Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Notices 17017 

33See Glycine from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in 

Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2. 

34See section 351.309(c)(ii) of the Department’s 

regulations. 

35See section 351.309(d) of the Department’s 

regulations. 

36See section 351.309(c) and (d) of the 

Department’s regulations. 

37See section 351.212(b)(1) of the Department’s 

regulations. 38 Id. 39See section 351.106(c)(2) of the Department’s 

regulations. 

this notice, in accordance with section 

351.224(b) of the Department’s 

regulations. 

In accordance with section 

351.301(c)(3)(ii) of the Department’s 

regulations, for the final results of this 

administrative review, interested parties 

may submit publicly available 

information to value FOPs within 20 

days after the date of publication of 

these preliminary results. Interested 

parties must provide the Department 

with supporting documentation for the 

publicly available information to value 

each FOP. Pursuant to section 

351.301(c)(1) of the Department’s 

regulations, submissions of factual 

information may be rebutted, however 

the Department reminds that section 

351.301(c)(1) of the Department’s 

regulations permits new information 

only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or 

corrects information recently placed on 

the record. The Department will not 

accept the submission of additional, 

alternative surrogate value information 

submitted with rebuttal submissions, 

where that information has not 

previously been part of the review 

record, pursuant to section 351.301(c)(1) 

of the Department’s regulations.33

Additionally, for each piece of factual 

information submitted with surrogate 

value rebuttal comments, the interested 

party must include an explanation to 

indicate the record information the new 

information is rebutting, clarifying, or 

correcting. 

Interested parties may submit case 

briefs and/or written comments no later 

than 30 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results 

of review.34 Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals 

to written comments are limited to 

issues raised in such briefs or 

comments, and may be filed no later 

than five days after the deadline for 

filing case briefs.35 Parties who submit 

case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding are requested to submit with 

each argument: (1) A statement of the 

issue; (2) a brief summary of the 

argument; and 3) a table of authorities.36

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

which will include the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in any such 

comments, within 120 days of 

publication of these preliminary results, 

pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by these 

reviews. The Department intends to 

issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 

days after the publication date of the 

final results of this review. In 

accordance with section 351.212(b)(1) of 

the Department’s regulations, for Hubei 

Xingfa, we calculated an exporter/ 

importer (or customer)-specific 

assessment rate for the merchandise 

subject to this review. Because Hubei 

Xingfa reported reliable entered values, 

we calculated importer (or customer)- 

specific ad valorem rates by aggregating 

the dumping margins calculated for all 

U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) 

and dividing this amount by the total 

entered value of the sales to each 

importer (or customer).37 Where an 

importer (or customer)-specific ad 

valorem rate is greater than de minimis, 

we will apply the assessment rate to the 

entered value of the importer’s/ 

customer’s entries during the POR.38

To determine whether the duty 

assessment rates are de minimis, in 

accordance with the requirement set 

forth in section 351.106(c)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations, we calculated 

importer (or customer)-specific ad 

valorem ratios based on the estimated 

entered value. Where an importer (or 

customer)-specific ad valorem rate is 

zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP 

to liquidate appropriate entries without 

regard to antidumping duties.39

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for shipments of 

subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date of the final results, as provided by 

section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For 

Hubei Xingfa, the cash deposit rate will 

be that established in the final results of 

review (except, if the rate is zero or de 

minimis, no cash deposit will be 

required); (2) for previously investigated 

or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters 

not listed above that have separate rates, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the exporter-specific rate published for 

the most recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate of 188.05 percent; 

and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC exporters that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification of Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility, under section 

351.402(f) of the Department’s 

regulations, to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this POR. Failure 

to comply with this requirement could 

result in the Secretary’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

This administrative review and this 

notice are published in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, 

and section 351.221(b)(4) of the 

Department’s regulations. 

Dated: March 13, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7060 Filed 3–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–974] 

Certain Steel Wheels From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination, Final Affirmative 

Critical Circumstances Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) determines that 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

certain steel wheels (steel wheels) from 

the People’s Republic of China (the 

PRC). For information on the estimated 

subsidy rates, see the ‘‘Suspension of 

Liquidation’’ section of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 23, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Conniff (for the Centurion Companies) 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17018 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Notices 

1See Certain Steel Wheels From the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation, 76 FR 23302 (April 26, 2011). 

2We use the term Centurion Companies to refer 

collectively to Centurion and its cross-owned 

affiliates under examination in this investigation. 

3We use the term Xingmin Companies to refer 

collectively to Xingmin and its cross-owned 

affiliates under examination in this investigation. 

4We use the term Jingu Companies to refer 

collectively to Zhejiang Jingu and its cross-owned 

affiliates under examination in this investigation. 

5See Yuantong’s and Zhejiang Jinfei’s Shipment 

Questionnaire Responses (May 20, 2011). The 

public version of each response and all other public 

versions and public documents for this 

investigation are available electronically via Import 

Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Centralized Electronic Services System (IA 

ACCESS), located in the Department’s Central 

Records Unit (CRU), Room 7046 of the main 

Commerce building. 

6See Memorandum to the File from John Conniff, 

Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, 

regarding ‘‘Examination of Entry Documentation,’’ 

(August 29, 2011). 

7See Certain Steel Wheels from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment 

of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with 

Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 76 FR 

55012 (September 6, 2011) (Preliminary 

Determination). 8Sunrise, a Chinese producer of subject 

merchandise, had requested to be designated as a 

voluntary respondent. However, because we 

determined that the Department had resources to 

investigate only three companies, we did not 

designate Sunrise as a voluntary respondent in this 

investigation. See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR 

at 55013. 

9Certification of Factual Information to Import 

Administration During Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Supplemental 

Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 54697 (September 2, 

2011) (Supplemental Interim Final Rule). 

10See 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). 

11See Memorandum to Melissa G. Skinner, 

Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, from Robert 

Copyak, Senior Financial Analyst, regarding 

‘‘Decision Memorandum Regarding Petitioners’ 

New Subsidy Allegations,’’ (October 5, 2011). 

12See Certain Steel Wheels from the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Partial Affirmative Preliminary Determination of 

Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 76 FR 67703 (November 2, 2011) 

(Steel Wheels AD Preliminary Determination). 

at 202–482–1009, Robert Copyak (for the 

Jingu Companies) at 202–482–2209, and 

Kristen Johnson (for the Xingmin 

Companies) at 202–482–4793, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This investigation, which covers 28 

programs, was initiated on April 19, 

2011.1 The petitioners in this 

investigation are Accuride Corporation 

and Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc. 

The respondents in this investigation 

are: Jining Centurion Wheel 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Centurion),2

Shandong Xingmin Wheel Co., Ltd. 

(Xingmin),3 and Zhejiang Jingu 

Company Limited (Zhejiang Jingu).4 The 

Department initially, in addition to 

Zhejiang Jingu, selected Jiangsu 

Yuantong Auto Parts Co., Ltd. 

(Yuantong) and Zhejiang Jinfei 

Machinery Group Co. Ltd. (Zhejiang 

Jinfei) to be mandatory respondents. 

Yuantong and Zhejiang Jinfei, however, 

submitted responses to the Department’s 

shipment questionnaire in which each 

company certified that it did not export 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the period of investigation 

(POI).5 We analyzed entry documents 

obtained from U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) and found that the 

documentation confirmed the nonshipment claims of Yuantong and 

Zhejiang Jinfei.6

Period of Investigation 

The POI for which we are measuring 

subsidies is January 1, 2010, through 

December 31, 2010, which corresponds 

to the PRC’s most recently completed 

fiscal year at the time we initiated this 

investigation. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2). 

Case History 

The following events have occurred 

since the Department published the 

Preliminary Determination on 

September 6, 2011.7 On September 1, 

2011, petitioners submitted a critical 

circumstances allegation. On September 

2, 2011, we issued a fourth 

supplemental questionnaire to the 

Government of the People’s Republic of 

China (GOC). On September 7, 2011, 

petitioners filed new subsidy allegations 

concerning land provided for less than 

adequate remuneration to the Centurion 

Companies and Jingu Companies. On 

September 9, 2011, we issued to the 

respondent companies a critical 

circumstances questionnaire requesting 

monthly volume and value data for 

shipments of subject merchandise to the 

United States. Also, on September 9, 

2011, we received the GOC’s response to 

the third supplemental questionnaire. 

On September 21, 2011, the Xingmin 

Companies filed a response to the 

critical circumstances questionnaire. On 

September 23, 2011, the GOC submitted 

its fourth supplemental questionnaire 

response. On September 26, 2011, the 

Centurion Companies, Jingu Companies, 

and Xiamen Sunrise Wheel Group Co., 

Ltd. (Sunrise) each filed a response to 

the critical circumstances 

questionnaire.8

On October 3, 2011, the GOC 

submitted certifications conforming to 

the formats provided for in the 

Supplemental Interim Final Rule 9 to 

replace those certifications it had 

previously filed with the Department 

that did not conform with the format 

provided in the Interim Final Rule.10

On October 5, 2011, we determined 

that the petitioners’ new subsidy 

allegations were untimely filed and 

rejected the September 7, 2011, 

submission.11 On October 6, 2011, the 

GOC requested a hearing in this 

investigation. 

On November 2, 2011, we issued a 

memorandum to the file regarding the 

scope of the investigation. See 

Memorandum to the File from Kristen 

Johnson, Trade Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 3, regarding ‘‘Scope 

of the Investigation,’’ (November 2, 

2011). In the memorandum, we 

explained that because the language of 

the scope covers steel wheels ranging 

from 18 to 24.5 inches in diameter 

regardless of use, the Department 

preliminarily determined in Steel 

Wheels AD Preliminary 

Determination 12 to add all of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) categories 

suggested by CBP to the scope of the AD 

and CVD investigations on steel wheels 

from the PRC. 

On November 18, 2011, we issued a 

verification outline to the Xingmin 

Companies. On November 23, the 

Xingmin Companies filed additional 

factual information. On November 28, 

2011, the GOC submitted new factual 

information. On December 2, 2011, the 

Department issued letters to the 

Xingmin Companies and the GOC 

rejecting their additional factual 

information submissions because those 

submissions contained untimely filed 

information. On December 2 and 5, 

2011, the Xingmin Companies and the 

GOC, respectively, re-filed their 

additional factual submissions 

excluding that information found by the 

Department to be untimely. On 

December 5 and 6, 2011, the GOC and 

Xingmin Companies, respectively, 

submitted comments disagreeing with 

Department’s finding that their initial 

additional factual information 

submissions contained untimely 

information. Also, on December 5 and 6, 

2011, the Department conducted 

verification of the questionnaire 

responses submitted by the Xingmin 

Companies. 

On December 6, 2011, we issued a 

post-preliminary questionnaire to all 

interested parties regarding the scope of 

the AD and CVD investigations on steel 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Notices 17019 

13See Memorandum to the File from Kristen 

Johnson, Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 

3, regarding ‘‘Post-Preliminary Supplemental 

Questionnaire Issued to All Interested Parties,’’ 

(December 6, 2011). 

14A Chinese producer of steel wheels. 

15See Certain Steel Wheels from the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Negative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances, 77 FR 

12812 (March 2, 2012) (Preliminary Critical 

Circumstances Determination). 

16 In the Preliminary Critical Circumstances 

Determination, the Department stated the following: 

Petitioners provided Census Bureau Data, which 

they contend demonstrate that imports of subject 

merchandise increased by more than 15 percent, 

which is required to be considered ‘‘massive’’ under 

section 351.206(h)(2) of the Department’s 

regulations. Petitioners submit that, by volume, 

imports increased approximately 48 percent from 

510,174 wheels in the first quarter of 2011, to 

753,604 wheels in the second quarter of 2010. Id. 

at 3 and Exhibit 1. Petitioners also contend that, by 

value, imports increased approximately 40 percent, 

from $17,787,704 in the first quarter of 2011, to 

$24,893,481 in the second quarter of 2010. Id. 

See 77 FR at 12812. In discussing the second 

quarter import data supplied by petitioners we 

inadvertently referred to 2010 rather than 2011. 

17See Certain Steel Wheels From China, 

Investigation Nos. 701–TA–478 and 731–TA–1182 

(Preliminary), 76 FR 29265 (May 20, 2011). 

wheels from the PRC.13 On December 

13, 2011, petitioners, the Xingmin 

Companies, Jingu Companies, and 

Jiaxing Stone Wheel Co., Ltd.,14 each 

submitted a post-preliminary 

supplemental questionnaire response to 

the Department. On December 22 and 

23, 2011, Blackstone/OTR LLC and OTR 

Wheel Engineering, Inc. (collectively, 

Blackstone/OTR), a U.S. importer of the 

subject merchandise, and petitioners, 

respectively, submitted rebuttal 

comments to the post-preliminary 

supplemental questionnaire responses. 

We issued the verification reports for 

the Xingmin Companies on January 6, 

2012. We issued the verification reports 

for the Centurion Companies and the 

GOC on January 30, 2012. We issued the 

verification report for the Jingu 

Companies on January 31, 2012. 

On February 7, 2012, case briefs were 

submitted by the GOC, Centurion 

Companies, Jingu Companies, Xingmin 

Companies, and Blackstone/OTR. A 

rebuttal brief was filed by petitioners on 

February 13, 2012. On February 22, 

2012, the GOC notified the Department 

that it was withdrawing its request for 

a hearing in this investigation. 

On March 2, 2012, we published the 

Preliminary Critical Circumstances 

Determination,15 in which the 

Department discussed the arguments 

made by petitioners.16 On March 6, 

2012, case briefs were submitted by 

interested parties concerning the 

Preliminary Critical Circumstances 

Determination and rebuttal briefs were 

filed on March 9, 2012. 

On March 6, 2012, the Department 

rejected Blackstone/OTR’s February 7, 

2012, case brief because it contained 

new factual information. Blackstone/ 

OTR re-filed is case brief excluding the 

new factual information on March 8, 

2012. 

Scope of 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 HTSUS: 8708.70.05.00, 

8708.70.25.00, 8708.70.45.30, and 

8708.70.60.30. Imports of the subject 

merchandise may also enter under the 

following categories of the HTSUS: 

8406.90.4580, 8406.90.7500, 

8420.99.9000, 8422.90.1100, 

8422.90.2100, 8422.90.9120, 

8422.90.9130, 8422.90.9160, 

8422.90.9195, 8431.10.0010, 

8431.10.0090, 8431.20.0000, 

8431.31.0020, 8431.31.0040, 

8431.31.0060, 8431.39.0010, 

8431.39.0050, 8431.39.0070, 

8431.39.0080, 8431.43.8060, 

8431.49.1010, 8431.49.1060, 

8431.49.1090, 8431.49.9030, 

8431.49.9040, 8431.49.9085, 

8432.90.0005, 8432.90.0015, 

8432.90.0030, 8432.90.0080, 

8433.90.1000, 8433.90.5020, 

8433.90.5040, 8436.99.0020, 

8436.99.0090, 8479.90.9440, 

8479.90.9450, 8479.90.9496, 

8487.90.0080, 8607.19.1200, 

8607.19.1500, 8708.70.1500, 

8708.70.3500, 8708.70.4560, 

8708.70.6060, 8709.90.0000, 

8710.00.0090, 8714.19.0030, 

8714.19.0060, 8716.90.1000, 

8716.90.5030, 8716.90.5060, 

8803.20.0015, 8803.20.0030, and 

8803.20.0060. These HTSUS numbers 

are provided for convenience and 

customs purposes only; the written 

description of the scope is dispositive. 

Injury Test 

Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the 

meaning of section 701(b) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the 

International Trade Commission (the 

ITC) is required to determine whether 

imports of the subject merchandise from 

the PRC materially injure, or threaten 

material injury to, a U.S. industry. On 

May 20, 2011, the ITC published its 

preliminary determination finding that 

there is a reasonable indication that an 

industry in the United States is 

materially injured or threatened with 

material injury by reason of imports 

from China of certain steel wheels.17

Critical Circumstances 

In the Preliminary Critical 

Circumstances Determination, the 

Department concluded that critical 

circumstances do not exist with respect 

to steel wheels from the PRC produced 

and exported by the Jingu Companies, 

the Centurion Companies, and the 

Xingming Companies, in accordance 

with section 703(e)(1) of the Act. See 

Preliminary Critical Circumstances 

Determination, 77 FR at 12813–12814. 

However, in the Preliminary Critical 

Circumstances Determination the 

Department concluded that critical 

circumstances exist for imports from 

‘‘all other’’ exporters of steel wheels 

from the PRC. Id. Our analysis of the 

results of verification and the comments 

submitted by interested parties has not 

led us to change our findings from the 

Preliminary Critical Circumstances 

Determination. Therefore, in accordance 

with section 705(a)(2) of the Act, we 

continue to find that critical 

circumstances exist with respect to 

imports from ‘‘all other’’ exporters of 

steel wheels from the PRC. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs submitted by parties to 

this investigation are addressed in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum, 

dated concurrently with this notice and 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

A list of the issues which parties raised, 

and to which we have responded in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum, is 

attached to this notice as an Appendix. 

The Issues and Decision Memorandum 

is a public document and is on file 

electronically via Import 

Administration’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). 

Access to IA ACCESS is available in the 

Central Records Unit (CRU), room 7046 

of the main Department of Commerce 

building. In addition, a complete 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17020 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Notices 

version of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ 

ia/. The signed Issues and Decision 

Memorandum and the electronic 

version of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have 

calculated an individual rate for subject 

merchandise produced and exported by 

each company under investigation. We 

determine the total estimated net 

countervailable subsidy rates to be: 

Producer/exporter 

Net subsidy ad 

valorem rate 

(percent) 

Jining Centurion Wheel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Centurion) and Jining CII Wheel Manufacture Co., Ltd. (Jining CII) (collectively 

the Centurion Companies) ............................................................................................................................................................... 25.66 

Shandong Xingmin Wheel Co., Ltd. (Xingmin) and Sino-tex (Longkou) Wheel Manufacturers Inc. (Sino-tex) (collectively, the 

Xingmin Companies) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 32.62 

Zhejiang Jingu Company Limited (Zhejiang Jingu), Chengdu Jingu Wheel Co., Ltd. (Chengdu), Zhejiang Wheel World Industrial 

Co., Ltd. (Zhejiang Wheel World), and Shanghai Yata Industrial Co., Ltd. (Shanghai Yata) (collectively the Jingu Companies) 38.32 

All Others ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 34.55 

Section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act state 

that for companies not investigated, we 

will determine an all-others rate by 

weighting the individual company 

subsidy rate of each of the companies 

investigated by each company’s exports 

of the subject merchandise to the United 

States. The all others rate may not 

include zero and de minimis rates or 

any rates based solely on the facts 

available. In this investigation, all three 

individual rates can be used to calculate 

the all others rate. Therefore, we have 

assigned the weighted-average of these 

three individual rates to all other 

producers/exporters of steel wheels 

from the PRC. 

As a result of our Preliminary 

Determination and pursuant to section 

703(d) of the Act, we instructed CBP to 

suspend liquidation of all entries of 

subject merchandise from the PRC 

which were entered or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

September 6, 2011, the date of the 

publication of the Preliminary 

Determination in the Federal Register. 

Subsequently, as a result of our 

Preliminary Critical Circumstances 

Determination, we instructed CBP to 

suspend liquidation of all entries of 

subject merchandise from ‘‘all other’’ 

exporters of steel wheels from the PRC 

which were entered or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

June 8, 2011, which is 90 days prior to 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of the Preliminary 

Determination. 

In accordance with section 703(d) of 

the Act, we issued instructions to CBP 

to discontinue the suspension of 

liquidation for CVD purposes for subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, on or after January 4, 

2012, but to continue the suspension of 

liquidation of all entries from 

September 6, 2011, through January 3, 

2012. 

We will issue a CVD order and 

reinstate the suspension of liquidation 

under section 706(a) of the Act if the 

ITC issues a final affirmative injury 

determination, and will require a cash 

deposit of estimated CVDs for such 

entries of merchandise in the amounts 

indicated above. If the ITC determines 

that material injury, or threat of material 

injury, does not exist, this proceeding 

will be terminated and all estimated 

duties deposited or securities posted as 

a result of the suspension of liquidation 

will be refunded or canceled. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 705(d) of 

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our 

determination. In addition, we are 

making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and non-proprietary 

information related to this investigation. 

We will allow the ITC access to all 

privileged and business proprietary 

information in our files, provided the 

ITC confirms that it will not disclose 

such information, either publicly or 

under an administrative protective order 

(APO), without the written consent of 

the Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

In the event that the ITC issues a final 

negative injury determination, this 

notice will serve as the only reminder 

to parties subject to an APO of their 

responsibility concerning the 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of the return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

This determination is published 

pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: March 16, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

List of Comments and Issues in the Decision 

Memorandum 

Comment 1: Application of CVD Law to NonMarket Economies (NMEs) 

Comment 2: Application of CVD Law to 

NMEs Results in Double-Counting 

Comment 3: Whether the Burden of Proving 

Double-Counting Lies With Respondents 

Comment 4: Proper ‘‘Cut-Off’’ Date To Be 

Applied in the Investigation 

Comment 5: Whether the Department’s 

Examination of Additional Subsidy 

Program Was Lawful 

Comment 6: Whether It Was Appropriate for 

the Department To Reject the Xingmin 

Companies’ Factual Information 

Comment 7: Whether It Was Appropriate for 

the Department To Reject Centurion 

Companies’ Factual Information 

Comment 8: Whether Certain Hot-Rolled 

Steel (HRS) Producers Constitute 

Government Authorities That Provide a 

Financial Contribution 

Comment 9: Whether Purchases of HRS From 

Domestic Trading Companies Constituted a 

Financial Contribution 

Comment 10: Whether the GOC Acted to the 

Best of Its Ability To Provide Information 

Regarding the Ownership Status of HRS 

Producers 

Comment 11: The Extent To Which Chinese 

Communist Party (CCP) Membership is 

Relevant in Determining Whether HRS 

Producers Are Government Authorities 

Capable of Providing a Financial 

Contribution 

Comment 12: Whether the Department 

Applied Consistent Treatment of HRS 

Producers In Terms of Ownership Status 

Comment 13: Data Source To Be Used for the 

Jingu Companies Under the HRS for Less 

Than Adequate Remuneration (LTAR) 

Program 

Comment 14: Whether the Department 

Should Use a Tier-One, In-Country 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Notices 17021 

1See Certain Steel Wheels From the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Partial Affirmative Preliminary Determination of 

Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 76 FR 67703 (November 2, 2011) 

(‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). Less Than Fair 

Value, Partial Affirmative Preliminary 

Determination of Critical Circumstances, and 

Postponement of Final Determination, 76 FR 67703 

(November 2, 2011) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

2See the ‘‘Verification’’ section below for 

additional information. 

Benchmark in the Benefit Calculation of 

the HRS for LTAR Program 

Comment 15: Use of HRS Benchmark Data 

That More Accurately Correspond to 

Respondents’ Domestic Purchases of HRS 

Comment 16: Whether the Department 

Should Reduce the HRS Benchmark to 

Account for the Cash Discounts That the 

Jingu Companies Receive From Their HRS 

Suppliers 

Comment 17: Whether the HRS Benchmark 

Prices Should Be Adjusted Downward To 

Reflect the Prices the Jingu Companies 

Paid for Non-Pickled and Non-Oiled HRS 

Comment 18: Whether the Provision of HRS 

for LTAR Is Specific Under the CVD Law 

Comment 19: Whether It Was Appropriate To 

Apply AFA With Regard to the GOC 

Concerning the Provision of Electricity for 

LTAR Program 

Comment 20: Whether the Provision of 

Electricity Is Not Countervailable Because 

the Program Provides General 

Infrastructure Which Does Not Constitute a 

Financial Contribution 

Comment 21: Whether Banks in the PRC Are 

Government Authorities Capable of 

Providing a Financial Contribution 

Comment 22: Whether a Causal Nexus Exists 

Between the GOC’s Industrial Policies and 

Loans Received by Respondents 

Comment 23: Whether the Department 

Should Use a PRC-Based Tier-One or TierTwo Benchmark in the Benefit 

Calculations of the Policy Lending Program 

Comment 24: Whether the Department’s 

Short-Term and Long-Term Benchmark 

Interest Rate Calculations Are Flawed 

Comment 25: Whether Tax Benefits Under 

Article 28 of the Foreign Invested 

Enterprise (FIE) Tax Law Are Specific 

Comment 26: Revision to Import Duty Rate 

for Testing Machinery 

Comment 27: The Sales Denominator To Be 

Used in the Benefit Calculations of the 

Jingu Companies 

Comment 28: Use of Revised Data To 

Calculate Benefits Received by the 

Centurion Companies Under the Two Free, 

Three Half Program 

Comment 29: Whether IPO Grants From the 

Fuyang and Hangzhou City Governments 

Are Countervailable 

Comment 30: Whether the Administrative 

Record of This Case Supports a Finding of 

Critical Circumstances 

Comment 31: Whether the Scope Should 

Exclude Off-Road/Non-Department of 

Transportation Specification Stamped 

Wheels 

[FR Doc. 2012–7055 Filed 3–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–973] 

Certain Steel Wheels From the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Final Determination of Critical 

Circumstances 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 23, 2012. 

SUMMARY: On November 2, 2011, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the 

antidumping investigation of certain 

steel wheels (‘‘steel wheels’’) from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’).1

We invited interested parties to 

comment on our preliminary 

determination of sales at LTFV. Based 

on our analysis of the comments we 

received, we have made changes to our 

margin calculations for the mandatory 

respondents. The final dumping 

margins for this investigation are listed 

in the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ 

section below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brendan Quinn or Raquel Silva, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–5848 or (202) 482– 

6475, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The Department published its 

Preliminary Determination of sales at 

LTFV on November 2, 2011. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), 

we invited parties to comment on the 

Preliminary Determination. 

On November 3, 2011, the Department 

issued a post-preliminary supplemental 

questionnaire to Zhejiang Jingu 

Company Limited (‘‘Zhejiang Jingu’’) 

and its affiliated exporter Shanghai Yata 

Industry Co., Ltd (‘‘Yata’’) (collectively 

‘‘Jingu’’). On November 14, 2011, Jingu 

submitted its response to the 

Department’s post-preliminary 

supplemental questionnaire. Also on 

November 14, 2011, Jingu and Jining 

Centurion Wheel Manufacturing Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Jining Centurion’’) and its 

affiliated U.S. reseller, Centurion Wheel 

Manufacturing Company (‘‘Centurion 

USA’’) (collectively ‘‘Centurion’’) 

provided additional factual information 

pertaining to respondents’ production 

experience. 

Between November 21, 2011, and 

December 9, 2011, the Department 

conducted verifications of Jining 

Centurion and its affiliated U.S. reseller, 

Centurion USA. Between December 1, 

2011, and December 9, 2011, the 

Department conducted verifications of 

Zhejiang Jingu and its affiliated exporter 

Yata. The Department released 

verification reports for each verification 

of Centurion and Jingu on January 10, 

2012, and January 11, 2012, 

respectively. The Department also 

released an addendum to its verification 

report regarding Centurion on January 

23, 2012. Accuride Corporation and 

Hayes Lemmerz International 

(‘‘Petitioners’’) submitted their 

comments regarding the Department’s 

January 23, 2012, addendum on January 

25, 2012.2

On December 19, 2011, Centurion and 

Jingu submitted publicly available 

surrogate value submissions. On 

December 29, 2011, Petitioners 

submitted rebuttal comments to Jingu’s 

surrogate value submission. Case briefs 

were submitted on January 20, 2012, by 

the following parties: (1) Petitioners; (2) 

the Government of China; (3) 

Blackstone/OTR LLC and OTR Wheel 

Engineering, Inc. (collectively 

‘‘Blackstone’’); (4) Jingu; and (5) 

Centurion. On January 25, 2012, 

Centurion and Petitioners submitted 

rebuttal briefs. On February 29, 2012, 

the Department met with counsel for 

Blackstone/OTR and Super Grip 

Corporation, an interested party in this 

proceeding. The Department met with 

counsel for Petitioners on March 2, 

2012. 

Scope Comments 

Following the Preliminary 

Determination, on December 6, 2011, 

the Department issued a postpreliminary supplemental questionnaire 

to all interested parties requesting 

further information regarding various 

scope issues in this and the concurrent 

countervailing duty investigation on 

certain steel wheels from the PRC 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES