45100 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Notices 

50See also Certification of Factual Information to 

Import Administration During Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 

17, 2013) (Final Rule). Answers to frequently asked 

questions regarding the Final Rule are available at 

http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_

info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf. 

1See the petitioner’s letter, ‘‘Petitions for the 

Imposition of Antidumping Duties and 

Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel 

Wheels 12 to 16.5 inches in Diameter from the 

People’s Republic of China,’’ dated August 8, 2018 

(the Petition). 

2See Commerce’s letters, ‘‘Petition for the 

Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of 

Certain Steel Wheels 12 to 16.5 Inches in Diameter 

from the People’s Republic of China: Supplemental 

Questions’’ (CVD Deficiency Questionnaire), and 

‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel 

Wheels 12 to 16.5 Inches in Diameter from the 

People’s Republic of China: Supplemental 

Questions’’ (General Issues Deficiency 

Questionnaire), each dated August 10, 2018. 

3See the petitioner’s letters, ‘‘Certain Steel 

Wheels 12 To 16.5 inches in Diameter from the 

People’s Republic of China (C–570–091): 

Petitioners’ Response to Commerce’s August 10, 

2018 Supplemental Questionnaire Regarding the 

Countervailing Duty Petition’’ (CVD Supplement) 

and ‘‘Petitioners’ Response to Commerce’s August 

10, 2018 General Issues Questionnaire Regarding 

the Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel 

Wheels from the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

(General Issues Supplement), each dated August 15, 

2018. 

4See memorandum, ‘‘Phone Call with Counsel to 

the Petitioner,’’ dated August 17, 2018. 

5See the petitioner’s letter, ‘‘Petitioner’s 

Response to the Department of Commerce’s August 

17, 2018 Additional Questions Regarding the 

Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel 

Wheels 12 to 16.5 Inches in Diameter from the 

People’s Republic of China,’’ dated August 20, 2018 

(Second Scope and AD Supplement). 

351.303(g).50 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 this investigation 

should ensure that they meet the 

requirements of these procedures (e.g., 

the filing of letters of appearance as 

discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)). 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) 

of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c). 

Dated: August 28, 2018. 

Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

Appendix 

Scope of the Investigation 

The scope of this investigation is certain 

on-the-road steel wheels, discs, and rims for 

tubeless tires with a nominal wheel diameter 

of 12 inches to 16.5 inches, regardless of 

width. Certain on-the-road steel wheels with 

a nominal wheel diameter of 12 inches to 

16.5 inches within the scope are generally for 

road and highway trailers and other towable 

equipment, including, inter alia, utility 

trailers, cargo trailers, horse trailers, boat 

trailers, recreational trailers, and towable 

mobile homes. The standard widths of 

certain on-the-road steel wheels are 4 inches, 

4.5 inches, 5 inches, 5.5 inches, 6 inches, and 

6.5 inches, but all certain on-the-road steel 

wheels, regardless of width, are covered by 

the scope. 

The scope includes rims and discs for 

certain on-the-road steel wheels, whether 

imported as an assembly, unassembled, or 

separately. The scope includes certain onthe-road steel wheels regardless of steel 

composition, whether cladded or not 

cladded, whether finished or not finished, 

and whether coated or uncoated. The scope 

also includes certain on-the-road steel wheels 

with discs in either a ‘‘hub-piloted’’ or ‘‘studpiloted’’ mounting configuration, though the 

stud-piloted configuration is most common 

in the size range covered. 

All on-the-road wheels sold in the United 

States must meet Standard 110 or 120 of the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration’s (NHTSA) Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standards, which requires a 

rim marking, such as the ‘‘DOT’’ symbol, 

indicating compliance with applicable motor 

vehicle standards. See 49 CFR 571.110 and 

571.120. The scope includes certain on-theroad steel wheels imported with or without 

NHTSA’s required markings. 

Certain on-the-road steel wheels imported 

as an assembly with a tire mounted on the 

wheel and/or with a valve stem or rims 

imported as an assembly with a tire mounted 

on the rim and/or with a valve stem are 

included in the scope of this investigation. 

However, if the steel wheels or rims are 

imported as an assembly with a tire mounted 

on the wheel or rim and/or with a valve stem 

attached, the tire and/or valve stem is not 

covered by the scope. 

Excluded from this scope are the following: 

(1) Steel wheels for use with tube-type 

tires; such tires use multi piece rims, which 

are two-piece and three-piece assemblies and 

require the use of an inner tube; 

(2) aluminum wheels; 

(3) certain on-the-road steel wheels that are 

coated entirely with chrome; and 

(4) steel wheels that do not meet Standard 

110 or 120 of the NHTSA’s requirements 

other than the rim marking requirements 

found in 49 CFR 571.110S4.4.2 and 

571.120S5.2. 

Certain on-the-road steel wheels subject to 

this investigation are properly classifiable 

under the following category of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States (HTSUS): 8716.90.5035 which covers 

the exact product covered by the scope 

whether entered as an assembled wheel or in 

components. Certain on-the-road steel wheels 

entered with a tire mounted on them may be 

entered under HTSUS 8716.90.5059 (Trailers 

and semi-trailers; other vehicles, not 

mechanically propelled, parts, wheels, other, 

wheels with other tires) (a category that will 

be broader than what is covered by the 

scope). While the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

subject merchandise is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. 2018–19206 Filed 9–4–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–091] 

Certain Steel Wheels 12 to 16.5 Inches 

in Diameter From the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of 

Countervailing Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Applicable August 28, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Keith Haynes at (202) 482–5139 or 

Emily Halle at (202) 482–0176, AD/CVD 

Operations, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On August 8, 2018, the U.S. 

Department of Commerce (Commerce) 

received a countervailing duty (CVD) 

Petition concerning imports of certain 

steel wheels 12 to 16.5 inches in 

diameter (certain steel wheels) from the 

People’s Republic of China (China), 

filed in proper form on behalf of Dexstar 

Wheel, a division of Americana 

Development, Inc. (the petitioner), 

which is a domestic producer of certain 

steel wheels.1 The CVD Petition was 

accompanied by an antidumping duty 

(AD) Petition concerning imports of 

certain steel wheels from China. 

On August 10, 2018, Commerce 

requested supplemental information 

pertaining to certain aspects of the 

Petition in two separate supplemental 

questionnaires, one dealing with general 

issues with the Petition and the other 

with issues related to Volume III of the 

Petition (i.e., the CVD allegation).2

The petitioner filed its responses to 

the supplemental questionnaires on 

August 15, 2018.3 On August 17, 2018, 

we spoke with the petitioner regarding 

the scope language submitted in its 

August 15, 2018, submission.4 On 

August 20, 2018, the petitioner filed an 

amendment to the scope, further 

clarifying the scope language.5


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Notices 45101 

6See ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the 

Petition’’ section, infra. 

7See General Issues Supplement, at 2–5 and 

Exhibit SGQ–2 (Revised Scope); see also August 20 

Petition Supplement, at 1–2 and Exhibit SQR2–1 

(Revised Scope). 

8See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 

Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997) 

(Preamble). 

9See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ‘‘factual 

information’’). 

10See 19 CFR 351.303(b). 

11See 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, 

which went into effect on 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%20

Procedures.pdf. 

12See Commerce letter, ‘‘Countervailing Duty 

Petition on Certain Steel Wheels 12 to 16.5 inches 

in Diameter from the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

dated August 9, 2018. 

13See section 771(10) of the Act. 

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act), the petitioner alleges that the 

Government of China (GOC) is 

providing countervailable subsidies, 

within the meaning of sections 701 and 

771(5) of the Act, to producers of certain 

steel wheels in China and that imports 

of such products are materially injuring, 

or threatening material injury to, the 

domestic industry producing certain 

steel wheels in the United States. 

Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those 

alleged programs on which we are 

initiating a CVD investigation, the 

Petition is accompanied by information 

reasonably available to the petitioner 

supporting its allegations. 

Commerce finds that the petitioner 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because the 

petitioner is an interested party as 

defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. 

Commerce also finds that the petitioner 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support necessary for the initiation of 

the requested CVD investigation.6

Period of Investigation 

Because the Petition was filed on 

August 8, 2018, the period of 

investigation is January 1, 2017, through 

December 31, 2017. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The product covered by this 

investigation is certain steel wheels 12 

to 16.5 inches in diameter from China. 

For a full description of the scope of this 

investigation, see the Appendix to this 

notice. 

Scope Comments 

During our review of the Petition, 

Commerce contacted the petitioner 

regarding the proposed scope language 

to ensure that the scope language in the 

Petition is an accurate reflection of the 

products for which the domestic 

industry is seeking relief.7 As a result of 

the petitioner’s submissions, the scope 

of the Petition was modified to clarify 

the description of merchandise covered 

by the Petition. The description of the 

merchandise covered by this initiation, 

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).8 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 such comments by 5:00 

p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on September 

17, 2018, which is 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 September 27, 

2018, 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 investigation be 

submitted during this period. However, 

if a party subsequently finds that 

additional factual information 

pertaining to the scope of the 

investigation 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 the GOC of the receipt 

of the Petition and provided them the 

opportunity for consultations with 

respect to the CVD Petition.12 The GOC 

did not request consultations. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition 

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 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 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,13 they do so for different 

purposes and pursuant to a separate and 

distinct authority. In addition, 

Commerce’s determination is subject to 

limitations of time and information. 

Although this may result in different 

definitions of the like product, such 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
45102 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Notices 

14See 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)). 

15See Volume I of the Petition, at I–6 through I– 

8. 

16For a discussion of the domestic like product 

analysis as applied to this case and information 

regarding industry support, see memorandum, 

‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation 

Checklist: Certain Steel Wheels 12 to 16.5 Inches in 

Diameter from the People’s Republic of China’’ 

(China CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II 

(Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain 

Steel Wheels 12 to 16.5 Inches in Diameter from the 

People’s Republic of China). This checklist is dated 

concurrently with 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. 

17See Volume I of the Petition at I–9, I–31 and 

Exhibit I–11. 

18 Id. at I–9 and Exhibit I–2. 

19 Id. at I–2, I–9 and Exhibit I–1; see also General 

Issues Supplement, at SGQ–5 and Exhibit SGQ–5. 

20 Id. 

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

22See China CVD Initiation Checklist, at 

Attachment II. 

23 Id. 

24 Id. 

25See Volume I of the Petition, at I–19 through 

I–21 and Exhibit I–8. 26 Id. at I–15 through I–42 and Exhibits I–2, I–6, 

I–8, I–10, I–11, I–14 through I–16; see also General 

Issues Supplement, at SGQ–5, SGQ–6 and Exhibit 

SGQ–6. 27See China 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 Steel Wheels 12 to 16.5 Inches in 

Diameter from the People’s Republic of China). 

differences do not render the decision of 

either agency contrary to law.14

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 

investigation.15 Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that certain 

steel wheels, as defined in the scope, 

constitute a single domestic like 

product, and we have analyzed industry 

support in terms of that domestic like 

product.16

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 Petition 

with reference to the domestic like 

product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of the 

Investigation,’’ in the Appendix to this 

notice. To establish industry support, 

the petitioner provided its own 

production of the domestic like product 

in 2017.17 In addition, the petitioner 

provided a letter of support from 

American Wheel Corporation, stating 

that the company supports the Petition 

and providing its own production of the 

domestic like product in 2017.18 The 

petitioner identifies itself and American 

Wheel Corporation as the only 

companies constituting the U.S. certain 

steel wheels industry and states that 

there are no other known producers of 

certain steel wheels in the United 

States; therefore, the Petition is 

supported by 100 percent of the U.S. 

industry.19

Our review of the data provided in the 

Petition, the General Issues Supplement, 

and other information readily available 

to Commerce indicates that the 

petitioner has established industry 

support for the Petition.20 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, Commerce is not 

required to take further action in order 

to evaluate industry support (e.g., 

polling).21 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 Petition 

account for at least 25 percent of the 

total production of the domestic like 

product.22 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 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.23 Accordingly, Commerce 

determines that the Petition was 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 Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because it is an 

interested party as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act, and it has 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the CVD 

investigation that it is requesting that 

Commerce initiate.24

Injury Test 

Because China is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the 

meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, 

section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to 

this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC 

must determine whether imports of the 

subject merchandise from China 

materially injure, or threaten material 

injury to, a U.S. industry. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

The petitioner alleges 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.25

The petitioner contends that the 

industry’s injured condition is 

illustrated by a significant and 

increasing volume of subject imports; 

reduced market share; underselling and 

price depression or suppression; lost 

sales and lost revenues; decline in 

production, U.S. shipments, and 

capacity utilization; decline in 

production-related workers and hours 

worked; decline in capital expenditures; 

and negative impact on financial 

performance.26 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.27

Initiation of CVD Investigation 

Based on the examination of the 

Petition, we find that the Petition meets 

the requirements of section 702 of the 

Act. Therefore, we are initiating a CVD 

investigation to determine whether 

imports of certain steel wheels from 

China benefit from countervailable 

subsidies conferred by the GOC. 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. 

Based on our review of the Petition, 

we find that there is sufficient 

information to initiate a CVD 

investigation on all of the subsidy 

programs alleged in the Petition, with 

certain limitations. 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. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Notices 45103 

28See General Issues Supplemental at Exhibit 

SGQ–1. 

29See memorandum, ‘‘Countervailing Duty 

Investigation of Certain Steel Wheels 12 to 16.5 

Inches in Diameter from the People’s Republic of 

China: U.S. Customs and Border Protection Entry 

Data,’’ dated August 21, 2018. 

30See section 703(a)(2) of the Act. 

31See section 703(a)(1) of the Act. 

32See 19 CFR 351.301(b). 

33See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2). 

34See section 782(b) of the Act. 

35See Certification of Factual Information to 

Import Administration During Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 

17, 2013) (‘‘Final Rule’’); see also frequently asked 

questions regarding the Final Rule, available at 

http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_

info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf. 

Respondent Selection 

The petitioner named 36 producers/ 

exporters as accounting for the majority 

of exports of certain steel wheels to the 

United States from China.28 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 certain 

steel wheels from China during the POI 

under the appropriate Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

numbers listed in the ‘‘Scope of the 

Investigation,’’ in the Appendix. On 

August 21, 2018, we 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 this 

CVD investigation.29 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 regarding respondent 

selection 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 

established by Commerce. We intend to 

finalize our decisions regarding 

respondent selection within 20 days of 

publication of this notice. 

Distribution of Copies of the Petition 

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 Petition have been provided to 

the GOC via ACCESS. To the extent 

practicable, we will attempt to provide 

a copy of the public version of the 

Petition to each exporter named in the 

Petition, 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 Petition was filed, whether there is 

a reasonable indication that imports of 

certain steel wheels from China are 

materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, a U.S. industry.30 A 

negative ITC determination will result 

in the investigation being terminated.31

Otherwise, this investigation 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). 19 CFR 351.301(b) 

requires any party, when submitting 

factual information, to specify under 

which subsection of 19 CFR 

351.102(b)(21) the information is being 

submitted 32 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.33 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 this investigation. 

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 setting forth 

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 this investigation. 

Certification Requirements 

Any party submitting factual 

information in an AD or CVD 

proceeding must certify to the accuracy 

and completeness of that information.34

Parties must use the certification 

formats provided in 19 CFR 

351.303(g).35 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 this investigation 

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). 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
45104 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Notices 

Dated: August 28, 2018. 

Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

Appendix I 

Scope of the Investigation 

The scope of this investigation is certain 

on-the-road steel wheels, discs, and rims for 

tubeless tires with a nominal wheel diameter 

of 12 inches to 16.5 inches, regardless of 

width. Certain on-the-road steel wheels with 

a nominal wheel diameter of 12 inches to 

16.5 inches within the scope are generally for 

road and highway trailers and other towable 

equipment, including, inter alia, utility 

trailers, cargo trailers, horse trailers, boat 

trailers, recreational trailers, and towable 

mobile homes. The standard widths of 

certain on-the-road steel wheels are 4 inches, 

4.5 inches, 5 inches, 5.5 inches, 6 inches, and 

6.5 inches, but all certain on-the-road steel 

wheels, regardless of width, are covered by 

the scope. 

The scope includes rims and discs for 

certain on-the-road steel wheels, whether 

imported as an assembly, unassembled, or 

separately. The scope includes certain onthe-road steel wheels regardless of steel 

composition, whether cladded or not 

cladded, whether finished or not finished, 

and whether coated or uncoated. The scope 

also includes certain on-the-road steel wheels 

with discs in either a ‘‘hub-piloted’’ or ‘‘studpiloted’’ mounting configuration, though the 

stud-piloted configuration is most common 

in the size range covered. 

All on-the-road wheels sold in the United 

States must meet Standard 110 or 120 of the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration’s (NHTSA) Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standards, which requires a 

rim marking, such as the ‘‘DOT’’ symbol, 

indicating compliance with applicable motor 

vehicle standards. See 49 CFR 571.110 and 

571.120. The scope includes certain on-theroad steel wheels imported with or without 

NHTSA’s required markings. 

Certain on-the-road steel wheels imported 

as an assembly with a tire mounted on the 

wheel and/or with a valve stem or rims 

imported as an assembly with a tire mounted 

on the rim and/or with a valve stem are 

included in the scope of this investigation. 

However, if the steel wheels or rims are 

imported as an assembly with a tire mounted 

on the wheel or rim and/or with a valve stem 

attached, the tire and/or valve stem is not 

covered by the scope. 

Excluded from this scope are the following: 

(1) Steel wheels for use with tube-type 

tires; such tires use multi piece rims, which 

are two-piece and three-piece assemblies and 

require the use of an inner tube; 

(2) aluminum wheels; 

(3) certain on-the-road steel wheels that are 

coated entirely with chrome; and 

(4) steel wheels that do not meet Standard 

110 or 120 of the NHTSA’s requirements 

other than the rim marking requirements 

found in 49 CFR 571.110S4.4.2 and 

571.120S5.2. 

Certain on-the-road steel wheels subject to 

this investigation are properly classifiable 

under the following category of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States (HTSUS): 8716.90.5035 which covers 

the exact product covered by the scope 

whether entered as an assembled wheel or in 

components. Certain on-the-road steel wheels 

entered with a tire mounted on them may be 

entered under HTSUS 8716.90.5059 (Trailers 

and semi-trailers; other vehicles, not 

mechanically propelled, parts, wheels, other, 

wheels with other tires) (a category that will 

be broader than what is covered by the 

scope). While the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

subject merchandise is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. 2018–19205 Filed 9–4–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Application(s) for Duty-Free Entry of 

Scientific Instruments 

Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 

Educational, Scientific and Cultural 

Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. 

L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. 106– 

36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we 

invite comments on the question of 

whether instruments of equivalent 

scientific value, for the purposes for 

which the instruments shown below are 

intended to be used, are being 

manufactured in the United States. 

Comments must comply with 15 CFR 

301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and 

be postmarked on or before September 

25, 2018. Address written comments to 

Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 

3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Washington, DC 20230. Applications 

may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 

5:00 p.m. at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce in Room 3720. 

Docket Number: 17–019. Applicant: 

University of California, Berkeley, 100 

Hearst Memorial Mining Building, 

Berkeley, CA 94720. Instrument: High 

Field Cryogen-Free Measurement 

System (CFMS) for Precision 

Measurement of Physical Properties. 

Manufacturer: Cryogenic US, LLC, 

United Kingdom. Intended Use: The 

instrument will be used to study thin 

films of metal-oxides for advanced 

oxide-based electronic devices, 

magnetic and electrical properties of 

oxide materials and devices at low 

temperatures and/or high magnetic 

fields. Angle dependent magnetoelectric 

properties of the devices will be 

explored on multiple axes. The 

investigations done with this instrument 

will lead to advancement of 

understanding of the properties of 

metal-oxide thin films and their 

interfaces for new generation of oxidebased microelectronic devices. 

Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There 

are no instruments of the same general 

category manufactured in the United 

States. Application accepted by 

Commissioner of Customs: October 5, 

2017. 

Dated: August 28, 2018. 

Gregory W. Campbell, 

Director, Subsidies Enforcement, Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2018–19208 Filed 9–4–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

Patent Review and Derivation 

Proceedings 

ACTION: Proposed collection; comment 

request. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO), as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

invites comments on a proposed 

extension of an existing information 

collection: 0651–0069 (Patent Review 

and Derivation Proceedings). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before November 5, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Email: InformationCollection@

uspto.gov. Include ‘‘0651–0069 

comment’’ in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. 

• Mail: Michael P. Tierney, Records 

and Information Governance Division 

Director, Office of the Chief Technology 

Officer, United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, 

Alexandria, VA 22313–1450. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information 

should be directed to Michael P. 

Tierney, Vice Chief Administrative 

Patent Judge, Patent Trial and Appeal 

Board, United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, 

Alexandria, VA 22313–1450; by 

telephone at 571–272–4676; or by email 

to Michael.Tierney@uspto.gov with 

‘‘0651–0069 comment’’ in the subject 

line. Additional information about this 

collection is also available at http://

www.reginfo.gov under ‘‘Information 

Collection Review.’’ 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

The Leahy-Smith America Invents 

Act, which was enacted into law on 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES