2018-08467. Certain Steel Wheels From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation

AGENCY:

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

DATES:

Applicable April 16, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen Bailey or Aleksandras Nakutis at [phone] or [phone], respectively; 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 March 27, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received an antidumping duty (AD) Petition concerning imports of certain steel wheels (steel wheels) from the People's Republic of China (China), filed in proper form on behalf of Accuride Corporation (Accuride) and Maxion Wheels Akron LLC (Maxion) (collectively, the petitioners).^[1] The AD Petition was accompanied by a countervailing duty (CVD) Petition concerning imports of steel wheels from China. The petitioners are domestic producers of steel wheels.^[2]

On March 30, 2018, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions. The petitioners filed additional information on April 3, 2018.^[3] On April 9 and 13, 2018, Commerce requested the petitioners to clarity the scope of the Petition.^[4] The petitioners filed responses to Commerce's scope request on April 13, 2018.^[5]

In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of steel wheels from China 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 are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing steel wheels in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegation.

Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigation that the petitioners are requesting.^[6]

Period of Investigation

Because China is a non-market economy (NME) country, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) for the China investigation is July 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.

Scope of the Investigation

The product covered by this investigation is certain steel wheels 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 issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope 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 these exchanges, 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 May 7, 2018, which is the next business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice.^[10] Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 17, 2018, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comments deadline.

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 each 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.

Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaire

Commerce is provide interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of steel wheels to be reported in response to Commerce's AD questionnaire. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant factors of production accurately, 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 list of physical characteristics. In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaire, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 7, 2018, which is the next business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice.^[12] Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 17, 2018. All comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of the China less-than-fair-value investigation.

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, 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 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 a petition).

With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the Petition. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that 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.^[15]

In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition and the General Issues Supplement with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the Appendix to this notice. The petitioners provided their 2017 production of the domestic like product.^[16] The petitioners state that they are the only known producers of steel wheels in the United States; therefore, the Petition is supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.^[17]

Our review of the data provided in the Petition, General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for the Petition.^[18] 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).^[19] Second, 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.^[20] Finally, 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.^[21] Accordingly, Commerce determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties 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 that Commerce initiate.^[22]

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

The 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, the petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.^[23]

The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports, reduced market share and increasing market share of subject imports, underselling and price depression or suppression, lost sales and revenues, and adverse effects on the petitioners' operating indicators and financial results.^[24] 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.^[25]

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 Commerce based its decision to initiate an AD investigation of imports of steel wheels from China. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the Initiation Checklist.

Export Price

The petitioners based EP on an importer price list, price quotes, and internet prices.^[26] Where applicable, the petitioners made deductions from U.S. price for movement and other expenses, consistent with the terms of sale.^[27]

Normal Value

Commerce considers China to be an NME country.^[28] In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by Commerce. Therefore, we continue to treat China as an NME country for purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, NV in China is appropriately based on factors of production (FOPs) valued in a surrogate market economy country, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.^[29]

The petitioners claim that Thailand is an appropriate surrogate country for China because it is a market economy country that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of China and it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise.^[30] The petitioners provided publicly available information from Thailand to value all FOPs.^[31] Therefore, based on the information provided by the petitioners, we determine that it is appropriate to use Thailand as the primary surrogate country for initiation purposes.

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 FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.

Factors of Production

Because information regarding the FOPs and volume of inputs consumed by Chinese producers/exporters was not reasonably available, the petitioners used the product-specific consumption rates of a U.S. steel wheels producer to estimate the Chinese manufacturers' FOPs.^[32] The petitioners valued the estimated FOPs using surrogate values from Thailand, as noted above.^[33] The petitioners used the average POI exchange rate to convert the data to U.S. dollars.^[34]

Fair Value Comparisons

Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of steel wheels from China are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for steel wheels from China are 12.1-231.7 percent.^[35]

Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation

Based upon the examination of the AD Petition, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an AD investigation to determine whether imports of steel wheels from China 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 and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

Respondent Selection

The petitioners named 32 producers/exporters as accounting for the majority of exports of steel wheels to the United States from China.^[36] In accordance with our standard practice for respondent selection in AD cases involving NME countries, we intend to issue quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires to producers/exporters of merchandise subject to this investigation. In the event Commerce determines that it cannot individually examine each company, where appropriate, Commerce intends to select mandatory respondents based on the responses received. For this investigation, Commerce will request Q&V information from known exporters and producers identified with complete contact information in the Petition. In addition, Commerce will post the Q&V questionnaires along with filing instructions on Enforcement and Compliance's website at http://www.trade.gov/​enforcement/​news.asp.

Producers/exporters of steel wheels from China that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy of the Q&V questionnaire from Enforcement & Compliance's website. The Q&V response must be submitted by the relevant Chinese exporters/producers no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on April 30, 2018, which is two weeks from the signature date of this notice. All Q&V responses must be filed electronically via ACCESS.

Separate Rates

In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.^[37] The specific requirements for submitting a separate-rate application in this investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, which is available on Commerce's website at http://enforcement.trade.gov/​nme/​nme-sep-rate.html. The separate-rate application will be due 30 days after publication of this initiation notice.^[38] Exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate application and have been selected as mandatory respondents will be eligible for consideration for separate-rate status only if they respond to all parts of Commerce's AD questionnaire as mandatory respondents. Commerce requires that companies from China submit a response to both the Q&V questionnaire and the separate-rate application by the respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. Companies not filing a timely Q&V response will not receive separate-rate consideration.

Use of Combination Rates

Commerce will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:

{w}hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME Investigation 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.^[39]

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petition have been provided to the government of China 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 732(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 steel wheels from China are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated.^[40] Otherwise, the 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 ^[41] 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.^[42] 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.^[43] Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g).^[44] 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: April 16, 2018.

Gary Taverman,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix

Scope of the Investigation

The merchandise subject to the investigation is certain on-the-road steel wheels, discs, and rims for tubeless tires, with a nominal rim diameter of 22.5 inches and 24.5 inches, regardless of width. Certain on-the-road steel wheels with a nominal wheel diameter of 22.5 inches and 24.5 inches are generally for Class 6, 7, and 8 commercial vehicles (as classified by the Federal Highway Administration Gross Vehicle Weight Rating system), including tractors, semi-trailers, dump trucks, garbage trucks, concrete mixers, and buses, and are the current standard wheel diameters for such applications. The standard widths of certain on-the-road steel wheels are 7.5 inches, 8.25 inches, and 9.0 inches, but all certain on-the-road steel wheels, regardless of width, are covered by the scope. While 22.5 inches and 24.5 inches are standard wheel sizes used by Class 6, 7, and 8 commercial vehicles, the scope covers sizes that may be adopted in the future for Class 6, 7, and 8 commercial vehicles.

The scope includes certain on-the-road steel wheels with either a “hub-piloted” or “stud- piloted” mounting configuration, and includes rims and discs for such wheels, whether imported as an assembly or separately. The scope includes certain on-the-road steel wheels, discs, and rims, of carbon and/or alloy steel composition, whether cladded or not cladded, whether finished or not finished, and whether coated or uncoated. All on-the-road wheels sold in the United States are subject to the requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and bear markings, such as the “DOT” symbol, indicating compliance with applicable motor vehicle standards. See 49 CFR 571.120. The scope includes certain on- the-road steel wheels imported with or without the 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 attached are included. However, if the certain on-the-road steel wheel is imported as an assembly with a tire mounted on the wheel and/or with a valve stem attached, the certain on- the-road steel wheel is covered by the scope, but the tire and/or valve stem is not covered by the scope.

Excluded from the scope are:

(1) steel wheels for tube-type tires that require a removable side ring;

(2) aluminum wheels;

(3) wheels where steel represents less than fifty percent of the product by weight; and

(4) steel wheels that do not meet National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requirements, other than the rim marking requirements found in 49 CFR 571.120S5.2.

Imports of the subject merchandise are currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 8708.70.4530, 8708.70.4560, 8708.70.6030, 8708.70.6060, 8716.90.5045, and 8716.90.5059. Merchandise meeting the scope description may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 4011.20.1015, 4011.20.5020, and 8708.99.4850. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.

Footnotes

1.  See the petitioners' letter, “Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Wheels from the People's Republic of China,” dated March 27, 2018 (the Petition).

2.  See Volume I of the Petition, at I-2.

3.  See the petitioners' letters, “Certain Steel Wheels from the People' s Republic of China (C-570-083): Petitioners' Response to the Department's March 30, 2018 Supplemental Questionnaire Regarding the Countervailing Duty Petition, dated March 30, 2018); and “Petitioners' Response to the Department of Commerce's March 30, 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,” dated April 3, 2018 (General Issues Supplement).

4.  See Commerce's Memorandum to the File, “Phone Call with Counsel to Petitioners,” dated April 9, 2018 and Commerce's Memorandum to the File, “Phone Call with Counsel to Petitioners,” dated April 13, 2018.

5.  See the petitioners' Letter, “Petitioners' Scope Clarification Regarding the Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Wheels from the People's Republic of China,” dated April 13, 2018.

6.  See the “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition” section, infra.

7.  See General Issues Supplement, at SGQ2-SGQ8.

8.  See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

9.  See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining “factual information”).

10.  See 19 CFR 351.303(b).

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

12.  See 19 CFR 351.303(b).

13.  See Section 771(10) of the Act.

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

15.  For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Steel Wheels from the People's Republic of China (Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain Steel Wheels from the People's Republic of China (Attachment II). 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.

16.  See Volume I of the Petition, at I-36.

17.  Id. at I-7 and Exhibit I-1; see also General Issues Supplement, at SGQ-11—SGQ-12 and Exhibit SGQ-10.

18.  See Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

19.  See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

20.  See Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

21.  Id.

22.  Id.

23.  See Volume I of the Petition, at I-20—I-22 and Exhibit I-15.

24.  See Volume I of the Petition, at I-22 through I-37, Exhibits I-10 through I-16, and Exhibit I-25.

25.  See 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 from the People's Republic of China.

26.  See Initiation Checklist and AD Supplement.

27.  Id.

28.  See Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Aluminum Foil from the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 82 FR 50858, 50861 (November 2, 2017), and accompanying decision memorandum, China's Status as a Non-Market Economy.

29.  See AD Initiation Checklist.

30.  See Volume II of the Petition, at I-4 and II-5.

31.  Id. at II-6 and Exhibit II-7(A)(1-2) and (B)(1-4).

32.  Id. at II-10.

33.  Id. at II-6 and Exhibit II-7(A)(1-2) and (B)(1-4).

34.  Id. at Exhibit II-7(B).

35.  See AD Initiation Checklist.

36.  See Volume I of the Petition at Exhibit I-6.

37.  See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/​policy/​bull05-1.pdf (Policy Bulletin 05.1).

38.  Although in past investigations this deadline was 60 days, consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(a), which states that “the Secretary may request any person to submit factual information at any time during a proceeding,” this deadline is now 30 days.

39.  See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added).

40.  Id.

41.  See 19 CFR 351.301(b).

42.  See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).

43.  See section 782(b) of the Act.

44.  See 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.