, and China. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the Appendix to this notice.

Scope Comments

During our review of the Petitions, Commerce contacted the petitioner regarding the proposed scope language to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. [7] As a result, the scope of the Petitions was modified to clarify the description of merchandise covered by the Petitions. The description of the merchandise covered by these initiations, as described in the Appendix to this notice, reflects these clarifications.

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, 2020, 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, 2020, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comments deadline. [10]

Commerce requests that any factual information parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All such submissions must be filed on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

Filing Requirements

All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). [11] An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents exempted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance’s APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

Consultations

Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified representatives of Canada, Mexico, and China of the receipt of the Petitions and provided them the opportunity for consultations with respect to the CVD Petitions. [12] Commerce held consultations with Canada and Mexico, on February 19, 2020. [13] China did not request consultations.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act prov > Start Printed Page 7341 petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers, as a whole, of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product, [14] they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce’s determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. [15]

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition).

With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the Petitions. [16] Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that fabricated structural steel, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. [17]

In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the Appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2020. [18] The petitioner estimated the production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry based on shipment data, because production data for the entire domestic industry are not available, and shipments are a close approximation of production in the fabricated structural steel industry. [19] The petitioner compared its production to the estimated total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry. [20] We relied on data provided by the petitioner for purposes of measuring industry support. [21]

From February 12 through February 13, 2020, we received comments on industry support from Canada, Quebec, and Mexico, respectively. [22] The petitioner responded to Canada’s and Mexico’s comments on February 19, 2020. [23]

On February 19, 2020, we received comments on industry support from Corey, S.A. de C.V. (Corey), a Mexican producer and exporter of fabricated structural steel. [24]

The petitioner responded to the comments from Corey on February 21, 2020. [25] In addition, the petitioner subsequently clarified and amended the Petitions on February 21, 2020 in response to comments from Canada, Mexico, and Corey. [26] During consultations held with respect to the Canada and Mexico CVD petitions, the both Canada and Mexico discussed industry support comments and provided additional comments in the respective CVD consultation papers. [27] On February 22, 2020, we received additional comments on industry support from Canada, Quebec and Mexico. [28] The petitioner responded to those comments on February 25, 2020. [29] For further discussion of these comments, see the country-specific CVD initiation checklists, at Attachment II.

Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petitions. [30] First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of Start Printed Page 7342 the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, Commerce is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling). [31] Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. [32] Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions. [33] Accordingly, Commerce determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.

Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(E) of the Act, and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigations that it is requesting that Commerce initiate. [34]

Injury Test

Because Canada, China, and Mexico are “Subsidies Agreement Countries” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Canada, China, and/or Mexico materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

Allegations and Ev >The petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. [35]

The petitioner contends that the industry’s injured condition is illustrated by the significant volume and increasing market share of subject imports; reduced market share of the U.S. industry; underselling and price depression or suppression; declines in production, shipments, and capacity utilization; negative impact on employment variables; decline in the domestic industry’s financial performance; and lost sales and revenues. [36] We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, causation, negligibility, as well as cumulation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. [37]

Initiation of CVD Investigations

Based on the examination of the Petitions, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating CVD investigations to determine whether imports of fabricated structural steel from Canada, Mexico, and China benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the governments of these countries. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.

Canada

Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 43 of the 44 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see Canada CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS.

Mexico

Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 17 of the 19 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see Mexico CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS.

China

Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation, in whole or part, on 25 of the 26 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see China CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS.

Respondent Selection

In the Petitions, the petitioner named 50 companies in Canada, [38] 18 companies in Mexico, [39] and 220 companies in China, [40] as producers/exporters of fabricated structural steel. Commerce intends to follow its standard practice in CVD investigations and calculate company-specific subsidy rates in these investigations. In the event Commerce determines that the number of companies is large and it cannot individually examine each company based upon Commerce’s resources, where appropriate, Commerce intends to select mandatory respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of fabricated structural steel from Canada, Mexico, and China during the POI under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States numbers listed in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the Appendix.

On February 20, 2020, Commerce released CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment regarding the CBP data and respondent selection must do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of these CVD investigations. 41 Start Printed Page 7343 Commerce will not accept rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or respondent selection.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Commerce’s website at http://enforcement.trade.gov/​apo.

Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the date noted above. We intend to finalize our decisions regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public versions of the Petitions have been provided to Canada, China, and Mexico via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of fabricated structural steel from Canada, China, and/or Mexico are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry. [42] A negative ITC determination in any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country. [43] Otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

Submission of Factual Information

Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce’s regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted [44] and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. [45] Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

Extensions of Time Limits

Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum of the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Parties should review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/​fdsys/​pkg/​FR-2013-09-20/​html/​2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

Certification Requirements

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. [46] Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g). [47] Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification requirements.

Notification to Interested Parties

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, Commerce published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

Dated: February 25, 2020.

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 Start Printed Page 7344 fabricated structural steel does not remove the fabricated structural steel from the scope.

Fabricated structural steel is covered by the scope of the investigations regardless of whether it is painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other metallic or non-metallic substances and regardless of whether it is assembled or partially assembled, such as into modules, modularized construction units, or sub-assemblies of fabricated structural steel.

Subject merchandise includes fabricated structural steel that has been assembled or further processed in the subject country or a third country, including but not limited to painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, drilling, welding, joining, bolting, punching, bending, beveling, riveting, galvanizing, coating, and/or slitting or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigations if performed in the country of manufacture of the fabricated structural steel.

Specifically excluded from the scope of these investigations are:

1. Fabricated steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) if: (i) It is a unitary piece of fabricated rebar, not joined, welded, or otherwise connected with any other steel product or part; or (ii) it is joined, welded, or otherwise connected only to other rebar.

2. Fabricated structural steel for bridges and bridge sections that meets American Association of State and Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) bridge construction requirements or any state or local derivatives of the AASHTO bridge construction requirements.

3. Pre-engineered metal building systems, which are defined as complete metal buildings that integrate steel framing, roofing and walls to form one, pre-engineered building system, that meet Metal Building Manufacturers Association guide specifications. Pre-engineered metal building systems are typically limited in height to no more than 60 feet or two stories.

4. Steel roof and floor decking systems that meet Steel Deck Institute standards.

5. Open web steel bar joists and joist girders that meet Steel Joist Institute specifications.

The products subject to the investigations are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings: 7308.90.3000, 7308.90.6000, and 7308.90.9590.

The products subject to the investigations may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 7216.91.0010, 7216.91.0090, 7216.99.0010, 7216.99.0090, 7222.40.6000, 7228.70.6000, 7301.10.0000, 7301.20.1000, 7301.20.5000, 7308.40.0000, 7308.90.9530, and 9406.90.0030.

The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigations is dispositive.

End Supplemental Information

Footnotes

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, 2020, as amended on February 21, 2020 (the Petitions).

2. See Commerce Letters, “Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada, the People’s Republic of China, and Mexico: Supplemental Questions,” dated February 7, 2020, “Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from the People’s Republic of China (China): Supplemental Questions,” dated February 7, 2020, “Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada: Supplemental Questions,” dated February 8, 2020, “Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Mexico: Supplemental Questions,” dated February 8, 2020, and “Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Mexico: Additional Supplemental Questions,” dated February 14, 2020.

3. See the petitioner’s Letters, “Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada, Mexico, and the People’s Republic of China: Responses to Supplemental Questions on General and Injury Volume I of the Petition,” dated February 12, 2020 (General Issues Supplement), “Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada: Responses to Supplemental Questions on Canada CVD Volume V of the Petition,” dated February 12, 2020, “Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada: Responses to Supplemental Questions on Mexico CVD Volume VI of the Petition,” dated February 12, 2020, “Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from the People’s Republic of China: Responses to Supplemental Questions on China CVD Volume VII of the Petition,” dated February 12, 2020, and “Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Mexico: Responses to Second Supplemental Questions in CVD Volume VI of the Petition,” dated February 19, 2020.

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, 2020 (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, 2020 at Exhibit I-2.

6. See “Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada (Canada CVD Initiation Checklist); Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from the People’s Republic of China (China CVD Initiation Checklist); and Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Mexico (Mexico CVD Initiation Checklist). These checklists are dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.

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, 2020; 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, 2020.

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”).

11. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) for details of Commerce’s electronic filing requirements, effective August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/​help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/​help/​Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.

12. See Commerce Letters, “Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada, Invitation for Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition” dated February 5, 2020, “Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Mexico,” dated February 6, 2020, and “Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from the People’s Republic of China,” dated February 5, 2020.

13. See Memorandum, “Consultations with Officials from the Government of Canada Regarding the Countervailing Duty Petition Concerning Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada,” and “Ex-Parte Meeting with Officials from the Government of Mexico on the Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Mexico,” both dated February 19, 2020.

14. See section 771(10) of the Act.

15. See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

16. See Volume I of the Petitions, at 14-16 and Exhibit I-5; see also General Issues Supplement, at 1-3.

17. For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as applied to these cases and information regarding industry support, see Canada CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada, the People’s Republic of China, and Mexico (Attachment II); see also China CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; Mexico CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

18. See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2-3 and Exhibit I-4.

19. Id. at 2-3 and Exhibits I-3 and I-4; see also General Issues Supplement, at 3-6.

20. See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2-3.

21. Id. at 2-3 and Exhibit I-3 and I-4; see also General Issues Supplement, at 3-6. For further discussion, see Canada CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; China CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; and Mexico CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

22. See Mexico Letter, Fabricated Structural Steel from Mexico (A-201-850 and C-201-851)—Request to Dismiss Petitions or Otherwise Postpone Initiation,” dated February 13, 2020; see also Canada Letter, “Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada (A-122-864 and C-122-865)—Request for Postponement of Initiation and Disclosure of Members of Petitioner American Institute of Steel Construction and Identities of Known Domestic Producers,” dated February 12, 2020; see also Mexico Letter, “Fabricated Structural Steel from Mexico (C-201-851)—Submission of Consultations Paper,” dated February 20, 2020.

23. See the petitioner’s Letter, “Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada and Mexico: Response to Respondents’ Request to Reject Petitions or Postpone Initiation,” dated February 19, 2020 (the petitioner’s Response).

24. See Letter from Corey, “Fabricated Structural Steel from Mexico: Standing Challenge—Request to Decline Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations,” dated February 19, 2020.

25. See the petitioner’s Letter, “Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada and Mexico: Response to Respondents’ Standing Challenge and Request to Decline Initiation,” dated February 21, 2020.

26. See Amendment to the Petitions.

27. See Ex-Parte Memorandum, “Meeting with Officials from the Government of Mexico on the Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Mexico” dated February 19, 2020; see also Memorandum, “Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada: GOC Consultations,” dated February 21, 2020; see also Letter from Mexico, “Fabricated Structural Steel from Mexico (C-201-851)—Submission of Consultations Paper,” dated February 20, 2020; see also Letter from Canada, “Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada (A-122-864 and C-122-865)—Consultations Paper.

28. See Letter from the GOQ, “Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada, (A-122-864 and C-122-865): Response to AISC Amendment to Petition,” dated February 22, 2020; 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, 2020; see also Letter from Mexico, “Fabricated Structural Steel from Mexico (C-201-851, A-201-850)—Comments on Change of Petitioner,” dated February 22, 2020.

29. See Letter from the petitioner, “Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada, Mexico, and the People’s Republic of China,” dated February 25, 2020.

30. See Canada CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; China CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; and Mexico CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

31. Id.; see also section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act.

32. See Canada CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; China CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; and Mexico CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

35. See Volume I of the Petitions, at 22 and Exhibit I-8.

36. Id. at 11-35 and Exhibits I-3, I-5, I-8, I-10 through I-22.

37. See Canada CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada, the People’s Republic of China, and Mexico (Attachment III); see also China CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III; see also Mexico CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III.

38. See Volume I of the Petition at Exhibit I-7.

41. See Memorandum, “Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Canada: Releasing U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data,” Memorandum, “Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from Mexico: Release of Customs Data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection,” and Memorandum, “Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Fabricated Structural Steel from the People’s Republic of China: Release of Customs Data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection,” each dated February 20, 2020.

42. See section 703(a)(2) of the Act.

43. See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.

Six steps for successful incident investigation

Organisations investigate business upsets because they are required to by law or their own company standards, or the public or shareholders expect it. But, whatever the motivation, the goal is to identify why the incident happened and to take action to reduce the risk of future incidents.

Investigations often find that similar scenarios have occurred previously but, for a variety of reasons, did not result in serious consequences. This is increasingly recognised in high-risk industries where “near misses” are also investigated as well as incidents which actually resulted in loss.

A six-step, structured approach to incident investigation (Fig 1) helps to ensure that all the causes are uncovered and addressed by appropriate actions.

Step 1 – Immediate action

In the event of an incident, immediate action to be taken may include making the area safe, preserving the scene and notifying relevant parties. The investigation begins even at this early stage, by collecting perishable evidence, e.g. CCTV tapes, samples.

Step 2 – Plan the investigation

Planning ensures that the investigation is systematic and complete. What resources will be required? Who will be involved? How long will the investigation take? For severe or complex incidents, an investigation team will be more effective than a single investigator.

Step 3 – Data collection

Information about the incident is available from numerous sources, not only people involved or witnesses to the event, but also from equipment, documents and the scene of the incident.

Step 4 – Data analysis

Typically, an incident is not just a single event, but a chain of events. The sequence of events needs to be understood before identifying why the incident happened.

When asking why, we need to identify the root and underlying causes, as well as the direct causes. Failures and mistakes don’t just happen by themselves; organisations allow error-enforcing environments that encourage direct causes to develop and persist. Such environments, and the basic management failings behind them, are the root causes – the ultimate source of the incident.

While human error plays a part in the majority of incidents, people are not generally stupid, lazy, forgetful or wilfully negligent. Human errors occur because of influencing factors associated with the work, the environment, an individual’s mental or physical abilities, the organisation and its management systems. Any investigation which sets out to find someone to blame is misguided.

Step 5 – Corrective actions

Many investigations make the mistake of raising actions which deal only with the direct causes – a quick fix, putting last-lines-of- defence back in place. By ignoring the root and underlying causes, not only do they miss an opportunity to reduce the risk of recurrence of the incident, but they also leave open the possibility that other, dissimilar incidents may also occur, arising from the same, common root cause (Fig 2).

Figure 2 – The potential for a single root cause to result in different types of business upset
View larger image

Step 6 – Reporting

The investigation is concluded when all outstanding issues have been closed out and the findings have been communicated so that lessons can be shared. Communication mechanisms include formal incident investigation reports, alerts, presentations and meeting topics.

Tools to help

Checklists, proformas and posters can be useful when setting terms of reference, collecting and structuring information, analysing causes, etc. There are also software tools available to help with the entire incident investigation and analysis process, for example TOP-SET Governors’ Investigator3 (see Box 1), and also for recording and tracking incident statistics, their causes and the actions arising from the investigation.

This article first appeared in RISKworld Issue 14.

4.5 Ethical Issues during an Investigation

Law enforcement officers who are in investigative roles are often confronted with ethical issues during the investigative process. Officers who have a heavy caseload are expected to determine which case to investigate at the expense of other cases. Officers often rely on the solvability of the case, and concentrate on that case, which means that cases that may be slightly more difficult to solve are never solved. This is a consequentialist perspective, in which the end result is seen as the most important aspect of the investigation.

Some officers may do an assessment of the victim, coupled with other investigative variables that allow the officer to decide which case is ultimately more serious and more important to work on. The difficulty with this approach is that the officer’s values are taken into account and are weighed against the rights of all victims. Problems arise when victims who may not be considered high on the investigator’s valued list (for example an officer who does not value sex-trade workers), do not receive the same level of service that other, favoured victims do. Officers must be cognizant of their personal biases and ensure that they consider other variables, such as solvability, continuation of the offence, serial offences of the suspect, seriousness of the injury, and perishable evidence.

Lies, Deception, and Tricks

Investigators walk a line between being tenacious in their investigations and being overzealous in refusing to give up a case that ought to be closed due to a lack of evidence. Officers must be aware not to allow their personal feelings to interrupt objective, critical and reflective consideration of the case. Investigators should routinely ask themselves how a case would look in court when all the facts are known by the defence counsel and the judge. Would their credibility suffer as a result? If the answer is yes, investigators need to address this and decide whether they should continue along their investigative path, or stop.

The Supreme Court of Canada does permit officers to use “tricks” to solve crimes. In Regina v. Rothman, the Supreme Court ruled that police can use tricks, so long as they do not shock the community. Such shocking or “dirty” tricks include things such as impersonating a priest or a lawyer to gain a covert confession.

Tricks that officers are able to use include posing as gangsters or drug dealers in undercover operations in order to obtain covert confessions. Other tricks that officers may use are lies in interviews to bond with subjects. Lying in law enforcement is allowed in certain circumstances, but is strictly forbidden in other circumstances. These include, but are not limited to:

  • Creating evidence or planting evidence
  • Lying in court (testifying)
  • Lying in reports, notebooks, or other administrative or investigative reports
  • Lying in any administrative or civil proceedings
  • Lying to fellow officers or supervisors

The scope for lying is very narrow and it should be used sparingly for serious investigations by officers who know the boundaries and what would be accepted in court. However, the ethics around lying lead some officers to discount it as a tactic. Some of the reasons they cite for the unacceptability of lying include:

  • Lies destroy confidence in the police. Both the suspect and the community at large will not believe even truthful information brought forward in the future by an officer who uses lying.
  • Lies are immoral because they are an illegitimate means to an ends. It goes against Kant’s categorical imperative that we should never lie, regardless of the consequences of not getting a confession in what may be an important case.
  • The courts may disallow the evidence because the courts may determine that the evidence was obtained through tactics not warranted under Regina v. Rothman.
  • The officer’s religious beliefs and scripture prohibit or strongly discourage lying for interviews and criminal investigations.

Some officers have little issue with lying to suspects, taking a utilitarian and legalistic approach. They argue the following:

  • It is for the greater good because lying justifies the end result (a classic utilitarian perspective that maximizes happiness).
  • The positive consequence of lying to find evidence outweighs the consequence of not lying and thus not retrieving evidence.

Other officers take a different perspective, arguing:

  • It is their duty to do what they can to solve a crime. However, lying does not follow Kantian logic because the act itself is wrong. The duty is to solve crime, not to lie. Furthermore, Kant would argue that the officer is using the person as a means to an end to get a confession.
  • Solving a crime means you have to play at the criminal’s moral level at times, and that as long as the evidence is admissible, anything goes. This perspective brings officers dangerously close to crossing the ethical line, venturing into noble-cause corruption. Officers must, in this case, be aware of the limits allowed by the court and not be tempted to surpass these limits.

Other investigative tricks include undercover operations ranging from simple stolen property investigations to elaborate and lengthy operations for murder and drug conspiracies. Essential in undercover operations is the need for an undercover officer to establish credibility with the suspect or target. In doing so, the officer may have to commit, or appear to commit, a crime. This may include stealing or damaging property, selling and handling drugs, or selling and handling restricted weapons. The actions of undercover officers have limits, such as officers not engaging in drug use, crimes of violence, or sex-related activities. Section 25.1 of the Criminal Code protects officers against prosecution as long as they are in the lawful execution of their duty and can account for the need to “break the law.”

License

4.5 Ethical Issues during an Investigation by Steve McCartney and Rick Parent is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

Aviva Canada Insurance Claims and Underwriting Investigation Salaries

  • Any Experience
  • 0-1 Years
  • 1-3 Years
  • 4-6 Years
  • 7-9 Years
  • 10-14 Years
  • 15+ Years

Are you paid fairly?

Get Email Updates

Explore Insurance Claims and Underwriting Investigation Salaries

Looking beyond Aviva Canada?

See if they’re hiring! Check out the latest Aviva Canada Jobs

Meaning of investigation in English

Your browser doesn’t support HTML5 audio

Your browser doesn’t support HTML5 audio

investigation | American Dictionary

Your browser doesn’t support HTML5 audio

investigation | Business English

Your browser doesn’t support HTML5 audio

Your browser doesn’t support HTML5 audio

Examples of investigation

Collocations with investigation

investigation

These are words often used in combination with investigation .

Click on a collocation to see more examples of it.

Fire investigation jobs in Canada

1-20 of 313 jobs

Get new jobs by email

Fire Protection Technologist

Graduate duty manager /Lobby manager with Family visa- 8750857693

Security Supervisor

Fairmont Hotels oamp Resorts

Rs 3.6 — 6.8 lakhs p.a.

HSE Fire Protection Engineer

Fluor Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

Rs 3.6 — 6.8 lakhs p.a.

Field Event Investigation Engineer

QuEST Global Engineering Pvt Ltd

Rs 3.6 — 6.8 lakhs p.a.

Opportunities for Production Engineer in Canada DPShw

A V Immigration And Careers Consultancy Private Limited

Rs 16 — 28 lakhs p.a.

Forestry Professionals To Be Placed In Canada, Australia and Hong-Kong

Rs 34 — 40 lakhs p.a.

Industrial And Manufacturing engineer Canada HYSn

A V Immigration And Careers Consultancy Private Limited

Banking Manager — Canada VNSu

A V Immigration And Careers Consultancy Private Limited

Rs 16 — 32 lakhs p.a.

Civil engineer- Canada DPShw

A V Immigration And Careers Consultancy Private Limited

Rs 18 — 30 lakhs p.a.

Engineering Supervisor

Fairmont Hotels & Resorts

Electrical and Electronics engineers — Canada VNSu

A V Immigration And Careers Consultancy Private Limited

Rs 16 — 32 lakhs p.a.

Assistant Director of Maintenance

Fairmont Hotels & Resorts

Electrical and Electronics engineers — Canada CHPo

A V Immigration And Careers Consultancy Private Limited

Rs 16 — 32 lakhs p.a.

Junior Systems Administrator

MOVING PICTURE COMPANY

Accountant

A V Immigration And Careers Consultancy Private Limited

Rs 16 — 30 lakhs p.a.

Quality Supervisor

Production Supervisor

Production Supervisor

Schneider Electric Pvt Ltd

Production Supervisor

Rs 3.6 — 6.8 lakhs p.a.

Do you deserve a better job?

fire investigation, Canada

Yes, I do No, I don’t

You job alert is created.
You will start receiving your job listings tomorrow morning.

We use cookies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic.

Fair elections act: 7 things you may not know

Social Sharing

Vouching has been in the spotlight, but there’s much more to be found in 242-page Bill C-23

Most of the debate about the changes the government wants to make to how Canadians vote and run elections has centred around vouching. But there are many more controversial measures inside Bill C-23. Here are seven things you may not know about the proposed fair elections act .

1. Party-appointed election workers

The government wants to introduce rules that would let the winning candidate of the previous election — the member of Parliament — choose some of the workers at polling stations. The incumbent candidate would select the central poll supervisors in addition to the deputy returning officers, whom they already select. Poll clerks would continue to be selected by the candidate who finished second in the previous election, or by the riding association or party backing the candidate.

The bill’s clause 20 would allow a returning officer to refuse appointments on «reasonable grounds,» but doesn’t set out what qualify as reasonable grounds.

Under current legislation, those workers are appointed by returning officers, who are hired by Elections Canada. The central poll supervisors, for example, are put in place at polling stations to make sure voting unfolds smoothly.

Harry Neufeld, British Columbia’s former chief electoral officer and an independent election consultant, told the CBC’s Rosemary Barton last month that the move is «completely inappropriate in a democracy.» Neufeld told reporters later in March that the bill is an attempt to tilt the playing field in favour of the Conservatives.

2. New spending loopholes

Often, updating legislation means closing loopholes. In this case, the bill would also loosen campaign spending rules to create a loophole.

Clause 86 of the new bill would let political parties spend as much as they want on election fundraising from people who have contributed $20 or more in the last five years. Right now, if a party hires a company to solicit money during an election, that counts as an election expense. Election expenses are capped based on the population.

One concern about the loophole is that it would let the parties not only raise funds but solicit support from voters in those calls, emails or mailouts.

«It is simply not possible to seek funds without including reasons for giving, and this can only constitute advertising for or against a party or a candidate. Moreover, it favours richer and established parties to the detriment of small and especially newer parties,» Kingsley told MPs at the procedure and House affairs committee on March 25.

The Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee will recommend removing that loophole, the CBC’s Leslie MacKinnon reported Monday.

The bill also increases donation limits from $1,200 to $1,500 a year.

3. CEO gag order

Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand says he’s concerned about a measure that would limit what he can say publicly.

The act would change the current Canada Elections Act’s section 18 to limit the topics on which the chief electoral officer can speak. The bill’s clause 7 would allow him only five topics:

  • How to become a candidate.
  • How voters can add their names to the voters list or have it corrected.
  • How voters can cast ballots.
  • How voters can prove their identity and address.
  • How voters with disabilities can get into polling stations and mark their ballots.

Mayrand told the Senate committee last week that he’s concerned the chief electoral officer would no longer be able to alert the public to problems during an election or even to work with programs that teach students about civic affairs and how elections work.

The Senate committee is recommending allowing the chief electoral officer to continue his work with those programs and that he be allowed to notify the public of problems.

4. Notification of investigation

On the flip side of that, the commissioner of Canada Elections — the person who investigates possible wrongdoing under the Elections Act — would have to tell people being investigated about the probe.

Section 510 of the existing law would see a number of changes, including an instruction to provide written notice «as soon as feasible after beginning an investigation . to the person whose conduct is being investigated.»

Proposed changes would provide the commissioner an out, however, noting that notice «is not to be given if, in the commissioner’s opinion, to do so might compromise or hinder the investigation or any other investigation.»

5. Using the voter information card

In 2011, Elections Canada tested a pilot program that let groups of voters use their voter information cards as proof of address. Approximately 400,000 Canadians living on reserves, in long-term care or studying at post-secondary institutions used their VICs as proof of address that year, and Mayrand recommended using the VICs for all voters starting in 2015.

Prior to 2007, voters in Canada didn’t have to show ID if they were on the voters list. For those without a driver’s licence, it can be difficult to prove their address.

Conservative MPs and senators say that the cards are riddled with errors. Mayrand admits there’s a seven per cent error rate, which translates into more than 1.6 million mistakes on the cards.

Mayrand told MPs on the procedure and House affairs committee that about 250,000 Canadians move during a five-week election campaign, making some IDs out of sync with their addresses for a few weeks.

«Even driver’s licences may not have correct addresses. That’s why we have a revision process that allows electors to update their address, and at some point in time during the election, I would suggest — we could have a debate on this — that the VIC is the most precise piece of ID that electors can rely on to establish their address,» he said.

«Many of them will not have had a chance to update their driver’s licence for the purpose of voting, but they may have, through revision, updated their address correctly.»

6. No party spending receipts

Canada reimburses candidates and parties for some of the costs of running a campaign. Right now, candidates have to turn in receipts to back up that spending. Federal parties, however, do not, despite submitting $66 million in expenses after the 2011 election. Those expenses were reimbursed at 50 per cent, meaning taxpayers provided $33 million in refunds but have no receipts to show for that money.

Mayrand has asked repeatedly for the power to require receipts for that spending. There is no measure proposed to give the chief electoral officer that ability.

7. Robocalls gaps

The proposed legislation would bring in a number of new rules for voter contact services to close some of the gaps that made it harder to investigate the misleading robocalls made in Guelph, Ont., during the 2011 federal election. The measures are part of what Pierre Poilievre, minister of state for democratic reform, refers to when he says the bill would give enforcement officials «sharper teeth, a longer reach and a freer hand.»

The new rules would have the CRTC keep a registry of who orders automated calls and a list of the companies making the calls. The records have to be kept for a year after a campaign.

But critics say one year isn’t long enough for the commissioner of Canada Elections to investigate before the records are destroyed. The new rules also don’t require companies or parties to keep the list of phone numbers called.

Очень важная для вас статья:  Вопрос по налогам с зарплаты Канада
Добавить комментарий