[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 201 (Thursday, October 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59071-59076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-20575]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-922, A-583-842]


Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Raw 
Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of China and Taiwan

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 18, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Case (Taiwan) or Melissa 
Blackledge (People's Republic of China), Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-3174 or (202) 482-3518, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Initiation of Investigation

The Petitions

    On September 21, 2007, the Department of Commerce (Department) 
received petitions concerning imports of raw flexible magnets from the 
People's Republic of China (PRC) and Taiwan filed in proper form by 
Magnum Magnetics Corporation (the petitioner). See Petition for the 
Imposition of Antidumping Duties and Countervailing Duties on Raw 
Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of China and Taiwan 
(September 21, 2007) (Petitions). The petitioner is a domestic producer 
of raw flexible magnets. On September 26, 2007, the Department issued a 
request for additional information and clarification of certain areas 
of the general issues and Taiwan-specific portions of the petitions. On 
September 27, 2007, the petitioner filed a supplement to the petitions. 
See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duties on Raw Flexible Magnets from the

[[Page 59072]]

People's Republic of China and for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties 
on Raw Flexible Magnets from Taiwan (September 27, 2007) (Supplement). 
On September 27, 2007, and October 4, 2007, the Department issued 
requests for additional information and clarification of certain areas 
of the PRC-specific portion of the petition. On October 2, 2007, the 
petitioner filed responses to the Department's request for additional 
information and clarification of the general issues and Taiwan-specific 
portions of the petition. See Petition for the Imposition of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Raw Flexible Magnets from the 
People's Republic of China and for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties 
on Raw Flexible Magnets from Taiwan (October 2, 2007) (General Issues 
Response 1), Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Raw 
Flexible Magnets from Taiwan (October 2, 2007) (Taiwan Response). On 
October 4, 2007, October 9, 2007, and October 10, 2007, the petitioner 
filed responses to the Department's requests for additional information 
and clarification of the PRC-specific portions of the petition. See 
Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties and Countervailing 
Duties on Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of China 
(October 4, 2007) (PRC Response 1), Petition for the Imposition of 
Antidumping Duties and Countervailing Duties on Raw Flexible Magnets 
from the People's Republic of China (October 9, 2007) (PRC Response 2), 
and Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties and 
Countervailing Duties on Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's 
Republic of China (October 10, 2007) (PRC Response 3). On October 4, 
2007, and October 10, 2007, the Department requested additional 
information and clarification of certain general issues. On October 10, 
2007, and October 11, 2007, the petitioner filed responses to the 
Department's request for additional information and clarification of 
the general issues. See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties on Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's 
Republic of China and for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Raw 
Flexible Magnets from Taiwan (October 10, 2007) (General Issues 
Response 2); see also Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties on Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's 
Republic of China and for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Raw 
Flexible Magnets from Taiwan (General Issues Response 3). On October 9, 
2007, Magnet Technology, a U.S. producer of raw flexible magnets and an 
importer of raw flexible magnets from the PRC, submitted a letter 
challenging the assertion made by the petitioner that it represents 
more than 50 percent of the domestic production of raw flexible 
magnets. The petitioner submitted its rebuttal to this challenge to the 
industry-support calculation on October 9, 2007.
    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of raw flexible 
magnets from the PRC and Taiwan 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, an industry in the United States.
    The Department finds that the petitioner filed these petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as 
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and has demonstrated sufficient 
industry support with respect to the initiation of the antidumping-duty 
investigations that the petitioner is requesting. See the 
``Determination of Industry Support for the Petition'' section below.

Period of Investigation

    Because the petitions were filed on September 21, 2007, the period 
of investigation (POI) for the Taiwan investigation is July 1, 2006, 
through June 30, 2007. The POI for the PRC investigation is January 1, 
2007, through June 30, 2007. See 19 CFR 351.204(b).

Scope of the Investigations

    The products covered by these investigations are certain flexible 
magnet sheeting, strips, and profile shapes. Subject flexible magnet 
sheeting, strips, and profile shapes are bonded magnets composed (not 
necessarily exclusively) of (i) any one or combination of various 
flexible binders (such as polymers or co-polymers, or rubber) and (ii) 
a magnetic element, which may consist of a ferrite permanent magnet 
material (commonly, strontium or barium ferrite, or a combination of 
the two), a metal alloy (such as NdFeB or Alnico), any combination of 
the foregoing with each other or any other material, or any other 
material capable of being permanently magnetized. Subject flexible 
magnet sheeting, strips, and profile shapes are capable of being 
permanently magnetized but may be imported in either magnetized or 
unmagnetized (including demagnetized) condition. Subject merchandise 
may be of any color and may or may not be laminated or bonded with 
paper, plastic, or other material, which paper, plastic, or other 
material may be of any composition and/or color. Subject merchandise 
may be uncoated or may be coated with an adhesive or any other coating 
or combination of coatings. Subject merchandise is within the scope of 
these investigations whether it is in rolls, coils, sheets, or pieces 
and regardless of physical dimensions or packaging, including specialty 
packaging such as digital printer cartridges.
    Specifically excluded from the scope of these investigations is 
retail printed flexible magnet sheeting, defined as flexible magnet 
sheeting (including individual magnets) that is laminated with paper, 
plastic, or other material if such paper, plastic, or other material 
bears printed text and/or images, including but not limited to business 
cards, calendars, poetry, sports event schedules, business promotions, 
decorative motifs, and the like. This exclusion does not apply to such 
printed flexible magnet sheeting if the printing concerned consists of 
only the following: a trade mark or trade name; country of origin; 
border, stripes, or lines; any printing that is removed in the course 
of cutting and/or printing magnets for retail sale or other disposition 
from the flexible magnet sheeting; manufacturing or use instructions 
(e.g., ``print this side up,'' ``this side up,'' ``laminate here''); 
printing on adhesive backing (that is, material to be removed in order 
to expose adhesive for use, such as application of laminate) or on any 
other covering that is removed from the flexible magnet sheeting prior 
or subsequent to final printing and before use; non-permanent printing 
(that is, printing in a medium that facilitates easy removal, 
permitting the flexible magnet sheeting to be re-printed); printing on 
the back (magnetic) side; or any combination of the above.
    All products meeting the physical description of the subject 
merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in the 
scope of the investigations. The products subject to these 
investigations are currently classifiable principally under subheadings 
8505.19.10 and 8505.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are provided only for 
convenience and customs purposes, however, and the written description 
of the scope of these proceedings is dispositive.

[[Page 59073]]

Comments on Scope of Investigations

    We are setting aside a period of time for interested parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage. See, e.g., Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 
The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such 
comments within 20 calendar days of signature of this notice. Comments 
should be addressed to Import Administration's Central Records Unit 
(CRU), Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope 
consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample 
opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior 
to the issuance of the preliminary determinations.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    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 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 
accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the 
domestic like product, the Department shall (i) poll the industry or 
rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for 
the petition, as required by subparagraph (A) or (ii) determine 
industry support using a statistically valid sampling method if there 
is a large number of producers in the industry.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine 
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute 
directs the Department to look to producers 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 a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the 
Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and 
information because the Department determines industry support at the 
time of initiation. Although this may result in different definitions 
of the domestic like product, such differences do not render the 
decision of either agency contrary to law. See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. 
v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 
(CAFC 1989).
    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 analysis 
of the domestic like product begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation,'' i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition.
    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not 
offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of 
the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted 
on the record, we have determined that raw flexible magnets constitute 
a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support 
in terms of that domestic like product. For a discussion of the 
domestic like-product analysis in these cases, see the Antidumping Duty 
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Raw Flexible Magnets from the 
People's Republic of China (PRC) (PRC Initiation Checklist) at 
Attachment II and the Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation 
Checklist: Raw Flexible Magnets from Taiwan (Taiwan Initiation 
Checklist) at Attachment II, on file in the Central Records Unit, Room 
B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building.
    Our review of the data provided in the petitions, supplemental 
responses, and other information readily available to the Department 
indicates that the petitioner has established industry support. With 
regard to both the PRC and Taiwan, based on information provided in the 
petitions, we determine that the domestic producers have met the 
statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) 
of the Act because the domestic producers who support the petitions 
account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic 
like product. The petitions did not establish support from domestic 
producers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production 
of the domestic like product, however, and the Department was required 
to take further action in order to evaluate industry support. See 
section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act. In this case, the Department was able 
to rely on other information, in accordance with section 
732(c)(4)(D)(i) of the Act, to determine industry support. See PRC 
Initiation Checklist at Attachment II and Taiwan Initiation Checklist 
at Attachment II. The Department received opposition to the petitions 
from a U.S. producer of the domestic like product which is also an 
importer of raw flexible magnets from the PRC. See October 9, 2007, 
submission by Magnet Technology; see also PRC Initiation Checklist at 
Attachment II and Taiwan Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. Based 
on information provided in these petitions and other submissions, the 
domestic producers have met the statutory criteria for industry support 
under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic 
producers who support the petitions 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 petitions. 
Accordingly, the Department determines that the petitions were filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) 
of the Act. See PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment II and Taiwan 
Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
    The Department finds that the petitioner filed the petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry in accordance with section 732(c)(4)(A) 
of the Act. The petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 
771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry 
support in favor of the initiation of the antidumping duty 
investigations. See PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment II and 
Taiwan Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    With regard to the PRC, the petitioner alleges 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. 
While the imports from Taiwan do not meet the statutory requirement for 
cumulation on a volume basis, in its analysis for threat, the 
petitioner alleges that imports from Taiwan will imminently account for 
more than three percent of all imports of the subject merchandise by 
volume and, therefore, they are not negligible.

[[Page 59074]]

See section 771(24)(A)(iv) of the Act; see also PRC Initiation 
Checklist at Attachment III and Taiwan Initiation Checklist at 
Attachment III. The petitioner contends that the industry's injured 
condition is illustrated by reduced market share, lost sales, reduced 
production, reduced capacity, a lower capacity-utilization rate, fewer 
shipments, underselling, price depression or suppression, lost revenue, 
decline in financial performance, reduced employment, and an increase 
in import penetration. We have assessed the allegations and supporting 
evidence regarding material injury and causation, and we have 
determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate 
evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. See PRC 
Initiation Checklist at Attachment III and Taiwan Initiation Checklist 
at Attachment III.

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate investigations of imports of raw flexible magnets from Taiwan 
and the PRC. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments 
relating to U.S. price and normal value are discussed in greater detail 
in the Taiwan Initiation Checklist and PRC Initiation Checklist. Should 
the need arise to use any of this information as facts available under 
section 776 of the Act, we will re-examine this information and may 
revise the margin calculations if appropriate.
Alleged U.S. Price and Normal Value: Taiwan
    The petitioner calculated normal value using six price quotes, 
obtained from a market researcher in Taiwan, from Jasdi Magnet Co., 
Ltd., the Taiwanese producer of the subject merchandise. See Memorandum 
entitled ``Raw Flexible Magnets: Telephone Call to Market Research 
Firm,'' dated October 11, 2007. Because of the sale and payment terms 
described in the price quote, the petitioner made no adjustments for 
freight or imputed credit expense. See Taiwan Initiation Checklist.
    The petitioner calculated constructed export price (CEP) using two 
price offers from the U.S. affiliated reseller of Jasdi Magnet Co., 
Ltd., a Taiwanese producer of raw flexible magnets. The petitioner 
deducted amounts for foreign inland-freight costs, international 
freight costs, U.S. inland freight costs, U.S. operating expenses (as 
indirect selling expenses), inventory carrying costs, and CEP profit. 
See Petition, Volume I at Exhibit 30, and Taiwan Response at Attachment 
D. Because of the payment terms described in the price quote, the 
petitioner made no adjustments for imputed credit expense. See 
Petition, Volume I at 47 and Exhibit 32C.
Alleged U.S. Price and Normal Value: The People's Republic of China

Export Price

    The petitioner relied on three sets of price quotes, jointly 
accounting for over 40 individual quotes, for raw flexible magnets 
manufactured in the PRC and offered for sale in the United States. The 
prices quoted were for a wide range of different types and sizes of raw 
flexible magnets falling within the scope of this petition. The terms 
of delivery for each set of price quotes was different, including 
delivered duty paid, cost and freight at a U.S. port, and free on board 
(FOB) at a PRC port. To calculate EP, the petitioner, where 
appropriate, deducted from the starting price international movement 
expenses and U.S. duties. For prices quoted as FOB, the petitioner made 
no deductions. To be conservative, the petitioner did not deduct 
foreign inland freight charges from any of its U.S. price quotes. See 
PRC Initiation Checklist.

Normal Value

    Because the Department considers the PRC to be a non-market-economy 
country (NME), the petitioner constructed normal value based on the 
factors-of-production methodology pursuant to section 773(c) of the 
Act. Recently, the Department examined the PRC's market status and 
determined that NME status should continue for the PRC. See Memorandum 
from the Office of Policy to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, Regarding the People's Republic of China Status 
as a Non-Market Economy, dated August 30, 2006. (This document is 
available online at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/prc-nme-status/prc-lined-papermemo-08302006.pdf.) In addition, in two recent 
investigations, the Department also determined that the PRC is an NME 
country. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 
9508 (March 2, 2007), and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's 
Republic of China, 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007). In accordance with 
section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the NME status remains in effect 
until revoked by the Department. The presumption of the NME status of 
the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains 
in effect for purposes of the initiation of this investigation. 
Accordingly, the normal value of the product is based appropriately on 
factors of production valued in a surrogate market-economy country in 
accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. During the course of this 
investigation, all parties will have the opportunity to provide 
relevant information related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and 
the granting of separate rates to individual exporters.
    The petitioner asserts that India is the most appropriate surrogate 
country for the PRC because India is a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise and at a level of economic development 
comparable to the PRC. See Petition at 39. Based on the information 
provided by the petitioner, we believe that the petitioner's use of 
India as a surrogate country is appropriate for purposes of initiating 
this investigation. After the initiation of the investigation, we will 
solicit comments regarding surrogate country selection. Also, pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), interested parties will be provided an 
opportunity to submit publicly available information to value the 
factors of production within 40 calendar days after the date of 
publication of the preliminary determination.
    The petitioner provided dumping margin calculations using the 
Department's NME methodology as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) 
and 19 CFR 351.408. The petitioner calculated normal value based on its 
own consumption rates for producing raw flexible magnets. See Petition 
at 41 and Exhibit 19. See also PRC Response 2 at Attachments 3 and 4. 
The petitioner argues that it is not aware of publicly available 
information regarding factor inputs and factor consumption rates of PRC 
producers of raw flexible magnets. The petitioner provided affidavits 
to support its normal value calculation. See September 26, 2007 
supplemental at Attachment A and PRC Response 1 at 8.
    For the normal value calculations, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of 
the Act, the petitioner used its own factor consumption rates and 
surrogate values from a variety of sources, including Indian import 
statistics obtained from the World Trade Atlas, the International 
Energy Agency, the Department's NME Wage Rate for the PRC, and publicly 
available financial statements of two Indian raw flexible magnet 
producers to value the factors of production (FOP).

[[Page 59075]]

See Petition at 41-43, and PRC Response 2 at Attachments 2, 3, and 4.
    For inputs valued in Indian rupees and not contemporaneous with the 
POI, the petitioner used information from the wholesale price indices 
(WPI) for India as published in the International Financial Statistics 
of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for input prices during the 
period preceding the POI. See Petition at Exhibit 25. The petitioner 
converted the inputs valued in Indian rupees to U.S. dollars based on 
the average rupee/U.S. dollar exchange rate for the POI, as reported on 
the Department's website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html. 
See Petition Exhibit 23 and Exhibit 20. For strontium ferrite, a raw 
material used in the production of raw flexible magnets, the petitioner 
provided a per-unit surrogate value calculated using the actual 
consumed quantity and value used by Magnaplast Technologies India Pvt. 
Ltd. (Magnaplast) (an Indian producer of subject merchandise) in its 
production of raw flexible magnets, because no separate Indian tariff 
classification exists for strontium ferrite. See Petition at 42 and 
Exhibit 21. For other inputs, e.g., vistenex mw140, chlorinated 
polyethylene, ethylene vinyl acetate, and also packing materials, the 
petitioner provided surrogate values based on Indian import statistics 
from the World Trade Atlas. See Petition at 42 and Exhibit 20, PRC 
Response 2 at Attachment 2. With regard to energy (electricity), the 
petitioner valued electricity with an Indian electricity rate reported 
by the International Energy Agency. See Petition Exhibit 25. Labor was 
valued using the expected wage rate for the PRC as provided by the 
Department on its website. See Petition at 42 and Exhibit 24.
    For the normal value calculations, the petitioner derived the 
figures for overhead (FOH), selling, general and administrative (SG&A) 
expenses, and profit from the financial ratios of Magnaplast and Ajay 
Poly Pvt. Ltd. (Ajay Poly), two Indian producers of merchandise that is 
comparable to the domestic like product. The financial statements that 
the petitioner provided covered the period of January 1, 2005 through 
December 31, 2006. Additionally, the petitioner calculated a simple 
average of the two companies' financial ratios for purposes of the 
Petition, and used these average ratios in its calculation of normal 
value. See Petition Exhibit 26, and PRC Response 2 at Attachment 7. We 
did not make any adjustments to normal value as calculated by the 
petitioner.

Fair-Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to 
believe that imports of raw flexible magnets from Taiwan and the PRC 
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than 
fair value. Based on comparisons of constructed export price to normal 
value as discussed above and calculated in accordance with section 
773(a)(4) of the Act, the estimated dumping margin for raw flexible 
magnets from Taiwan range from 25.04 percent to 38.03 percent. Based 
upon comparisons of EP to the NV, calculated in accordance with section 
773(c) of the Act, the estimated calculated dumping margins for raw 
flexible magnets from the PRC range from 26.46 percent to 185.28 
percent.

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

    Based upon the examination of the Petition on raw flexible magnets 
from Taiwan and the PRC, we find that the Petitions meet the 
requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating 
antidumping duty investigations to determine whether imports of raw 
flexible magnets from Taiwan and the PRC are being, or are likely to 
be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance 
with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205((b)(1), unless 
postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 
140 days after the date of this initiation.

Separate Rates

    The Department modified the process by which exporters and 
producers may obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations. See 
Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of 
Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market 
Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (Separate Rates and Combination Rates 
Bulletin), available on the Department's website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf. The process requires the submission 
of a separate-rate status application. Based on our experience in 
processing the separate-rate applications in the following antidumping 
duty investigations, we have modified the application for this 
investigation to make it more administrable and easier for applicants 
to complete. See, e.g., Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: 
Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of 
China, 72 FR 43591, 43594-95 (August 6, 2007) (Tires from the PRC). The 
specific requirements for submitting the separate-rate application in 
this investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, 
which will be available on the Department's website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html on the date of publication 
of this initiation notice in the Federal Register. The separate-rate 
application is due no later than December 14, 2007.

Respondent Selection

    In prior investigations, it has generally been the Department's 
practice to request quantity and value information from all known 
exporters identified in the Petition. See, e.g., Tires from the PRC, 72 
FR at 43595. For these investigations, because the HTSUS numbers 
8505.19.10 and 8505.19.20, as discussed above in the ``Scope of the 
Investigation'' section, provide comprehensive coverage of imports of 
the subject merchandise, the Department expects to determine 
respondents in these investigations based on U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) data of U.S. imports under HTSUS numbers 8505.19.10 
and 8505.19.20 during the POIs.
    Use of Combination Rates in an NME Investigation
    The Department will calculate combination rates for certain 
respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this 
investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin, at 6 
explains that, while continuing the practice of assigning separate 
rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will 
now assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those 
producers that supplied the exporter during the POI. Note, however, 
that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers 
which supplied subject merchandise to it during the POI. 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 
POI.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the 
public version of the Petitions has been provided to representatives of 
the

[[Page 59076]]

governments of Taiwan and the PRC. We will attempt to provide a copy of 
the public version of the Petition to all exporters named in the 
Petition, as provided for in 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.
    Preliminary Determinations by the ITC.
    The ITC will preliminarily determine no later than November 5, 
2007, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of raw 
flexible magnets from Taiwan and the PRC are materially injuring or 
threatening material injury to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC 
determination for any country will result in the investigation being 
terminated with respect to that country; otherwise, these 
investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time 
limits.
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    Dated: October 11, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-20575 Filed 10-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S