[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16651-16655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-7551]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-867]


Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: 
Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of 
China

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Initiation of antidumping duty investigation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 27, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Johnson at (202) 482-3818; Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230.

Initiation of Investigation

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are references 
to the provisions codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

The Petition

    On February 28, 2001, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received the petition filed in proper form by the following parties: 
PPG Industries, Inc., Safelite Glass Corp. and Apogee Enterprises, Inc. 
The Department received from petitioners information supplementing the 
petition throughout the 20-day initiation period. On March 13, 2001, 
Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd., a Chinese producer and exporter 
of the subject merchandise, and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Greenville 
Glass Industries, Inc. (Greenville Glass), a U.S. importer of the 
subject merchandise, provided comments regarding whether petitioners 
have established industry support pursuant to Section 732(c)(4)(E) of 
the Act.
    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, petitioners allege 
that imports of automotive replacement glass windshields (ARG 
windshields) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) are being, or 
are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value 
within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are 
materially injuring an industry in the United States.
    The Department finds that petitioners filed this petition on behalf 
of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined 
in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and have demonstrated sufficient 
industry support with respect to the antidumping duty investigation of 
automotive replacement glass (ARG) windshields that they are requesting 
the Department to initiate (see Determination of Industry Support for 
the Petition section below).

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the products covered are 
imports of ARG windshields, and parts thereof, whether clear or tinted, 
whether coated or not, and whether or not they include antennas, 
ceramics, mirror buttons or VIN notches, and whether or not they are 
encapsulated. ARG windshields are laminated safety glass (i.e., two 
layers of (typically float) glass with a sheet of clear or tinted 
plastic in between (usually polyvinyl butyral)), which are produced and 
sold for use by automotive glass installation shops to replace 
windshields in automotive vehicles (e.g., passenger cars, light trucks, 
vans, sport utility vehicles, etc.) that are cracked, broken or 
otherwise damaged.
    ARG windshields subject to this investigation are currently 
classifiable under subheading 7007.21.10.10 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedules of the United States (HTSUS). Specifically excluded from the 
scope of this investigation are automotive windshields sold for 
original equipment manufacturers (OEM) (i.e., automobile 
manufacturers). While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this 
investigation is dispositive.
    During our review of the petition, we discussed the scope with the 
petitioner to ensure that it accurately reflects the product for which 
the domestic industry is seeking relief. Specifically, we have 
discussed with petitioners whether it is possible to develop 
descriptive language that would permit a distinction between ARG and 
OEM windshields based on the physical characteristics of the product. 
Because it is not clear whether specific standards, specifications, or 
quantifiable differences in tolerances can be used to distinguish ARG 
from OEM windshields, we are requesting all interested parties to 
comment on how the scope definition might be refined to describe more 
clearly ARG windshields, and which will enable U.S. Customs officials 
to distinguish between OEM and ARG windshields. For example, the 
Department would consider the construction of scope language which 
would allow for exclusion based on the presence of an OEM logo (e.g., 
GM, Ford, Toyota, etc.) on the windshield. Alternatively, exclusion 
from the scope of the order may be established through the presence of 
documentation demonstrating that the OEM customer has certified the 
foreign producer as a supplier of a particular model. Thus, as 
discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations (62 FR 
27323), we are setting aside a period for parties to raise issues 
regarding product coverage. The period of scope consultations is 
intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider 
all comments and consult with parties prior to the issuance of the 
preliminary determination. Therefore, the Department encourages all 
parties to submit such comments by April 9, 2001. Comments should be 
addressed to Import Administration's Central Records Unit at Room 1870, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether the 
petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the 
Department 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 the Department and the ITC 
must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like 
product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes 
and pursuant to separate and distinct authority. In addition, the 
Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and 
information. Although this may result in different definitions of the 
like product, such differences do not

[[Page 16652]]

render the decision of either agency contrary to the law.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd., v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 
639, 642-44 (CIT 1988); High Information Content Flat Panel Displays 
and Display Glass Therefor from Japan: Final Determination; 
Rescission of Investigation and Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 
32376, 32380-81 (July 16, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Moreover, petitioners do not offer a definition of domestic 
like product distinct from the scope of the investigation.
    In this case, the domestic like product referred to in the petition 
is the single domestic like product defined in the ``Scope of 
Investigation'' section above. As discussed below, on March 13, 2001, 
the Department received comments on industry support from Fuyao Glass 
Industry Group Co., Ltd. and Greenville Glass Industries Inc., a U.S. 
importer of subject merchandise (collectively ``FYG''). While we have 
addressed FYG's comments below, we note that, in essence, FYG argues 
that the domestic like product includes glass windshields manufactured 
for OEM customers.
    Concerning whether windshields for OEM customers are part of the 
same domestic like product as ARG windshields, we have considered such 
factors as the similarities of manufacturing processes, pricing bases, 
marketing methods, and applications. With regard to the manufacturing 
process, petitioners have noted that the design and testing stages for 
OEM customers are lengthy processes (i.e., up to three years). In 
contrast, the entire time to design, test, and produce an ARG 
windshield is much shorter, typically requiring as little as 12 weeks 
or less. Moreover, because many ARG windshields are ``reverse 
engineered'', the ARG windshields cannot, and do not, meet the same 
specifications and tolerances as the OEM windshields. Also, according 
to discussions with the U.S. International Trade Commission, the sheet 
of clear or tinted plastic in between the glass (e.g., polyvinyl 
butyral) is usually applied by machine in the production of OEM 
windshields, while it is normally applied by hand for the manufacture 
of ARG windshields. Finally, petitioners note that the vast majority of 
OEM windshield part numbers and ARG windshield part numbers are 
produced in different production facilities with different workers. 
Petitioners also state that OEM windshields are produced on high volume 
production equipment, with much longer production runs than is the case 
for ARG windshields.
    Petitioners state that ARG windshields are typically more expensive 
than OEM windshields, based primarily on their shorter production runs 
and the need to keep low volume parts in stock, both of which reduce 
the economic efficiencies of producing ARG windshields.
    Marketing methods are clearly different, due to the fact that the 
customers to whom ARG and OEM windshields are sold are likewise 
different. OEM windshields are sold to a relatively small universe of 
customers (i.e., auto manufacturers). The market for ARG windshields, 
in contrast, is comprised of thousands of retail service shops that 
install replacement windshields in cars and light trucks. Thus, ARG 
windshields are produced for sale to distributors and auto glass 
installation shops who, in turn, sell to consumers and auto insurance 
companies.
    With regard to similarity of applications, our research indicates 
that while OEM windshields may be sold in the ARG market (e.g., in the 
event of production overruns on the part of the OEM windshield 
manufacturer) for use as replacement glass, the reverse is not true: 
ARG windshields are not used by OEM customers.
    In summary, the Department has no basis on the record to find the 
petition's definition of the domestic like product to be inaccurate. 
The Department has, therefore, adopted the domestic like product 
definition set forth in 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: (1) at least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(2) 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. Finally, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act 
provides that if the petition does not establish support of domestic 
producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total 
production of the domestic like product, the administering agency 
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.
    In order to estimate production for the domestic industry as 
defined for purposes of this case, the Department has relied upon not 
only the petition and amendments thereto, but also upon ``other 
information'' it obtained through research and which is attached to the 
Initiation Checklist (See Import Administration AD Investigation 
Initiation Checklist (Initiation Checklist), Attachment I: Industry 
Support, March 20, 2001). Based on information from these sources, the 
Department determined, pursuant to section 732(c)(4)(D), that there is 
support for the petition as required by subparagraph (A). Specifically, 
the Department made the following determinations. Petitioners 
established industry support representing over 50 percent of total 
production of the domestic like product. Therefore, the domestic 
producers who support the petition account for at least 25 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, and the requirements 
of section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) are met. Furthermore, the domestic producers 
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. Thus, 
the requirements of section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) are also met.
    Accordingly, the Department determines that the petition was filed 
on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 
732(b)(1) of the Act. See Initiation Checklist.
    As noted above, on March 13, 2001, FYG submitted comments regarding 
industry support. Specifically, FYG argues that the proposed scope of 
this investigation is flawed because it differentiates scope and non-
scope merchandise based on customer type/channel of distribution (i.e., 
OEM versus ARG windshield customers). To eliminate that distinction, 
FYG argues that all automotive glass windshields, whether OEM or ARG, 
should be included in the scope. Therefore, FYG argues that the 
Department should base industry support on U.S. production of all 
automotive glass windshields. Based on data regarding light vehicle 
production in the United States (which show that U.S. consumption of 
auto glass for OEM customers exceeds the entire U.S. consumption of 
auto glass for replacement glass customers), FYG asserts that it is 
very possible that

[[Page 16653]]

petitioners' standing levels could be ``cut in half''. FYG concludes 
that in order to determine whether petitioners have the requisite 
support, the Department should poll the entire U.S. auto glass 
manufacturing industry and extend the period for initiation.
    The Department notes that FYG has not asserted that industry 
support does not exist given petitioners' definition of the domestic 
industry; instead, FYG has taken issue with petitioners' definition of 
the domestic industry itself. However, as fully discussed above, the 
Department believes that there exists a distinct automotive replacement 
glass windshield domestic industry. Therefore, it would be improper to 
include U.S. production of OEM windshields in the calculation of 
industry support, as such production does not pertain to the domestic 
like product. For this reason, we disagree with FYG that petitioners 
have not demonstrated industry support.

U.S. Price and Normal Value

    The following are descriptions of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate this investigation. The sources of data and deductions and 
adjustments relating to U.S. price and factors of production (FOP) are 
detailed in the Initiation Checklist. Should the need arise to use any 
of this information as facts available under section 776 of the Act in 
our preliminary or final determinations, we may re-examine the 
information and revise the margin calculations, if appropriate. The 
period of investigation (POI) for this case is July 1, 2000 to December 
31, 2000.
    This investigation involves a non-market economy (NME), and the 
Department presumes, based on the extent of central government control 
in an NME, that a single dumping margin, should there be one, is 
appropriate for all NME exporters in the given country. See, e.g., 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 
from the PRC, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994). In the course of this 
investigation, all parties will have the opportunity to provide 
relevant information related to the issues of a country's NME status 
and the granting of separate rates to individual exporters.

United States Price

Export Price

    Petitioners calculated export price for integrated and non-
integrated Chinese producers using official U.S. IM-145 import 
statistics for HTSUS category 7007.21.10.10. Petitioners assert that 
this category contains only imports of ARG windshields, based on 
petitioners' understanding that no Chinese producers are currently 
supplying OEM customers in the United States. Petitioners used the free 
alongside ship (FAS) per-square-meter value for the period July 1, 2000 
through December 31, 2000 as the export price. Petitioners made no 
deductions to this price.

Constructed Export Price

    Petitioners calculated constructed export price (CEP) using two 
sources: a price list from China Southern, and a price list from FYG.
China Southern
    Petitioners based CEP on a price list from China Southern for the 
first sale of ARG windshields to an unaffiliated U.S. customer. 
Petitioners calculated net prices by deducting discounts, international 
freight, insurance and charges (CIF charges), U.S. customs duties, U.S. 
commissions and U.S. inland freight charges.
    Petitioners based a 7 percent discount rate for China Southern on a 
1999 catalogue and price list from Shenzhen Benxun, a subsidiary of 
China Southern. Petitioners based U.S. inland freight charges for China 
Southern on PPG's experience for truckload shipments of ARG windshields 
to its distributors.
    In calculating CIF charges for China Southern, petitioners 
calculated the per-square-meter CIF charges for China on a monthly 
basis during the POI by applying the ratio of the total CIF charges to 
the total customs FAS value to the per-square-meter FAS value of 
entries of the subject merchandise as reported on the ITC data web 
(www.usitc.gov.). Similarly, petitioners obtained the per-square-meter 
amount of U.S. duty by multiplying the percentage duty rate of 4.9 
percent by the per-square-meter FAS value of entries of the subject 
merchandise as reported on the ITC data web.
    Petitioners based a commission fee for China Southern on an 
affidavit from one of petitioners' company officials explaining his 
knowledge of trade industry practices.
FYG
    Petitioners similarly calculated CEP for FYG based on a price list 
from FYG to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. Petitioners 
calculated CEP by deducting CIF charges, U.S. customs duties, U.S. 
selling expenses and U.S. inland freight charges.
    Petitioners calculated CIF and duty charges for FYG using the same 
methodology utilized for China Southern (see above), with one 
exception. Specifically, petitioners estimated U.S. selling expenses 
for FYG based on the actual selling expense experience of one of the 
U.S. producers of the subject merchandise.

Normal Value

    Petitioners assert that the PRC is an NME country, and note that in 
all previous investigations the Department has determined that the PRC 
is an NME. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin From the People's Republic of China, 65 
FR 33805 (May 25, 2000). The PRC will be treated as an NME unless and 
until its NME status is revoked. Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of 
the Act, because the PRC's status as an NME remains in effect, 
petitioners estimated the dumping margin using an NME analysis.
    For normal value (NV), petitioners based the FOP, as defined by 
section 773(c)(3) of the Act, on the consumption rates of PPG 
Industries, a U.S. producer of the subject merchandise. Petitioners 
assert that information regarding Chinese producers' consumption rates 
is not available, and that the U.S. producer employs a production 
process which is similar to the production process employed by one of 
the largest producers of windshields in the PRC. Thus, petitioners have 
assumed for purposes of the petition that producers in the PRC use the 
same inputs in the same quantities as petitioners use. Petitioners 
provided separate normal values for integrated and non-integrated 
producers, based upon whether the float glass is purchased or self-
produced. Based on the information provided by petitioners, we believe 
that their FOP methodology represents information reasonably available 
to petitioners and is appropriate for purposes of initiating this 
investigation.
    Petitioners assert that India is the most appropriate surrogate 
country for the PRC, claiming that India is: (i) A market economy, (ii) 
a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and (iii) at a level 
of economic development comparable to the PRC in terms of per capita 
GNP. Based on the information provided by petitioners, we believe that 
petitioners' use of India as a surrogate country is appropriate for 
purposes of initiating this investigation.
    In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, petitioners valued 
FOP, where possible, on reasonably available, public surrogate data 
from India.
Industry Practices
    ARG windshields are produced by both integrated and non-integrated 
producers. Integrated producers produce ARG windshields in a two-step

[[Page 16654]]

process, the first of which is to produce the float glass in its own 
manufacturing step, and then to use the glass that it produced as one 
material input into the step of producing the ARG windshields. Non-
integrated producers purchase float glass as a raw material input into 
the process of making ARG windshields. Consequently, petitioners 
provided separate normal value calculations for integrated and non-
integrated producers of the subject merchandise.
Float Glass
    For non-integrated producers: Petitioners valued colored float 
glass using a publicly available 1999 price of float glass purchases by 
Asahi Safety Glass (Asahi) inflated to the month of March 2000, the 
last month for which annualized data are published based on the Indian 
wholesale price index (WPI) as reported in the International Financial 
Statistics. Petitioners then applied the yield factor experienced by 
PPG for float glass to obtain a yielded material value for the float 
glass in U.S. dollars.
    For integrated producers: Petitioners provided the batch 
composition usage and yield loss rate of PPG Industries to produce 
float glass used in ARG windshields. Petitioners valued each of the 
material inputs using the published imports statistics of India for 
April 1998 through May 1999, and inflated the resulting figures to the 
month of March 2000 using the Indian WPI as reported in the 
International Financial Statistics. The values in rupees were converted 
to U.S. dollars using the exchange rate for March 2000, as reported by 
the Federal Reserve Board. Petitioners could not locate a surrogate 
value for rouge, one of the minor elements included in the batch 
composition for float glass. Therefore, petitioners relied on PPG's 
cost for this factor.
    Petitioners used PPG's experience to determine the usage rates for 
labor and energy per ton of glass production. Petitioners valued 
electricity using prices published in Energy Prices and Taxes, First 
Quarter 2000, published by the OECD International Energy Agency. 
Petitioners applied the value of natural gas recorded in the 
Department's Index of Factor Values, (http://ia.ita.doc.gov/factorv/prc/energy.htm), and inflated it by the change in the India WPI to 
March 2000. Petitioners valued oxygen using Indian import statistics, 
inflated to March 2000 using the Indian WPI reported in International 
Financial Statistics, and converted to U.S. dollars.
    Because petitioners' surrogate value for factory overhead was 
obtained from two non-integrated producers of automotive glass 
windshields, petitioners applied a factory overhead surrogate value for 
float glass production in calculating normal value for integrated 
producers. Specifically, for factory overhead, petitioners used 
information from an Indian producer of float glass, Floatglass India 
Ltd.
Polyvinyl Butyral (``PVB'') and Other Materials
    Petitioners valued PVB, as they did float glass for non-integrated 
producers, using publicly available information regarding 1999 float 
glass purchases by Asahi, inflated to the month of March 2000 based on 
the Indian WPI as reported in the International Financial Statistics. 
The value of PVB in rupees was converted to U.S. dollars using the 
exchange rate for March 2000, as reported by the Federal Reserve Board. 
Petitioners then applied the yield factor experienced by PPG for PVB.
    Petitioners valued paint, PVB frames, and attachments such as 
mirrors and antennae, using PPG's costs, and applying an amount for 
labor and overhead as they did for float glass and PVB for non-
integrated producers. However, we have disregarded petitioners' 
valuation of these items because petitioners failed to provide 
surrogate value information for them or to adequately demonstrate that 
such information was not reasonably available. We note that the 
disallowance of attachment hardware has no impact on the highest 
margins for both China Southern and FYG calculated by petitioners, 
since the highest margins calculated by petitioners did not include 
attachments.
For the Assembly and Production of ARG Windshields
    Petitioners valued labor using the regression-based wage rate for 
the PRC provided by the Department, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(3) (http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/98wages/gdp00web.htm). 
Petitioners divided PPG's manufacturing experience with the time 
required to produce one windshield by 1.28, the average number of 
square meters of glass per windshield, to arrive at a labor cost per-
square-meter of windshield.
    For energy, petitioners used PPG's manufacturing experience as 
factor values for electricity and natural gas. Petitioners valued 
electricity using prices published in Energy Prices and Taxes, First 
Quarter 2000, published by the OECD International Energy Agency. 
Petitioners valued natural gas using the price of natural gas recorded 
in the Department's Index of Factor Values (http://ia.ita.doc.gov/factorv/prc/energy.htm).
    For factory overhead, selling, general and administrative (SG&A) 
and profit, petitioners applied rates derived from the financial 
statements of Asahi and Atul Glass Industry Limited (Atul), two of 
India's largest producers of ARG windshields.
    Petitioners expressed the weighted-average factory overhead of the 
two companies as a percentage of materials and energy expenses, and 
applied it to the total factor values for materials and energy used in 
the production of ARG windshields. Similarly, they applied the ratio of 
SG&A expenses expressed as a ratio of materials and energy expenses to 
the total factor values for materials and energy used in the production 
of ARG windshields. Petitioners also applied the weighted-average 
profit margin of the two Indian windshield producers to the total of 
materials, energy, labor, factory overhead and SG&A expenses.
    For packing, petitioners estimated packing materials usage based on 
the expert judgement of PPG employees who examined detailed drawings of 
standard export packing for Chinese ARG windshields. Petitioners valued 
wood using the published imports statistics of India for April 1998 
through March 1999, and inflated the resulting figures to the month of 
March 2000 using the Indian WPI as reported in the International 
Financial Statistics. Petitioners used their own costs, however, to 
value dunnage. We have disallowed this valuation for dunnage because 
petitioners did not sufficiently demonstrate that surrogate value 
information from any potential surrogate country was not reasonably 
available.
    To recalculate petitioners' margins, we recalculated normal value 
without the cost of minor materials such as paint, PVB frames and minor 
materials, and dunnage for packing. We recalculated the margins for the 
highest-margin and lowest non-de minimis-margin products without 
hardware attachments for both FYG and China Southern. We determined the 
simple average of the difference between the submitted and revised 
margins for these products for each company, and subtracted the result 
from the report highest and lowest non-de minimis margin for each 
company to arrive at a revised highest and lowest non-de minimis margin 
for each company.
    Based upon the comparison of CEP to CV, petitioners' calculated 
estimated dumping margins, as adjusted by the Department, ranged from 
9.59 to 132.12 percent.

[[Page 16655]]

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of ARG windshields from the PRC are being, or are 
likely to be, sold at less than fair value.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic 
like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with 
material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise 
sold at less than NV. Petitioners contend that the industry's injured 
condition is evident in the declining trends in net operating profits, 
net sales volumes, profit-to-sales ratios, and capacity utilization. 
The allegations of injury and causation are supported by relevant 
evidence including U.S. Customs import data, lost sales, and pricing 
information. We have assessed the allegation and supporting evidence 
regarding material injury and causation, and have determined that this 
allegation is properly supported by accurate and adequate evidence and 
meets the statutory requirements for initiation (Initiation Checklist, 
Attachment II Re: Material Injury).

Initiation of Antidumping Investigation

    Based upon our examination of the petition on ARG windshields, and 
petitioners' responses to our supplemental questionnaires clarifying 
the petition, we have found that it meets the requirements of section 
732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an antidumping duty 
investigation to determine whether imports of ARG windshields from the 
PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less 
than fair value. Unless this deadline is extended, we will make our 
preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of this 
initiation.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the 
public version of this petition has been provided to the representative 
of the government of the PRC.

International Trade Commission Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will determine, no later than April 16, 2001, whether there 
is a reasonable indication that imports of ARG windshields from the PRC 
are causing material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, 
to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination will result in the 
investigation being terminated; otherwise, this investigation will 
proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act. Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling 
the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

    Dated: March 20, 2001.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-7551 Filed 3-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P