[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23294-23298]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10076]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-973]
Certain Steel Wheels From the People's Republic of China:
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: April 26, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brendan Quinn or Bobby Wong, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5848 and (202) 482-0409,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On March 30, 2011, the Department of Commerce (``Department'')
received an antidumping duty (``AD'') petition concerning imports of
certain steel wheels (``steel wheels'') from the People's Republic of
China (``PRC'') filed in proper form by Accuride Corporation
(``Accuride'') and Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc. (collectively,
``Petitioners'').\1\ On April 6, 2011, the Department issued
supplemental questions to Petitioners regarding certain issues in the
Petition.\2\ Petitioners responded to the questions with supplemental
responses on April 11, 2011.\3\ On April 12, 2011, the Department
requested additional information on certain issues.\4\ On April 14,
2011, Petitioners provided a response to the Department's requests.\5\
On April 14, 2011, the Department requested further clarification with
respect to the Petition, which Petitioners submitted on April 15,
2011.\6\ On April 18, 2011, the Department further clarified the scope
of the Petition with Petitioners.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See the Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties Pursuant to Sections 701 and 731 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (``Petition''), filed on March 30, 2011.
\2\ See April 6, 2011, Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping Duties on Steel Wheels from the People's Republic of
China: Supplemental Questions.
\3\ See Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions dated April 11, 2011
(``First Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions''). See also April 11,
2011, Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Steel
Wheels from the People's Republic of China: PRC AD Supplemental
Questionnaire Response (``PRC AD Supplement to the Petitions'').
\4\ See April 12, 2011, Memorandum to the File, regarding
``Phone Conference with and Request for Further Information from
Petitioners.''
\5\ See Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions dated April 14, 2011
(``Second Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions'').
\6\ See Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions dated April 15, 2011
(``Third Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions'').
\7\ See April 18, 2011, Memorandum to the File RE: Petitions for
the Imposition of Antidumping (``AD'') and Countervailing Duties
(``CVD'') on Steel Wheels from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC''), Clarification of Scope Language, on file in the Central
Records Unit (``CRU''), Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce
building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``the Act''), Petitioners allege that imports of steel wheels
from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States
at less than fair value, within the meaning of section 731 of the Act,
and that such imports materially injure, or threaten material injury
to, an industry in the United States.
The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf
of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested parties as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and they have demonstrated
sufficient industry support with respect to the investigation that they
are requesting the Department to initiate (see ``Determination of
Industry Support for the Petition'' below). The Department also notes
that, pursuant to section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is
accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioners
supporting their allegations.
Scope of the Investigation
The products covered by this investigation are steel wheels from
the PRC. For a full description of the scope of the investigation, see
``Scope of the Investigation,'' in Appendix I of this notice.
Comments on Scope of the Investigation
During our review of the Petition, we discussed the scope with
Petitioners to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products
for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as
discussed in the preamble to the regulations (Antidumping Duties;
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)),
we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues
regarding product coverage. The Department encourages interested
parties to submit such comments by Monday, May 9, 2011, twenty calendar
days from the signature date of this notice. Comments should be
addressed to Import Administration's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to
provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments
and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary
determination.
Comments on Product Characteristics for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires
We are requesting comments from interested parties regarding the
appropriate physical characteristics of steel wheels to be reported in
response to the Department's antidumping questionnaires. This
information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics
of the merchandise under investigation in order to more accurately
report the relevant factors and costs of production, 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 listing of
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to
which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product
characteristics; and (2) the 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
[[Page 23295]]
among products. In other words, while there may be some physical
product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe steel
wheels, 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 product matching. Generally,
the Department 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 antidumping duty questionnaires, we must
receive comments at the above-referenced address by May 9, 2011.
Additionally, rebuttal comments, limited to issues raised in the
comments, must be received by May 16, 2011.
Determination of Industry Support for the Petition
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, the Department
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 the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The U.S. 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 the
Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition
regarding the domestic like product (see section 771(10) of the Act),
they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and
distinct authority. In addition, the Department'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.\8\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 25 C.I.T. 49, 56(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), cert. denied
492 U.S. 919 (1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer
a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the
investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on
the record, we have determined that steel wheels constitute a single
domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of
that domestic like product.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in
this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist:
Steel Wheels from the People's Republic of China (``Initiation
Checklist''), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the
Petitions Covering Steel Wheels from the People's Republic of China,
on file in the CRU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether Petitioners have standing under section
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data
contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product
as defined in the ``Scope of Investigations'' section in Appendix I of
this Notice. To establish industry support, Petitioners provided their
production of the domestic like product in 2010.\10\ Petitioners
compared their production to the estimated total production of the
domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.\11\ To support
their estimation of industry support, Petitioners provided an affidavit
from an employee of Accuride, who has 40 years professional experience
in the steel wheels industry.\12\ We have relied upon data Petitioners
provided for purposes of measuring industry support.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Volume I of the Petition, at I-3.
\11\ See id.
\12\ See Second Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, at 1, and
Exhibit 1.
\13\ For further discussion, see Initiation Checklist at
Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, supplemental
submissions, and other information readily available to the Department
indicates that Petitioners have established industry support. First,
the Petition 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, we find that the Department is not
required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support
(e.g., polling).\14\ Second, we find that 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 Petition account for at least 25 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product.\15\ Finally, we find
that 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 Petition
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 Petition. Accordingly, the Department
determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic
industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act, and Initiation
Checklist at Attachment II.
\15\ See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf
of the domestic industry because they are an interested party as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated
sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigation that
they are requesting the Department initiate.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ For further discussion, please see Initiation Checklist at
Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
Petitioners allege 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 less than normal value (``NV''). In addition, Petitioners
provide data that demonstrate that subject imports exceed the
negligibility
[[Page 23296]]
threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share, lost sales and revenues, reduced
production, reduced capacity utilization rate, decreased shipments,
underselling, reduced employment, reduced hours worked, reduced wages
paid, decline in financial performance, and an increase in import
penetration.\17\ We have assessed the allegations and supporting
evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and
causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly
supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for
initiation.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Volume I of the Petition, at I-6-12, and Exhibits I-4--
I-9.
\18\ For further discussion, please see Initiation Checklist at
Attachment III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigation
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), because this Petition was
filed on March 30, 2011, the period of investigation (``POI'') is July
1, 2010, through December 31, 2010.
Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less
than fair value upon which the Department has based its decision to
initiate this investigation with respect to imports of steel wheels
from the PRC. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments
relating to U.S. price and NV are further discussed in the Initiation
Checklist at Attachment V. Should the need arise to use any of this
information as facts available under section 776 of the Act, we may
reexamine the information and revise the margin calculations, if
appropriate.
U.S. Price
Petitioners calculated export prices (``EPs'') for steel wheels
based on two sources: (1) Price quotes from a Chinese company,\19\
adjusted for certain movement expenses,\20\ and (2) average unit values
(``AUVs'') for the POI of imports of steel wheels from the PRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Initiation Checklist and Petition Volume II at Exhibit
II-2-A.
\20\ See Petition Volume II at Exhibit II-1-A, and First
Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, at Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To value brokerage and handing, Petitioners used data published in
Doing Business 2010: India, published by the World Bank. However,
Petitioners included foreign domestic freight costs in its calculation
of surrogate brokerage and handling, which the Department excludes from
the calculation, and therefore, for this initiation, we have excluded
the line item from the calculation. Additionally, because the World
Bank publication provided by Petitioners reported data from 2009, the
Department inflated the value to be contemporaneous with the proposed
POI.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Initiation Checklist at Attachment V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To value inland freight, Petitioners obtained information from
www.infobanc.com. However, for the initiation, the Department revised
Petitioners' calculation of the surrogate inland freight expense to
reflect the Department's current domestic inland freight
methodology.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Initiation Checklist at Attachment V; see, e.g., Pure
Magnesium From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the
2008-2009 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of the Antidumping
Duty Order, 75 FR 80791 (December 23, 2010) and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
Petitioners state that, in every previous administrative review and
less-than-fair-value investigation involving merchandise from the PRC,
the Department has concluded that the PRC is a non-market economy
country (``NME'') and, as the Department has not revoked this
determination, its NME status remains in effect.\23\ In accordance with
section 771(18)(c)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains
in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME
status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and,
therefore, remains in effect for the purposes of initiating this
investigation.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Petition Volume II, at II-1 and II-2.
\24\ See generally Memorandum from the Office of Policy to David
M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, regarding
The People's Republic of China Status as a Non-Market Economy, dated
May 15, 2006. This document is available online at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/prc-nme-status/prc-nme-status-memo.pdf.
Additionally, in recent investigations, the Department has continued
to determine that the PRC is an NME country. See, e.g., Drill Pipe
From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances, 76 FR 1966 (January
11, 2011) (``Drill Pipe from the PRC''); and Aluminum Extrusions
From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR 18524 (April 4, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the NV of the product is appropriately based on
factors of production valued in a surrogate market economy country or
countries, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In the course
of this investigation, all parties will have the opportunity to provide
relevant information related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and
the granting of separate rates to individual exporters.
Petitioners claim that India is the appropriate surrogate market
economy country because it is at a comparable level of economic
development to the PRC and it is a significant producer of comparable
merchandise.\25\ Petitioners state that the Department has determined
in previous investigations and administrative reviews that India is at
a level of development comparable to the PRC.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Petition Volume II, at II-1 to II-2.
\26\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the information provided by Petitioners, the Department
believes that the use of India as a surrogate country is appropriate
for purposes of initiation. However, after initiation of the
investigation, 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 factors of production within 40 days
after the date of publication of the preliminary determination.
Petitioners provided dumping margin calculations using the
Department's NME methodology as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C)
and 19 CFR 351.408. Petitioners calculated NV based on the product-
specific consumption rates of Accuride. Petitioners note that they used
Accuride's data because the consumption rates for the factors of
production used by PRC producers are not known, or reasonably
available, to Petitioners.\27\ Petitioners also believe that PRC steel
wheel producers use hot-rolled steel coil and a similar process in
manufacturing steel wheels as Accuride.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See id. at II-3 and Exhibit II-3-C.
\28\ See id. at II-3 and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners valued the factors of production using reasonably
available public surrogate country data, including India import data
from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India from the
period February 2010 through July 2010, the most current data
available. Petitioners excluded from these import statistics imports
from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME
countries. Petitioners also excluded import statistics from countries
previously determined by the Department to maintain broadly available,
non-industry-specific export subsidies and import statistics for non-
specified countries.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Petition Volume II, at II-5 and Exhibit II-3-D-l
through Exhibit II-3-D-6. See also PRC AD Supplement to the Petition
at 7 and Exhibit 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 23297]]
Petitioners valued hot-rolled steel coils using HTS category
7208.36.10 because the description of the HTS offers greater
specificity with respect to the thickness of the steel. Similarly,
Petitioners valued: (1) Hot-rolled steel coil using HTS category
7211.14.40; (2) steel scrap using HTS 7204.10; and (3) weld wire using
HTS category 8311.20.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Petition Volume II, at II-3 through II-9; and Exhibit
II-3-D-1 to Exhibit II-3-D-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners explained that because they were unable to obtain a
suitable surrogate value for paint, Petitioners have excluded the input
from the calculation of NV.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See PRC AD Supplement to the Petitions at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners valued electricity using the 2008 Central Electric
Authority of India, for small, medium, and large industries. These
electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly- available
information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to industries in
India. As the rates listed in this source became effective on a variety
of different dates, Petitioners did not adjust the average value for
inflation.\32\ For natural gas, Petitioners used data provided by the
Natural Gas Authority of India.\33\ For water, Petitioners used the
average water rates for the Maharashtra Province derived from the
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation's industrial water
tariffs as of June 8, 2009.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Second Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions at 1 and
Exhibit 2.
\33\ See Petition Volume II, at II-10 and Exhibit II-3-E-2.
\34\ See Petition Volume II, at Exhibit II-3-E-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners submitted the wage rate calculation from Drill Pipe
from the PRC, which relies on the Department's current methodology to
value labor.\35\ For the purposes of initiation, to value labor the
Department relied on the value for the wage rate calculated in Drill
Pipe from the PRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See Third Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, at Exhibit 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners provided wholesale price index (``WPI'') as published
by the Office of Economic Adviser to the Government of India,\36\ and
explained that they were unable to obtain the WPI to cover the entire
proposed POI. Therefore, for the initiation, the Department has
adjusted Petitioners' calculations and applied that Department's normal
inflation methodology using WPI for the entirety of the proposed POI
from the International Monetary Fund, International Financial
Statistics database,\37\ where appropriate.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Petition Volume II, at Exhibit II-3-F.
\37\ See, e.g., Drill Pipe from the PRC and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3.
\38\ See Initiation Checklist at Attachment V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To calculate factory overhead, selling, general and administrative
expenses, and profit for integrated producers, Petitioners relied on
the financial statements of Wheels India Limited and Steel Strip Wheels
Limited, Indian producers of comparable merchandise.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See Petition Volume II, at Exhibit II-3-I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by Petitioners, we find that there is
reason to believe that imports of steel wheels from the PRC are being,
or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value.
Based on the comparison of EP and U.S. import AUVs to NV, as noted
above, the estimated dumping margins for the PRC range from 30.25
percent to 193.54 percent.
Initiation of Antidumping Investigation
Based upon the examination of the Petition concerning steel wheels
from the PRC and other information reasonably available to the
Department, the Department finds that this Petition meets the
requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section
732(c)(1)(A) of the Act, we are initiating an AD investigation to
determine whether imports of steel wheels from the PRC are being, or
are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In
accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act, unless postponed, we
will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after
the date of this initiation.
Targeted Dumping Allegations
On December 10, 2008, the Department issued an interim final rule
for the purpose of withdrawing 19 CFR 351.414(f) and (g), the
regulatory provisions governing the targeted dumping analysis in
antidumping duty investigations, and the corresponding regulation
governing the deadline for targeted dumping allegations, 19 CFR
351.301(d)(5).\40\ The Department stated that ``withdrawal will allow
the Department to exercise the discretion intended by the statute and,
thereby, develop a practice that will allow interested parties to
pursue all statutory avenues of relief in this area.''\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See Withdrawal of the Regulatory Provisions Governing
Targeted Dumping in Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR 74930
(December 10, 2008).
\41\ Id. at 74931.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to accomplish this objective, if any interested party
wishes to make a targeted dumping allegation in this investigation
pursuant to section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, such allegation is due no
later than 45 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary
determination.
Respondent Selection
For this investigation, the Department will request quantity and
value information from known exporters and producers identified with
complete contact information in the Petition. The quantity and value
data received from NME exporters/producers will be used as the basis to
select the mandatory respondents.
The Department requires that the respondents submit a response to
both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-rate
application by the respective deadlines in order to receive
consideration for separate-rate status.\42\ On the date of the
publication of this initiation notice in the Federal Register, the
Department will post the quantity and value questionnaire along with
the filing instructions on the Import Administration web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html, and a response to the
quantity and value questionnaire is due no later than May 10, 2011.
Also, the Department will send the quantity and value questionnaire to
those PRC companies identified in Volume I of the Petition, at Exhibit
I-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See, e.g., Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure
Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping
Duty Investigation, 73 FR 10221, 10225 (February 26, 2008);
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas
From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 21996, 21999 (April 28,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Instructions for filing such
applications may be found on the Department's Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo.
Separate Rates Application
In order to obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations,
exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate status
application.\43\ The specific requirements for submitting the separate-
rate application in this investigation are outlined in detail in the
application itself, which will be available on the Department's Web
site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html on the date
of publication of this initiation notice in the Federal Register. The
separate-rate application will be due 60 days after publication of this
initiation notice. For exporters and producers who submit a
[[Page 23298]]
separate-rate status application and subsequently are selected as
mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be
eligible for consideration for separate rate status unless they respond
to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents. As noted in
the ``Respondent Selection'' section above, the Department requires
that respondents submit a response to both the quantity and value
questionnaire and the separate rate application by the respective
deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations
involving Non-Market Economy Countries, dated April 5, 2005
(``Policy Bulletin''), available on the Department's Web site at
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Combination Rates in an NME Investigation
The Department will calculate combination rates for certain
respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this
investigation. The Policy 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 investigations 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 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.
See Policy Bulletin at 6 (emphasis added).
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public versions of the Petition have been
provided to the representatives of the Government of the PRC. Because
of the large number of producers/exporters identified in the Petition,
the Department considers the service of the public version of the
Petition to the foreign producers/exporters satisfied by the delivery
of the public version to the Government of the PRC, consistent with 19
CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
732(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine, no later than May 16, 2011,
whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of steel wheels
from the PRC are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to
a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination will result in the
investigation being terminated; otherwise, this investigation will
proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On
January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO
Procedures, 73 FR 3634. 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)).
Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or
countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and
completeness of that information.\44\ Parties are hereby reminded that
revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government
officials as well as their representatives in all segments of any
antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceedings initiated on or
after March 14, 2011.\45\ The formats for the revised certifications
are provided at the end of the Interim Final Rule. The Department
intends to reject factual submissions in any proceeding segments
initiated on or after March 14, 2011, if the submitting party does not
comply with the revised certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\45\ See Certification of Factual Information to Import
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 7491 (February 10, 2011)
(``Interim Final Rule'') amending 19 CFR 351.303(g)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of
the Act.
Dated: April 19, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
The products covered by this investigation are steel wheels with
a wheel diameter of 18 to 24.5 inches. Rims and discs for such
wheels are included, whether imported as an assembly or separately.
These products are used with both tubed and tubeless tires. Steel
wheels, whether or not attached to tires or axles, are included.
However, if the steel wheels are imported as an assembly attached to
tires or axles, the tire or axle is not covered by the scope. The
scope includes steel wheels, discs, and rims of carbon and/or alloy
composition and clad wheels, discs, and rims when carbon or alloy
steel represents more than fifty percent of the product by weight.
The scope includes wheels, rims, and discs, whether coated or
uncoated, regardless of the type of coating.
Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the
following categories of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (``HTSUS''): 8708.70.05.00, 8708.70.25.00, 8708.70.45.30, and
8708.70.60.30. These HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and
customs purposes only; the written description of the scope is
dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2011-10076 Filed 4-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P