Certain Off-the-Road Tires From China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-448 and 731-TA-1117 (Preliminary)

Publication 3943 August 2007
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS

Daniel R. Pearson, Chairman

Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman

Deanna Tanner Okun

Charlotte R. Lane

Irving A. Williamson

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

Staff assigned

Joanna Lo, Investigator

Raymond Cantrell, Industry Analyst

Clark Workman, Economist

David Boyland, Accountant

Rhonda Hughes, Attorney

Mara Alexander, Statistician

Gabriel Ellenberger, Research Assistant

Diane Mazur, Supervisor Investigator

Address all communications to

Secretary to the Commission

United States International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

www.usitc.gov

Certain Off-the-Road Tires From China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-448 and 731-TA-1117 (Preliminary)

Publication 3943 August 2007
 
i

CONTENTS

Page

Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Views of the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Part I: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Statutory criteria and organization of report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

U.S. market summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Summary data and data sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Previous and related investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Nature and extent of alleged subsidies and sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

The subject product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

The domestic like product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

U.S. market segments/channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

U.S. supply ............................................................... II-1

Subject imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-2

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-2

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-4

Comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports ............ II-4

Part III: U.S. producers’ production, shipments, and employment ...................... III-1

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization ................................... III-1

U.S. producers’ shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4

U.S. producers’ imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-10

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-10

U.S. employment, wages, and productivity ......................................... III-11

Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent U.S. consumption, and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

Apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-9

U.S. market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-11

Ratio of subject imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-13

Part V: Pricing and related information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Factors affecting prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Raw material costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Transportation costs to the U.S. market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1
ii

CONTENTS

Page

Part V: Pricing and related information – Continued 

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Lost sales and lost revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5

Part VI: Financial experience of the U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Operations on certain OTR tires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Capital expenditures, research and development expenses, assets, and return on investment . . . VI-6

Capital and investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-9

Part VII: Threat considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-1

The industry in China .......................................................... VII-3

U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-6

U.S. importers’ current orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-6

Antidumping and countervailing duty orders in third country market ..................... VII-7

Information on nonsubject sources ................................................ VII-7

“Bratsk” considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-7

The global tire industry ...................................................... VII-8

Appendixes

A. Federal Register notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Conference witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C. Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

D. Import statistics and adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and U.S. imports by types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

F. Additional price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

Note.--Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be

published and therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by

asterisks.
 1

 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR § 207.2(f)).

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-448 and 731-TA-1117 (Preliminary)

CERTAIN OFF-THE-ROAD TIRES FROM CHINA

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International

Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff Act of

1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)) (the Act), that there is a reasonable indication that an industry

in the United States is materially injured, by reason of imports from China of certain off-the-road tires,

provided for in subheadings 4011.20.10, 4011.20.50, 4011.61.00, 4011.62.00, 4011.63.00, 4011.69.00,

4011.92.00, 4011.93.40, 4011.93.80, 4011.94.40, and 4011.94.80 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) and

subsidized by the Government of China.

COMMENCEMENT OF FINAL PHASE INVESTIGATIONS

Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission’s rules, the Commission also gives notice of the

commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of

scheduling, which will be published in the Federal Register as provided in section 207.21 of the

Commission’s rules, upon notice from the Department of Commerce (Commerce) of affirmative

preliminary determinations in these investigations under sections 703(b) and 733(b) of the Act, or, if the

preliminary determinations are negative, upon notice of affirmative final determinations in those

investigations under sections 705(a) and 735(a) of the Act. Parties that filed entries of appearance in the

preliminary phase of the investigations need not enter a separate appearance for the final phase of the

investigations. Industrial users, and, if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level,

representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping and

countervailing duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names

and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations.

BACKGROUND

On June 18, 2007, a petition was filed with the Commission and Commerce by Titan Tire

Corporation, Des Moines, IA, and The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,

Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, Pittsburgh, PA., alleging that

an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of

subsidized and LTFV imports of certain off-the-road tires from China. Accordingly, effective June 18,

2007, the Commission instituted countervailing duty and antidumping investigation Nos. 701-TA-448

and 731-TA-1117 (Preliminary).

Notice of the institution of the Commission’s investigations and of a public conference to be held

in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.

International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register

of June 22, 2007 (72 FR 34478). The conference was held in Washington, DC, on July 9, 2007, and all

persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.
 
 1

 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a); see also, e.g., Co-Steel Raritan, Inc. v. United States, 357 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir.

2004); American Lamb Co. v. United States, 785 F.2d 994, 1001-1004 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Aristech Chemical Corp. v.

United States, 20 CIT 353, 354 (1996). No party argued that the establishment of an industry is materially retarded

by reason of the allegedly unfairly traded imports.

 2

 American Lamb, 785 F.2d at 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also Texas Crushed Stone Co. v. United States, 35 F.3d

1535, 1543 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

 3

 These producers are Aeolus Tyre Co., Ltd.; Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd; Hangzhou Zhongce Rubber Co., Ltd.;

Jiangsu Feichi Co., Ltd.; Laizhou Xiongying Rubber Industry Co., Ltd.; Shandong Jinyu Tyre Co., Ltd.; Shandong

Linglong Rubber Co., Ltd.; Shandong Taishan Tyre Co., Ltd.; Shandong Xingyuan International Trading Co., Ltd.;

Shandong Wanda Boto Tyre Co., Ltd.; Shifeng Double-Star Tyre Co., Ltd.; Tianjin United Tire & Rubber

International Co., Ltd.; Wendeng Sanfeng Tyre Co., Ltd.; Xuzhou Midland Specialty Tyre Co., Ltd. Xuzhou

Xugong Tyres Co., Ltd. Tire & Engineering Distribution, Inc. and Guizhou Tyre I/E Corp. are the two importers.

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in the preliminary phase of these investigations, we find a reasonable

indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of certain offthe-road (“OTR”) tires from China that allegedly are subsidized and sold in the United States at less than

fair value (“LTFV”).

I. THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY DETERMINATIONS

 The legal standard for preliminary antidumping and countervailing duty determinations requires

the Commission to determine, based upon the information available at the time of the preliminary

determination, whether there is a reasonable indication that a domestic industry is materially injured,

threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry is materially retarded by reason of the

allegedly unfairly traded imports.1

 In applying this standard, the Commission weighs the evidence before

it and determines whether “(1) the record as a whole contains clear and convincing evidence that there is

no material injury or threat of such injury; and (2) no likelihood exists that contrary evidence will arise in

a final investigation.”2

II. BACKGROUND

These countervailing and antidumping duty investigations result from a petition filed on June 18,

2007, by Titan Tire Corporation (“Titan”), a domestic producer of certain off-the-road (“OTR”) tires, and

the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service

Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (“the USW”), a labor union whose members are engaged in

the production of OTR tires in the United States. The petition alleges that an industry in the United States

is materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized and LTFV imports of

OTR tires from China. Petitioners, as well as Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire

(“Bridgestone”), another domestic producer, were represented and offered testimony at the staff

conference on July 9, 2007, and filed postconference briefs and responses to staff questions on July 17,

2007.

Representatives of GPX International Tire Corporation, Inc. (“GPX”), an importer and foreign

producer of the subject merchandise, testified at the staff conference in opposition to the petition, as did

representatives of 15 Chinese producers and two importers of the subject merchandise (“Chinese

respondents”).3

 Postconference briefs were filed on behalf of all of these firms, as well as by Valmont

Industries, Inc. (“Valmont”), an importer of the subject merchandise.
 4

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 5 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 6

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).

 7

 See, e.g., NEC Corp. v. Department of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel

Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 749 n.3 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“every like product determination ‘must be made on the

particular record at issue’ and the ‘unique facts of each case’”). The Commission generally considers a number of

factors including: (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4)

customer and producer perceptions of the products; (5) common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and

production employees; and, where appropriate, (6) price. See Nippon, 19 CIT at 455 n.4; Timken Co. v. United

States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996).

 8

 See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979).

 9

 Nippon Steel, 19 CIT at 455; Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49. See also S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979)

(Congress has indicated that the like product standard should not be interpreted in “such a narrow fashion as to

permit minor differences in physical characteristics or uses to lead to the conclusion that the product and article are

not ‘like’ each other, nor should the definition of ‘like product’ be interpreted in such a fashion as to prevent

consideration of an industry adversely affected by the imports under consideration.”).

 10 See, e.g., USEC, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 01-1421 (Fed. Cir. April 25, 2002) at 9 (“The ITC may not

modify the class or kind of imported merchandise examined by Commerce.”); Algoma Steel Corp. v. United States,

688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1988), aff'd, 865 F.3d 240 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 919 (1989).

 11 Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs., 85 F.3d 1561, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Commission may find a single

like product corresponding to several different classes or kinds defined by Commerce); Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at

748-752 (affirming Commission determination of six like products in investigations where Commerce found five

classes or kinds).

4

III. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

A. In General

In determining whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is

materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of the subject merchandise, the

Commission first defines the “domestic like product” and the “industry.”4

 Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a

[w]hole of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product

constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”5

 In turn, the Act defines

“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.”6

The decision regarding the appropriate domestic like product(s) in an investigation is a factual

determination, and the Commission has applied the statutory standard of “like” or “most similar in

characteristics and uses” on a case-by-case basis.7

 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission

may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.8

 The

Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations.9

Although the Commission must accept the determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) as to the scope of the imported merchandise allegedly subsidized or sold at LTFV,10 the

Commission determines what domestic product is like the imported articles Commerce has identified.11

The Commission must base its domestic like product determination on the record in these investigations. 
 12 Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A. v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1304-05 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2000); Nippon

Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT at 455; Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States, 693

F. Supp. 1165, 1169 n.5 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988) (particularly addressing like product determination); Citrosuco

Paulista, S.A. v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 1075, 1087-88 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988).

 13 Agricultural tractors are four-wheeled vehicles usually with large rear tires and small front tires that are used to

tow farming equipment.

 14 Combine harvesters are used to harvest crops such as corn or wheat.

 15 Agricultural sprayers are used to irrigate agricultural fields.

 16 Industrial tractors are four-wheeled vehicles usually with large rear tires and small front tires that are used to

tow industrial equipment.

 17 A log skidder has a grappling lift arm that is used to grasp, lift and move trees that have been cut down to a

truck or trailer for transport to a mill or other destination.

 18 Skid-steer loaders are four-wheel drive vehicles with the left-side drive wheels independent of the right-side

drive wheels and lift arms that lie alongside the driver with the major pivot points behind the driver's shoulders.

Skid-steer loaders are used in agricultural, construction and industrial settings.

 19 Haul trucks, which may be either rigid frame or articulated (i.e., able to bend in the middle) are typically used

in mines, quarries and construction sites to haul soil, aggregate, mined ore, or debris.

 20 Front loaders have lift arms in front of the vehicle. It can scrape material from one location to another, carry

material in its bucket or load material into a truck or trailer.

 21 A dozer is a large four-wheeled vehicle with a dozer blade that is used to push large quantities of soil, sand,

rubble, etc., typically around construction sites. They can also be used to perform “rough grading” in road

construction.

 22 A straddle carrier is a rigid frame, engine-powered machine that is used to load and offload containers from

container vessels and load them onto (or off of) tractor trailers.

5

The Commission is not bound by prior determinations, even those pertaining to the same imported

products, but may draw upon previous determinations in addressing pertinent like product issues.12

B. Product Description

In its notice of initiation, Commerce defined the imported merchandise subject to these

investigations as:

new pneumatic tires designed for off-the-road (OTR) and off-highway use,

subject to exceptions identified below. Certain OTR tires are generally designed,

manufactured and offered for sale for use on off-road or off-highway surfaces,

including but not limited to, agricultural fields, forests, construction sites, factory

and warehouse interiors, airport tarmacs, ports and harbors, mines, quarries,

gravel yards, and steel mills. The vehicles and equipment for which certain OTR

tires are designed for use include, but are not limited to: (1) Agricultural and

forestry vehicles and equipment, including agricultural tractors,13 combine

harvesters,14 agricultural high clearance sprayers,15 industrial tractors,16

log-skidders,17 agricultural implements, highway-towed implements, agricultural

logging, and agricultural, industrial, skid-steers/mini-loaders;18 (2) construction

vehicles and equipment, including earthmover articulated dump products, rigid

frame haul trucks,19 front end loaders,20 dozers,21 lift trucks, straddle carriers,22
 23 A grader is a vehicle with a large blade used to create a flat surface. Graders are typically used to perform

“finish grading.” Graders are commonly used in maintenance of unpaved roads and road construction to prepare the

base course onto which asphalt or other paving material will be laid.

 24 A counterbalanced lift truck is a rigid frame, engine-powered machine with lift arms that has additional weight

incorporated into the back of the machine to offset or counterbalance the weight of loads that it lifts so as to prevent

the vehicle from overturning. An example of a counterbalanced lift truck is a counterbalanced fork lift truck.

 Counterbalanced lift trucks may be designed for use on smooth floor surfaces, such as a factory or warehouse, or

other surfaces, such as construction sites, mines, etc.

6

graders,23 mobile cranes, compactors; and (3) industrial vehicles and equipment,

including smooth floor, industrial, mining, counterbalanced lift trucks, industrial

and mining vehicles other than smooth floor, skid-steers/mini-loaders, and

smooth floor off-the-road counterbalanced lift trucks.24 The foregoing list of

vehicles and equipment generally have in common that they are used for hauling,

towing, lifting, and/or loading a wide variety of equipment and materials in

agricultural, construction and industrial settings. The foregoing descriptions are

illustrative of the types of vehicles and equipment that use certain OTR tires, but

are not necessarily all-inclusive. While the physical characteristics of certain

OTR tires will vary depending on the specific applications and conditions for

which the tires are designed (e.g., tread pattern and depth), all of the tires within

the scope have in common that they are designed for off-road and off-highway

use. Except as discussed below, OTR tires included in the scope of the petitions

range in size (rim diameter) generally but not exclusively from 8 inches to 54

inches. The tires may be either tube-type or tubeless, radial or non-radial, and

intended for sale either to original equipment manufacturers or the replacement

market. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') subheadings: 4011.20.10.25,

4011.20.10.35, 4011.20.50.30, 4011.20.50.50, 4011.61.00.00, 4011.62.00.00,

4011.63.00.00, 4011.69.00.00, 4011.92.00.00, 4011.93.40.00, 4011.93.80.00,

4011.94.40.00, and 4011.94.80.00. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope is

dispositive.

Specifically excluded from the scope are new pneumatic tires designed,

manufactured and offered for sale primarily for on-highway or on-road use,

including passenger cars, race cars, station wagons, sport utility vehicles,

minivans, mobile homes, motorcycles, bicycles, on-road or on-highway trailers,

light trucks, and trucks and buses. Such tires generally have in common that the

symbol “DOT” must appear on the sidewall, certifying that the tire conforms to

applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Such excluded tires may also have the

following designations that are used by the Tire and Rim Association:

Prefix letter designations:

 P--Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on passenger cars;

 LT--Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on light trucks; and,

 ST--Identifies a special tire for trailers in highway service.
 25 72 Fed. Reg. 43,591, 43,595-96 (Aug. 6, 2007) (initiation of antidumping duty investigation); 72 Fed. Reg.

44,122, 44,125-26 (Aug. 7, 2007) (initiation of countervailing duty investigation).

 26 Petition at 22-23, Tr. at 71-72 (Mr. Stewart); see also Bridgestone Postconference Brief at 4-5, Tr. at 53 (Mr.

Dorn) (Bridgestone agrees with petitioners).

 27 Tr. at 71-72 (Mr. Stewart); Titan/USW Postconference Brief, Answers to Staff Questions at 1.

 28 GPX Postconference Brief at 4; Tr. at 182-83 (Mr. Sailer).

7

Suffix letter designations:

 TR--Identifies a tire for service on trucks, buses, and other vehicles with rims

having specified rim diameter of nominal plus 0.156” or plus 0.250”;

 MH--Identifies tires for Mobile Homes;

 HC--Identifies a heavy duty tire designated for use on “HC” 15” tapered rims

used on trucks, buses, and other vehicles. This suffix is intended to differentiate

among tires for light trucks, and other vehicles or other services, which use a

similar designation. Example: 8R17.5 LT, 8R17.5 HC; 

 LT--Identifies light truck tires for service on trucks, buses, trailers, and

multipurpose passenger vehicles used in nominal highway service; and

 MC--Identifies tires and rims for motorcycles.

The following types of tires are also excluded from the scope: 

Pneumatic tires that are not new, including recycled or retreaded tires and used

tires; non-pneumatic tires, including solid rubber tires; tires of a kind used on

aircraft, all-terrain vehicles, and vehicles for turf, lawn and garden, golf and

trailer applications; and, tires of a kind used for mining and construction vehicles

and equipment that have a rim diameter equal to or exceeding 39 inches. Such

tires may be distinguished from other tires of similar size by the number of plies

that the construction and mining tires contain (minimum of 16) and the weight of

such tires (minimum 1500 pounds).25

C. Domestic Like Product

Petitioners and Bridgestone assert that there is a single domestic like product: certain OTR tires

for agricultural, construction and industrial vehicles and equipment, coterminous with the scope of the

petition.26 Petitioners believe that there is a continuum of sizes of OTR tires among which there are no

clear dividing lines comprising a single domestic like product. Petitioners further assert that the

Commission should not include products excluded from the scope of the investigations in the domestic

like product.27 For the purposes of the preliminary investigations, respondents agree with the

petitioners.28 The Commission has obtained limited information on the domestic like product issue in the

preliminary phase of these investigations. However, for the purposes of these preliminary phase

investigations, we define one domestic like product, coextensive with the scope of the investigations.

We first note that although all pneumatic (air pressurized) rubber tires, whether passenger car,

truck or OTR, have the same basic generic components, they are markedly different in terms of structure. 

The basic components consist of a base rubber inner layer or a rubber inner tube, impervious to air

migration from the tire; rubberized reinforcing tire cord plies and belts that provide strength and stability;

and a rubberized steel bead that provides an airtight seal with a given metal wheel. The tread that runs

around the outside of the tire, the sidewall and the rubber rim are the visible outer components of an

assembled tire. All tires contain varying amounts of natural and synthetic rubber in addition to other
 29 Confidential Report (“CR”) at I-9 - I-10, Public Report (“PR”) at I-8. All citations to the staff report in these

views refer to memorandum INV-EE-086 (Aug. 1, 2007), as revised by memorandum INV-EE-090 (Aug. 7, 2007).

 30 CR at I-10, PR at I-8.

 31 CR at I-10 - I-11, PR at I-8.

 32 Titan/USW Postconference Brief, Answers to Staff Questions at 3. Evidence in the record suggests that the

average unit value of the larger tires, more than 39 inches in rim diameter, is more than 20 times the average unit

value of the tires included in the scope. See CR/PR at Table I-3.

 33 Titan/USW Postconference Brief, Answers to Staff Questions at 3-4, Tr. at 70, 112-13 (Mr. Steltman).

 34 Titan/USW Postconference Brief, Answers to Staff Questions at 4-5, Tr. at 112-13 (Mr. Steltman).

 35 Titan/USW Postconference Brief, Answers to Staff Questions at 5.

8

components such as carbon black reinforcement, sulfur curing agents, nylon and steel tire cords and belts,

and steel bead wire.29

Most OTR tires, as compared to on-the-road passenger and truck tires, are designed for more

rugged use when physical strength and heavier load-bearing characteristics are required. Thus, certain

OTR tires generally contain a larger proportion of stronger, more expensive and more durable natural

rubber relative to the more supple, but lower strength synthetic rubber used in on-the-road tires, and more

substantial internal reinforcement. Certain OTR tires for a given application may be produced in a range

of grades with different price points.30

Certain OTR tires are produced in a wide variety of types and sizes, ranging from relatively small

agricultural implement tires, to larger agricultural, construction and industrial tires found on the more

familiar farm tractors, earth movers, back hoe loaders, and forklift trucks. The rim diameter (inside

diameter) of certain OTR tires may range from eight to 72 inches, and a large agricultural tire may weigh

up to 1,200 pounds. Certain OTR tires are typically designed for speeds no higher than 25 to 30 miles per

hour. These tires may be of bias ply or radial construction depending upon the end use, consist of

multiple tread types, and be of the tubeless or tube variety. They are, however, predominantly tubeless,

although all are pneumatic (air pressurized) in nature, as defined in the scope.31

While no party has argued for a different definition of the domestic like product, we considered

including OTR tires for earthmoving (mining) and other construction vehicles and equipment with a rim

diameter equal to or exceeding 39 inches in our definition of the domestic like product, although they are

excluded from the scope of the investigations. Petitioners argue that these tires are not like the OTR tires

included in the scope, asserting that because they are larger and heavier, these tires “generally require

dedicated production facilities and equipment and are much more expensive.”32 They also argue that

these tires also differ from agricultural tires of comparable size in terms of number of beads and plies for

bias tires and the length of the curing period necessary during production.33

In terms of weight, petitioners state that the upper limit for the largest agricultural tires is less

than 1,500 pounds, compared to 12,000 pounds in the case of the largest earthmoving tires. These other

tires also differ in terms of loads, conditions of use and speeds, as well as in production, design and

engineering expertise. Thus, based upon certain physical characteristics, petitioners conclude that these

tires are not interchangeable with the OTR tires included in the scope.34

Petitioners also argue that very large earthmover tires use different channels of distribution than

other OTR tires. Some mining companies require that tires used on mining equipment be installed by

certified personnel. Service personnel installing other OTR tires do not require such certification.35

Although the Chinese respondents accept petitioners’ proposed like product definition for the

purposes of the preliminary phase of the investigations, they argue that they do not believe there is any

substantial basis to exclude the larger mining and construction tires. They state that the petition offers

little explanation for the “gerrymandering of the scope” other than the suggestion that the production of

“giant” mining and construction tires differs from the more automated production of smaller tires. 
 36 Chinese Respondents Postconference Brief, App. at A-1 - A-2.

 37 We intend to gather data on these tires in any final phase of the investigations. We will seek the parties’ input

on this issue at the time that written comments on draft questionnaires are submitted in any final phase

investigations.

 38 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 39 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). 

 40 The primary factors the Commission has examined in deciding whether appropriate circumstances exist to

exclude a related party include: (1) the percentage of domestic production attributable to the importing producer; (2)

the reason the U.S. producer has decided to import the product subject to investigation, i.e., whether the firm benefits

from the LTFV sales or subsidies or whether the firm must import in order to enable it to continue production and

compete in the U.S. market, and (3) the position of the related producer vis-a-vis the rest of the industry, i.e.,

whether inclusion or exclusion of the related party will skew the data for the rest of the industry. See, e.g.,

Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), aff’d without opinion, 991 F.2d 809 (Fed.

Cir. 1993). The Commission has also considered the ratio of import shipments to U.S. production for related

producers and whether the primary interest of the related producer lies in domestic production or importation. These

latter two considerations were cited as appropriate factors in Allied Mineral Products, Inc. v. United States, ___ F.

(continued...)

9

Chinese respondents also state that the products within the scope as well as the larger mining and

construction tires share similar physical characteristics and uses, common manufacturing facilities,

production processes, and production workers, channels of distribution, customer perceptions, and

interchangeability.36

Based on the limited evidence in the record of the preliminary phase of these investigations

pertaining to physical characteristics and end uses, production equipment and processes, channels of

distribution, price, and lack of interchangeability, we do not include mining and construction tires with a

rim diameter equal to or greater than 39 inches.37 We will, however, revisit this issue in any final

investigations. Accordingly, in light of the above discussion, we find a single domestic like product,

coextensive with the scope of the investigations, for purposes of these preliminary determinations.

D. Domestic Industry and Related Parties

1. Domestic Industry

The domestic industry is defined as the domestic “producers as a [w]hole of a domestic like

product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major

proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”38 In defining the domestic industry, the

Commission’s general practice has been to include in the industry producers of all domestic production of

the like product, whether toll-produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market. 

For purposes of these preliminary determinations, we define a single domestic industry consisting of all

producers of the domestic like product.

2. Related Parties

We must determine whether any producer of the domestic like product should be excluded from

the domestic industry pursuant to section 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). Subsection 1677(4)(B) allows the

Commission, if appropriate circumstances exist, to exclude from the domestic industry producers that are

related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise or which are themselves importers.39 Exclusion

of such a producer is within the Commission’s discretion based upon the facts presented in each

investigation.40
 40 (...continued)

Supp. 2d___, Slip Op. 04-139 (Ct. Int’l Trade November 12, 2004) at 5-6 (“The most significant factor considered

by the Commission in making the ‘appropriate circumstances’ determination is whether the domestic producer

accrued a substantial benefit from its importation of the subject merchandise.”); USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.

Supp. 2d 1, 12 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2001) (“the provision’s purpose is to exclude from the industry headcount domestic

producers substantially benefitting from their relationships with foreign exporters.”), aff’d, Slip Op. 01-1421 (Fed.

Cir. April 22, 2002); S. Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. at 83 (1979) (“where a U.S. producer is w related to a

foreign exporter and the foreign exporter directs his exports to the United States so as not to compete ith his related

U.S. producer, this should be a case where the ITC would not consider the related U.S. producer to be a part of the

domestic industry”).

 41 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 42 CR/PR at Table III-7 n.3, Tr. at 49-51 (Mr. Pensler).

 43 CR/PR at Table VI-3. ***. CR/PR at Table VI-3. 

 44 Consistent with her practice in past investigations and reviews, Vice Chairman Aranoff does not rely on

individual-company operating income margins in assessing whether a related party has benefitted from importation

of subject merchandise. Rather, she determines whether to exclude a related party based principally on its ratio of

subject imports to domestic shipments and whether its primary interests lie in domestic production or importation.

In these preliminary investigations, the ratio of Denman’s subject imports to domestic production was

relatively low during *** the period of investigation. CR/PR at Table III-7. Although that ratio increased *** the

period, there was no contemporaneous reduction in the company’s domestic production, which was higher during

Jan.-Mar. 2007 than during Jan.-Mar. 2006. CR/PR at Table VI-3. On these bases, Vice Chairman Aranoff

determines that Denman’s primary interests lie in domestic production. 

 45 For purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations, Commissioner Pinkert does not rely upon the

financial performance of Denman as a factor in determining whether there are appropriate circumstances to exclude

it from the actual or potential domestic industry. The present record is not sufficient to infer from Denman’s

financial performance on its U.S. operations that it has or has not derived a specific benefit from importing. See

Allied Mineral Products, Slip Op. 04-139, at 8. In any final phase investigations, Commissioner Pinkert invites the

parties to provide any information they may have with respect to whether Denman is benefitting financially from its

status as a related party.

 46 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 47 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 48 CR/PR at Table III-1. Denman also testified at the conference in support of the petition. See Tr. at 48-51 (Mr.

Pensler).

10

Denman Tire Corporation imported subject merchandise from China ***, although no party

argued for exclusion of any related producers from the domestic industry. It imported ***.41 Denman

stated that it imports subject merchandise that it cannot produce on its current equipment and that the

prices of the subject tires render investment in plant capacity or equipment impractical.42 In addition, it

was *** of the period of investigation.43 44 45

Although the ratio of Denman’s subject imports to production was *** percent in 2006 and was

*** percent in Jan.-Mar. 2007 as compared to *** percent in Jan.-Mar. 2006,46 Denman is the ***

smallest domestic producer, accounting for only *** percent of domestic production of certain OTR tires

in 2006.47 Thus, it is not large enough to skew the data significantly and its interests seem to be generally

aligned with those of the domestic industry. Its data do not reflect any clear benefit from its relation to

the subject imports. Furthermore, Denman supports the petition.48 Accordingly, we determine not to

exclude Denman from the domestic industry under the related parties provision of the statute. Thus, we

define the domestic industry as all domestic producers of certain OTR tires, coextensive with the scope of

the investigations.
 49 Negligibility is not an issue in this investigation under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24). The petition was filed on June

18, 2007. Based on questionnaire data and official statistics adjusted to exclude nonsubject tire imports, subject

imports from China, as measured by quantity, were 66.2 percent of total imports in 2006. As measured by value,

subject Chinese imports were 37.6 percent of total imports in 2006. CR/PR at Table IV-2. The record indicates that

subject Chinese imports during the most recent 12-month period for which data are available that precedes the filing

of the petition, i.e. June 2006 through May 2007, were well above the three-percent negligibility threshold. CR/PR

at IV-3 n.2.

 50 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a) and 1673b(a).

 51 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)( i). The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination” but shall “identify each [such] factor . . . [a]nd explain in full its relevance to the determination.” 19

U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B). See also Angus Chemical Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

 52 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

 53 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 54 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 55 CR/PR at II-1.

11

IV. REASONABLE INDICATION OF MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF SUBJECT

IMPORTS49

In the preliminary phase of antidumping or countervailing duty investigations, the Commission

determines whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially

injured by reason of the imports under investigation.50 In making this determination, the Commission

must consider the volume of subject imports, their effect on prices for the domestic like product, and their

impact on domestic producers of the domestic like product, but only in the context of U.S. production

operations.51 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or

unimportant.”52 In assessing whether there is a reasonable indication that the domestic industry is

materially injured by reason of subject imports, we consider all relevant economic factors that bear on the

state of the industry in the United States.53 No single factor is dispositive, and all relevant factors are

considered “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to

the affected industry.”54

For the reasons stated below, we determine that there is a reasonable indication that the domestic

industry producing certain OTR tires is materially injured by reason of subject imports from China.

A. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

The following conditions of competition inform our analysis of whether there is a reasonable

indication of material injury by reason of subject imports.

1. Demand Conditions

The overall demand for OTR tires is derived from the demand for new vehicles used in

agricultural, construction and industrial applications, and from demand for replacement tires on existing

vehicles. The replacement market for OTR tires is reportedly much larger than the original equipment

market, accounting for approximately 66 percent of total sales. U.S. producers and importers compete for

sales in both market segments.55
 56 CR at II-4, PR at II-2 - II-3. We intend to explore further in any final phase investigations whether demand is

higher in the first part of the year as opposed to the latter half, as the 2006 data do not appear to support petitioners’

claim that this is so. See Titan/USW Postconference Brief at 18, CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 57 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 58 Although our normal practice is to consider volume in terms of units rather than value, see, e.g., Certain Lined

Paper School Supplies from China, India and Indonesia, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-442-443 and 731-TA-1095-1097 (Final),

USITC Pub. 3884 (Sept. 2006) at 19, in these investigations there appear to be large variations in unit values both

among the subject merchandise and among the articles in the domestic like product. Further, one of the issues

presented in these investigations is whether the domestic industry has begun producing and selling more of the

higher-valued products within the domestic like product, and, if so, the extent to which this is due to the effects of

the subject imports or other factors. Accordingly, for the purpose of these preliminary determinations, we consider

volume in terms of both units and value.

 59 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 60 CR/PR at Table III-1. The Commission received completed producer questionnaire responses from all firms. 

CR/PR at III-1.

 61 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 62 CR/PR at III-1 & Table III-2.

 63 CR/PR at Table III-1 n.1.

 64 CR/PR at Table III-1 n.2.

 65 CR at III-6, PR at III-4.

 66 CR/PR at V-1.

 67 CR at VI-4 n.8, PR at VI-3 n.8. See also CR at VI-9 & n.10, PR at VI-4 & n.10, Bridgestone Postconference

Brief at Exh. 1 at 2.

12

Demand tends to track trends in U.S. farming and mining sectors with sales increasing as the farm

economy and commodity prices increase.56 Overall demand, as measured by apparent U.S. consumption,

fluctuated during the period of investigation, from 8.0 million tires in 2004 to 9.3 million tires in 2005,

and then 8.2 million tires in 2006. During Jan.-Mar. 2007, apparent U.S. consumption was 2.0 million

tires as compared to 2.2 million tires in Jan.-Mar. 2006.57 In terms of value,58 apparent U.S. consumption

increased from $1.3 billion in 2004 to $1.6 billion in 2005, then increased further to $1.7 billion in 2006. 

Apparent U.S. consumption as measured by value was $473.5 million in Jan.-Mar. 2007 as compared to

$437.7 million in Jan.-Mar. 2006.59

2. Supply Conditions

During the period of investigation, there were seven domestic producers accounting for 100

percent of U.S. production of certain OTR tires.60 Two producers account for approximately *** percent

of 2006 production.61 Capacity remained steady during 2004 to 2006, with capacity utilization rates

ranging from 37.1 to 58.8 percent, when considering both the number of tires produced and pounds of

tires produced. The average weight of U.S.-produced certain OTR tires increased by 15 percent during

2004-06, and average unit values increased by 38.0 percent.62

On December 28, 2005, Titan acquired the OTR farm production and related assets of

Goodyear.63 Titan also acquired Continental Tire North America’s construction plant and assets on July

31, 2006.64 Several U.S. firms cited production curtailments due to a variety of factors. *** due to

Hurricane Katrina. ***.65

The cost of raw materials, which ranged between 53 percent and 61 percent of the cost of goods

sold annually during the period of investigation,66 increased significantly over the period.67 Natural
 68 CR/PR at V-1.

 69 See, e.g., Chinese Respondents Postconference Brief at 14-15 & Att. 4.

 70 See CR at II-2, III-6 n.4, PR at II-1 - II-2, III-4 n.4.

 71 Chinese Respondents Postconference Brief at 12-13; CR/PR at Tables III-2, VI-4.

 72 CR/PR at Table IV-2.

 73 CR/PR at II-1; Tr. at 26 (Mr. Hawkins).

 74 See Tr. at 147 (Mr. Ganz), GPX Exhibit at Conference, “Presentation to U.S. International Trade Commission,”

July 9, 2007, at 10.

 75 Tr. at 87, 133 (Mr. Stewart), 120 (Mr. Dorn), 147, 182 (Mr. Ganz), 154 (Mr. Edwards), 165 (Mr. Anderson),

236 (Mr. Weymouth); GPX Postconference Brief at 5; Chinese Respondents Postconference Brief at 15.

 76 See Valmont Postconference Brief at 11-12 (quality is critically important to purchasers and is one of the top

factors in making purchasing decisions).

 77 Chinese Respondents Postconference Brief at 16-18, GPX Postconference Brief at 8. See Titan/USW

Postconference Brief at 31, Bridgestone Postconference Brief at Exh.1 at 5 (acknowledging price premiums) and

CR/PR at II-1.

 78 GPX Postconference Brief at 9, Bridgestone Postconference Brief at Exh. 1 at 5, Chinese Respondents

Postconference Brief at 17-18. Petitioners claim that virtually all Chinese producers and exporters have quality

certification and represent themselves as producing and marketing OTR tires of high quality. Titan/USW

(continued...)

13

rubber, as well as synthetic rubber, carbon black, various chemicals, and textiles and steel, are the major

raw materials used to manufacture OTR tires.68

Some importers reported that there have been extensive shortages of domestic OTR tires

throughout the period.69 The data obtained in these preliminary phase investigations are not sufficient to

determine the extent of these shortages, i.e. whether they are confined to tires not included in the scope of

these investigations, or whether broad categories of tires are in short supply.70 For example, while

respondents assert that shortages have prompted the domestic industry to expand OTR tire capacity, the

evidence of record does not show any substantial increase in domestic production capacity or capital

expenditures for certain OTR tires during the period of investigation.71 We intend to explore this issue

further in any final phase investigations.

The quantity of nonsubject imports decreased over the period of investigation from 2.0 million

tires in 2004 to 1.8 million in 2006, and from 505,000 in Jan.-Mar. 2006 to 393,000 in Jan.-Mar. 2007. In

terms of value, however, nonsubject imports increased from $353.1 million in 2004 to $507.5 million in

2006, and were $123.7 million in Jan.-Mar. 2006 compared to $128.7 in Jan.-Mar. 2007.72

3. Substitutability and Other Conditions

The market for OTR tires encompasses a wide range of product offerings, with the production of

one producer alone falling into over 3,000 distinct stock-keeping units.73 There is limited

interchangeability among the various types of OTR tires.74 The parties agree that OTR tires are not

commodity products.75

Quality appears to be a major factor in purchasing decisions.76 The parties agree that certain

respected brand names command a price premium based on reputation for superior quality.77

Respondents assert that generic, unbranded tires are at the other end of the spectrum and are not perceived

as being quality products and that a middle tier makes up the remainder of the market. GPX argues that

the vast majority of Chinese imports, with the exception of GPX products, fall within the generic

category, while Bridgestone asserts that subject imports represent a continuum that includes “the low tech

commodity end of the market.”78 We will explore these assertions and the importance of quality in any
 78 (...continued)

Postconference Brief at 5.

 79 Chinese Respondents Postconference Brief at 15.

 80 CR/PR at Table II-1, CR at V-14, PR at V-5.

 81 CR at I-12, PR at I-9.

 82 CR/PR at Table II-1.

 83 GPX Postconference Brief at 8; Chinese Respondents Postconference Brief at 16-19; Tr. at 85 (Mr. Pensler),

146-47 (Mr. Ganz), 166-68 (Mr. Anderson), 175-76 (Mr. Reilly); see also Titan/USW Postconference Brief at 31.

 84 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i).

 85 In these preliminary phase investigations, official import statistics were adjusted to exclude small and large

nonsubject tire imports. Adjustments resulted in a 71 percent decrease in the number of imports of OTR tires and a

16 percent reduction in value for 2006. CR/PR at IV-3. We invite the parties to address how these official statistics

should be adjusted in any final phase investigations.

 86 CR/PR at Table IV-2.

 87 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 88 CR/PR at Tables IV-2, IV-5.

14

final phase investigations. In addition, we will explore the importance of price in light of respondents’

allegations that these products compete principally on the basis of non-price characteristics.79 The record

indicates that most producers and importers reported that the subject and domestic product are “always”

or “frequently” interchangeable and that several purchasers reported shifting from domestic OTR tires to

subject merchandise on the basis of price.80

Although interchangeability among various types of tires is limited, there is competition among

the domestic like product, subject imports and nonsubject imports of the same types. The data indicate

that the subject products were present in all applications during the period of investigation. During 2006,

the majority of U.S. producers’ shipments (72 percent by quantity and 57 percent by value) were for

agricultural/forestry applications, and the majority of imports were for construction/industrial

applications. By quantity, 43 percent, and by value, 58 percent, of subject imports were for

construction/industrial applications. For nonsubject imports, the comparable figures were 55 percent (by

quantity) and 69 percent (by value).81 As noted, a majority of U.S. producers and importers reported that

the domestic like product, subject and nonsubject OTR tires were always or frequently interchangeable.82

In keeping with reports that the market consists of three tiers, as stated above, brand recognition

appears to be important.83 We intend to explore this factor in any final phase investigations.

B. Volume of the Subject Imports

Section 771(7)(C) of the Act provides that the “Commission shall consider whether the volume of

imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to

production or consumption in the United States, is significant.”84 85

The volume of subject imports is significant and increased substantially from 2004 to 2006, both

in absolute terms and relative to consumption and production in the United States. As measured by

quantity, subject imports increased from 1.8 million tires in 2004 to 3.4 million tires in 2006,86 and from

22.3 percent of apparent U.S. consumption to 41.5 percent during that period.87 They totaled 813,000

tires in Jan.-Mar. 2006, representing 36.6 percent of apparent U.S. consumption, and 749,000 tires in

Jan.-Mar. 2007, representing 36.8 percent of apparent U.S. consumption.88 The ratio of subject imports to
 89 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 90 CR/PR at Table IV-2.

 91 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 92 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 93 CR/PR at Table III-8.

 94 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 95 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 96 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 97 As noted above, the parties agree and the record reflects that OTR tires are not commodity products. See, e.g.,

Tr. at 87 (Mr. Stewart), 120 (Mr. Dorn), 133 (Mr. Stewart), 147-48 (Mr. Ganz), 154 (Mr. Edwards), 165 (Mr.

Anderson), 205 (Mr. Sailer), 236 (Mr. Weymouth), GPX Postconference Brief at 5. Accordingly, we need not apply

the analysis dictated by Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006), because one of

the predicates for that analysis, a “commodity product,” is not present here. In any final phase investigations, any

party holding a contrary view should so indicate, and provide a basis for its view, at the time written comments on

the draft questionnaires are submitted.

 98 Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun concur that the preliminary record reflects that OTR tires are not a

commodity product, and, therefore, one of the predicates of the Bratsk test is not met. See, e.g., Tr. at 87 (Mr.

Stewart), 120 (Mr. Dorn), 133 (Mr. Stewart), 147-48 (Mr. Ganz), 154 (Mr. Edwards), 165 (Mr. Anderson), 205 (Mr.

Sailer), 236 (Mr. Weymouth), GPX Postconference Brief at 5. Accordingly, they do not address the remaining

requirements of the Bratsk test. For a complete statement of Chairman Pearson's and Commissioner Okun's

interpretation of Bratsk in a preliminary investigation, see Separate and Additional Views of Chairman Daniel R.

Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun Concerning Bratsk Aluminum v. United States in Sodium

Hexametaphosphate from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1110 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3912 (Apr. 2007) at 19-25.

15

U.S. production climbed from 38.3 percent in 2004 to 90.7 percent in 2006, and was 76.7 percent in Jan.-

Mar. 2006 and 78.1 percent in Jan.-Mar. 2007.89

As measured by value, subject imports climbed from $114.1 million in 2004 to $305.7 million in

2006, and totaled $67.2 million in Jan.-Mar. 2006 and $79.0 million in Jan.-Mar. 2007.90 Subject import

market share rose from 8.6 percent in 2004 to 18.4 percent in 2006, when measured by value. It was 15.4

percent in Jan.-Mar. 2006 and 16.7 percent in Jan.-Mar. 2007.91

During the period of investigation, U.S. producers’ market share, as measured by quantity, fell

steadily from 52.9 percent in 2004 to 37.2 percent in 2006. It was 40.6 percent in Jan.-Mar. 2006 and

43.9 percent in Jan.-Mar. 2007. As measured by value, U.S. producers’ market share declined steadily: 

from 64.7 percent in 2004 to 51.1 percent in 2006, and was 56.4 percent in Jan.-Mar. 2006 and 56.1

percent in Jan.-Mar. 2007.92 In addition, U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories increased from

769,000 tires in 2004 to 933,000 tires in 2006, and totaled 920,000 tires in Jan.-Mar. 2006 and 818,000

tires in Jan.-Mar. 2007.93

Nonsubject import market share, when measured by quantity, declined from 24.8 percent in 2004

to 21.2 percent in 2006, although subject import market share increased. Nonsubject import market share

was 22.7 percent in Jan.-Mar. 2006 and 19.3 percent in Jan.-Mar. 2007.94 As measured by value,

nonsubject import market share increased from 26.7 percent in 2004 to 30.5 percent in 2006, during

which time subject import market share more than doubled. Further, nonsubject import market share was

28.3 percent in Jan.-Mar. 2006 and 27.2 percent in Jan.-Mar. 2007.95 Relative to U.S. production, as

measured by quantity, nonsubject imports rose from 42.6 percent in 2004 to 46.4 percent in 2006, but the

ratio of nonsubject imports to U.S. production was 47.6 percent in Jan.-Mar. 2006 and 41.0 percent in

Jan.-Mar. 2007.96 97 98

For the foregoing reasons, we find for purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations

that both the volume and increase in volume of subject imports are significant, both in absolute terms and

relative to consumption and production in the United States.
 99 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

 100 See CR/PR at Table II-1, CR at V-14, PR at V-5.

 101 CR at V-5, PR at V-4.

 102 CR at V-5 n.4, PR at V-4 n.4.

 103 CR at V-5 - V-6, PR at V-4.

 104 See CR/PR at Tables V-1 - V-5.

 105 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 106 COGS relative to net sales declined from 90.6 percent in 2004 to 87.9 percent in 2006, and was 81.9 percent in

Jan.-Mar. 2006 and 83.8 percent in Jan.-Mar. 2007. CR/PR at Table VI-1.

16

C. Price Effects of the Subject Imports

Section 771(7)(C)(ii) of the Act provides that, in evaluating the price effects of the subject

imports, the Commission shall consider whether –

 (I) there has been significant price underselling by the imported merchandise as

compared with the price of domestic like products of the United States, and

 (II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant

degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant

degree.99

 Bridgestone claims that OTR tires are sold largely on the basis of price. As noted above,

respondents claim they compete primarily on the basis of non-price characteristics. Given that a majority

of U.S. producers and importers reported that subject imports and the domestic product are always or

frequently interchangeable and that certain purchasers reportedly shifted to subject imports on the basis of

price, it appears that price is an important factor in purchasing decisions,100 although we intend to explore

this matter further in any final phase investigations.

Although seven domestic producers and nine importers provided varying amounts of usable price

data, sales of the five representative products accounted for a fairly small percentage of total sales for

both producers and importers, as a broad range of products is sold by both. For domestic producers, sales

of the five products accounted for approximately 11 percent of all sales in 2006, and for importers the

figure was approximately four percent.101 In addition, some price data provided by importers pertained to

Chinese products that are too light in weight to meet the specifications for the requested product, but were

satisfactory in all other respects. Adjustments to the data were made accordingly.102

Based on the limited pricing data obtained in these preliminary phase investigations, we find the

underselling to be significant. The adjusted pricing data show underselling in 41 of 49 quarterly price

comparisons, ranging from margins of 1.8 percent to 26.5 percent.103

The available data do not provide persuasive evidence of significant price depressing or

suppressing effects by the subject imports. As the tire prices analyzed in these preliminary phase

investigations generally rose during the period,104 prices do not appear to be depressed. Although prices

rose, so did costs, particularly raw material costs, as noted above.105 However, the ratio of the cost of

goods sold (“COGS”) to net sales generally declined, except between the interim periods,106 which

normally does not indicate a cost/price squeeze. We intend to examine whether subject imports are

having depressing or suppressing effects on prices for the domestic like product in any final phase

investigations.

In addition, petitioners alleged lost sales and revenues, although detailed lost sales and lost

revenue allegations were generally not available on a transaction-by-transaction basis. The record does
 107 CR at V-14, PR at V-5.

 108 Compare CR/PR at Table IV-5 with CR/PR at Tables V-1 - V-5.

 109 In its notice of initiation, Commerce estimated the dumping margins for imports of subject OTR tires from

China as ranging from 30.49 percent to 210.48 percent. 72 Fed. Reg. at 43,594.

 110 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851 and 885 (“In material injury determinations, the Commission

considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While these factors, in

some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they also may demonstrate that an industry is facing

difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.”). SAA at 885.

 111 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851, 885; Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-

TA-386, 731-TA-812-813 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3155 (Feb. 1999) at 25 n.148.

 112 CR/PR at Table III-3.

 113 CR/PR at Table III-3.

17

indicate that three of five responding purchasers shifted to subject imports at least in part because of

lower prices.107 We will explore the issue of adverse price effects further in any final phase

investigations.

Nevertheless, regardless of whether certain effects are established on the record at the preliminary

phase, the record suggests that, in the face of widespread underselling by the subject imports, the

domestic industry has sacrificed market share in order to maintain and/or increase its prices,108

demonstrating that the underselling has contributed to the domestic industry’s declining market share, as

well as to declines in other volume-based indicators discussed below.

D. Impact of the Subject Imports on the Domestic Industry109

Section 771(7)(C)(iii) of the Act provides that the Commission, in examining the impact of the

subject imports on the domestic industry, “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a

bearing on the state of the industry.”110 These factors include output, sales, inventories, ability to raise

capital, research and development, and factors affecting domestic prices. No single factor is dispositive,

and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of

competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”111

We have examined the industry’s performance indicators during the period of investigation. A

number of key indicators, with the notable exception of certain financial data, in these preliminary phase

investigations show steady declines when subject imports were increasing.

U.S. production of subject tires decreased from 4.7 million tires in 2004 to 3.8 million tires in

2006. U.S. production was 1.1 million tires in Jan.-Mar. 2006 and 956,000 in Jan.-Mar. 2007. In terms

of weight, U.S. production of subject tires decreased from 549.9 million pounds in 2004 to 513.5 million

pounds in 2006, and was 142.7 million pounds in Jan.-Mar. 2006 and 149.5 million pounds in Jan.-Mar.

2007.112 Capacity utilization for subject tires, as measured in units, decreased from 46.3 percent in 2004

to 37.1 percent in 2006, and was 42.3 percent in Jan.-Mar. 2006 compared to 36.9 percent in Jan.-Mar.

2007. In terms of weight, capacity utilization decreased from 50.7 percent in 2004 to 47.1 percent in

2006, and was 51.2 percent in Jan.-Mar. 2006 and 54.1 percent in Jan.-Mar. 2007.113

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments declined from 4.3 million tires in 2004 to 3.1 million tires in

2006; they totaled 902,000 tires in Jan.-Mar. 2006 and 894,000 tires in Jan.-Mar. 2007. In terms of

weight, U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments fell from 463.6 million pounds in 2004 to 389.7 million pounds

in 2006, and totaled 111.9 million pounds in Jan.-Mar. 2006 and 141.7 million pounds in Jan.-Mar. 2007. 
 114 CR/PR at Table III-5.

 115 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 116 CR/PR at Table III-9. In view of the move towards manufacturing larger size tires, we would not expect

employment to decline, as the manufacture of those tires is more labor intensive. See Titan/USW Postconference

Brief, Answers to Staff Questions at 4.

 117 CR/PR at Table III-9.

 118 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 119 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 120 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 121 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 122 In any final phase investigations we intend to explore whether the domestic industry shifted to the production

of larger sized OTR tires as a result of the significant and increasing volume of subject imports and/or the prices of

such imports, or whether that change was driven by other considerations. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-5 (unit

weight increased from 109 pounds per tire in 2004 to 127 pounds per tire in 2006, and was 124 pounds per tire in

Jan.-Mar. 2006 and 159 pounds per tire in Jan.-Mar. 2007);Tr. at 22, 24-25 (Mr. Vasichek).

Respondents argue that the domestic industry shifted to larger sizes due to higher prices for these products

(continued...)

18

In terms of value, U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments declined from $855.9 million in 2004 to $850.1 million

in 2006, and totaled $246.8 million in Jan.-Mar. 2006 and $265.8 million in Jan.-Mar. 2007.114

The total quantity of net sales decreased from 4.9 million tires in 2004 to 3.8 million tires in

2006, and was 1.1 million tires in both Jan.-Mar. 2006 and Jan.-Mar. 2007. However, by value, net sales

increased from $995.7 million in 2004 to $1.0 billion in 2006, and totaled $289.2 million in Jan.-Mar.

2006 and $308.4 million in Jan.-Mar. 2007.115

The average number of production and related workers fell from 4,325 in 2004 to 3,972 in 2006,

and totaled 4,056 in Jan.-Mar. 2006 and 3,884 in Jan.-Mar. 2007. Their hours worked declined from 8.5

million in 2004 to 8.0 million in 2006, and were 2.1 million in Jan.-Mar. 2006 and 2.0 million in Jan.-

Mar. 2007. Their wages also decreased from $246.5 million in 2004 to $231.3 million in 2006, and

totaled $58.8 million in Jan.-Mar. 2006 and $56.5 million in Jan.-Mar. 2007.116 Productivity declined as

well. In terms of tires per hour, it declined from 0.55 in 2004 to 0.47 in 2006, and was 0.50 in Jan.-Mar.

2006 and 0.49 in Jan.-Mar. 2007. In terms of pounds per hour, productivity declined from 65.0 in 2004 to

63.5 in 2006, and was 67.5 in Jan.-Mar. 2006 and 75.8 in Jan.-Mar. 2007.117

Notwithstanding the above, as well as the increasing influx of subject imports over the period of

investigation, the domestic industry’s financial indicators showed some improvement over the period in

these preliminary phase investigations. Operating income increased from a loss of $899,000 in 2004 to

$20.1 million in 2006, and was $24.1 million in Jan.-Mar. 2006 and $24.7 million in Jan.-Mar. 2007.118 A

net loss of $11.4 million in 2004 became net income of $12.4 million in 2006, and was $20.3 million in

Jan.-Mar. 2006 and $20.4 million in Jan.-Mar. 2007.119 The ratio of operating loss to net sales was 0.1

percent in 2004, rising to an operating income margin of 2.0 percent in 2006. The industry’s operating

income margin was 8.3 percent in Jan.-Mar. 2006 and 8.0 percent in Jan.-Mar. 2007.120

COGS decreased between 2004 and 2006, from $902.1 million in 2004 to $896.7 million in 2006,

and was $236.9 million in Jan.-Mar. 2006 and $258.4 million in Jan.-Mar. 2007. The ratio of COGS to

net sales declined from 90.6 percent in 2004 to 87.9 percent in 2006, and was 81.9 percent in Jan.-Mar.

2006 and 83.8 percent in Jan.-Mar. 2007.121

For purposes of these preliminary determinations, we conclude that subject imports are having an

adverse impact on the condition of the domestic industry. In particular, we find that the absolute and

relative volumes of subject imports are significant, and that subject imports have gained market share at

the expense of the domestic industry.122 123 As the volume of imports increased, and as those imports
 122 (...continued)

and that subject imports merely filled a need in a size range partly abandoned by the domestic industry. GPX

Postconference Brief at 39, Valmont Postconference Brief at 4-6. Preliminary data, however, indicate that domestic

industry has lost market share in terms of both quantity and value and that it has lost more sales in the

construction/industrial sector – in which subject imports are concentrated – than in others. See CR/PR at Tables III6 (domestic construction/industrial shipments decreased in volume from 1.4 million tires in 2004 to 851,000 tires in

2006), IV-6 (subject imports in construction/industrial sector rose from 650,000 tires in 2004 to 1.5 million tires in

2006).

 123 In reviewing the draft questionnaires in any final phase investigations, the parties are requested to comment on

whether the Commission should gather data on domestic and subject OTR tires in two or more groupings defined by

rim diameter. The parties should provide the basis for any proposed groupings.

 124 CR/PR at Table C-1.

19

undersold the domestic product, the domestic industry experienced a sharp drop in U.S. shipments and net

sales by quantity, as well as declines in the number of production workers, hours worked and wages paid. 

Although the value of apparent U.S. consumption increased by 25.7 percent from 2004 to 2006, the

domestic industry experienced a 0.7 percent drop in U.S. shipments by value and only a 2.5 percent

increase in net sales values over the same span.124

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we find that there is a reasonable indication that the domestic

industry producing certain OTR tires is materially injured by reason of subject imports of certain OTR

tires from China that allegedly are subsidized and sold in the United States at LTFV.
 
 1

 A complete description of the imported products subject to these investigations is presented in The Subject

Product section of this part of the report.

 2 Federal Register notices cited are presented in app. A.

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

These countervailing and antidumping duty investigations result from a petition filed on June 18,

2007 by Titan Tire Corporation (“Titan”), Des Moines, Iowa, and The United Steel, Paper and Forestry,

Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIOCLC (“USW”), Pittsburgh, PA. The petition alleges that an industry in the United States is materially

injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized and less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”)

imports of certain off-the-road (“OTR”) tires from China.1

 Information relating to the background of

these investigations is provided below.2

 

Date Action

June 18, 2007 Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of Commission investigations

(72 FR 34478, June 22, 2007)

July 9, 2007 Commission’s conference1

July 16, 2007 Commerce extends initiation of the investigations (72 FR 38816)

July 18, 2007 Commission’s notice of revised schedule (72 FR 39445)

August 6 and 7, 2007 Commerce’s notices of initiation (antidumping--72 FR 43591, August 6, 2007;

countervailing duty–72 FR 44122, August 7, 2007)

August 20, 2007 Commission’s vote

August 27, 2007 Commission’s determinations and views to Commerce

 1

 A list of witnesses appearing at the conference is presented in app B. 

STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF REPORT

Section 771(7)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”) (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)) provides that in

making its determinations of injury to an industry in the United States, the Commission--

shall consider (I) the volume of imports of the subject merchandise, (II)

the effect of imports of that merchandise on prices in the United States

for domestic like products, and (III) the impact of imports of such

merchandise on domestic producers of domestic like products, but only

in the context of production operations within the United States; and. . .

may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination regarding whether there is material injury by reason of

imports.

Section 771(7)(C) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)) further provides that--

In evaluating the volume of imports of merchandise, the Commission

shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any
 3

 According to Modern Tire Dealer, total U.S. tire production capacity was 816 million units in 2006, of which

OTR (including nonsubject consumer OTR) tire production accounted for approximately 84 million units, or 10

percent of all tires. Modern Tire Dealer's 41st Annual Facts Issue, North American Tire Plant Capacities as of

January 1, 2007 (in thousands of units per day); January 2007, pp. 34-35.

I-2

increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production

or consumption in the United States is significant.

. . .

In evaluating the effect of imports of such merchandise on prices, the

Commission shall consider whether . . . (I) there has been significant

price underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the

price of domestic like products of the United States, and (II) the effect of

imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant

degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have

occurred, to a significant degree.

. . .

In examining the impact required to be considered under subparagraph

(B)(i)(III), the Commission shall evaluate (within the context of the

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the

affected industry) all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on

the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to

. . . 

(I) actual and potential declines in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, (II)

factors affecting domestic prices, (III) actual and potential negative

effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to

raise capital, and investment, (IV) actual and potential negative effects

on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic

industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced

version of the domestic like product, and (V) in {an antidumping

investigation}, the magnitude of the margin of dumping.

Part I of this report presents information on the subject merchandise, alleged subsidies and

dumping margins, and domestic like product. Part II of this report presents information on conditions of

competition and other relevant economic factors. Part III presents information on the condition of the

U.S. industry, including data on capacity, production, shipments, inventories, and employment. Parts IV

and V present the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise, respectively. Part VI

presents information on the financial experience of U.S. producers. Part VII presents the statutory

requirements and information obtained for use in the Commission’s consideration of the question of threat

of material injury.

U.S. MARKET SUMMARY

The U.S. market for certain OTR tires totaled approximately $1.7 billion and 8.2 million tires in

2006.3

 Currently, seven firms produce certain OTR tires in the United States: Bridgestone Firestone

North American Tire, LLC (“BFNA”), Carlisle Tire and Wheel Company (“Carlisle”), Denman Tire

Corporation (“Denman”), Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (“Goodyear”), Michelin North America,

Inc. (“Michelin”), Specialty Tires of America, Inc. (“Specialty”), and Titan. BFNA and Titan’s

production of certain OTR tires accounted for approximately *** percent of total U.S. production in
 4

 Based on a review of proprietary Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) data.

 5

 Petitioners’ response to Commerce’s second supplemental questionnaire, June 27, 2007, p. 9.

 6

 Official import statistics were adjusted to account for nonsubject imports that entered under subject HTS

numbers. See the Tariff Treatment section of this part of the report, Part IV, and app. D for a description of and

summary data relating to the adjustments for out-of-scope products.

 7

 The petition (as revised) excluded from the scope OTR tires used on mining and construction vehicles and

equipment that have a rim diameter equal to or exceeding 39 inches, with a weight of 1,500 pounds or more. 

Petitioners’ response to Commerce’s second supplemental questionnaire, June 27, 2007, pp. 6-9. 

 8 See Part IV and app. D. 

 9

 Excluded companies include: ***. See app. D. 

 10 In 2007, the Commission reported on the probable economic effect of providing competitive need limit waivers

for HTS subheading 4011.20.10 (nonsubject new radial bus and truck tires) from Thailand. Advice Concerning

Possible Modifications to the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences, 2006 Review, Investigation No. 332-483,

USITC Pub 3919, April 2007, chap. 4. 

I-3

2006. More than 400 firms were reported to have imported certain OTR tires from all sources during

2006, and more than 170 firms were reported to have imported from China.4

 Purchasers of certain OTR

tires include original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”) and distributors for the aftermarket. The

petition identified 21 firms as producers of certain OTR tires in China.

Certain OTR tires are used on a wide variety of vehicles and equipment employed in agricultural

and forestry, construction, and industrial settings for hauling, towing, lifting, and/or loading.5

 The

majority of trade in subject tires is comprised of certain OTR tires used for agricultural and industrial

applications. U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of certain OTR tires totaled 3.1 million tires in 2006, and

accounted for 37 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 51 percent by value. U.S.

imports from China totaled 3.4 million tires in 2006, and accounted for 42 percent of apparent U.S.

consumption by quantity and 18 percent by value, while U.S. imports from all other sources combined

totaled 1.8 million tires in 2006, and accounted for 21 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity

and 31 percent by value.6

SUMMARY DATA AND DATA SOURCES

A summary of data collected in the investigations is presented in appendix C, table C-1. U.S.

industry data are based on the questionnaire responses of seven firms that accounted for all known U.S.

production of certain OTR tires during the period of investigation. U.S. import data in this report are

based on official Commerce statistics, modified to exclude out-of-scope OTR tires: (1) imports that

weigh more than 1,500 pounds per tire7

 and (2) imports of OTR tires less than $20 per unit.8 These

adjusted import statistics also do not include imports from several firms that import nonsubject OTR tires

under some of the same statistical reporting numbers as subject OTR tires.9

 Data regarding the Chinese

industry are based on foreign producer questionnaire responses of 17 producers of certain OTR tires in

China.

PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

The Commission has not previously conducted import injury investigations on OTR tires.10
 11 Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing

Duty Investigation, 72 FR 44124, August 7, 2007. See Commerce’s initiation notice in app. A for a description of

the programs that are included or not included in its investigation.

 12 Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People’s

Republic of China, 72 FR 43594, August 6, 2007.

 13 Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People’s

Republic of China, 72 FR 43595, August 6, 2007, Appendix I; and Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From

the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 72 FR 44125, August 7, 2007,

Attachment. See Commerce’s notice for footnotes describing the machinery and equipment cited in the scope

language.

I-4

NATURE AND EXTENT OF ALLEGED SUBSIDIES AND SALES AT LTFV

Commerce has initiated a countervailing duty investigation to determine whether manufacturers,

producers, or exporters of certain OTR tires in China received countervailable subsidies. Included in the

investigation are the following 21 programs alleged to provide countervailable subsidies to firms in

China:11 

! Government of China Loan Programs (3)

! Government of China Currency Program (1)

! Government of China Grant Programs (2)

! Government of China Provision of Goods or Services for Less Than Adequate Remuneration (2)

! Government of China Income Tax Programs (5)

! Government of China Indirect Tax Programs and Import Tariff Programs (4)

! Provincial Grant Programs (2)

! Provincial Provision of Goods and Services for Less Than Adequate Remuneration (1)

! Provincial and Local Tax Programs for Foreign Investment Enterprises (1)

Not included in Commerce’s investigation are the following five allegedly beneficial programs:

! Managed Exchange Rate Export Subsidy (Currency Manipulation)

! Preferential Lending to the Tire Industry

! Grants to the Tire Industry for Land-Usage Fees

! Value Added Tax (“VAT”) Export Rebate of Prior-Stage, Cumulative Taxes

! Lower VAT Rebates for Downstream Products

With respect to LTFV allegations, Commerce has initiated an antidumping duty investigation

based on estimated dumping margins for certain OTR tires from China that range from 30.49 percent to

210.48 percent.12

THE SUBJECT PRODUCT

Scope

The imported products subject to these investigations include:13

... new pneumatic tires designed for off- the-road (OTR) and off-highway use, subject to

exceptions identified below. Certain OTR tires are generally designed, manufactured and

offered for sale for use on off-road or off-highway surfaces, including but not limited to,
I-5

agricultural fields, forests, construction sites, factory and warehouse interiors, airport

tarmacs, ports and harbors, mines, quarries, gravel yards, and steel mills. The vehicles

and equipment for which certain OTR tires are designed for use include, but are not

limited to: (1) Agricultural and forestry vehicles and equipment, including agricultural

tractors,1combine harvesters,2 agricultural high clearance sprayers,3 industrial

tractors,4log-skidders,5 agricultural implements, highway- towed implements,

agricultural logging, and agricultural, industrial, skid-steers/ mini-loaders;6(2)

construction vehicles and equipment, including earthmover articulated dump products,

rigid frame haul trucks,7front end loaders,8dozers,9 lift trucks, straddle

carriers,10graders,11 mobile cranes, compactors; and (3) industrial vehicles and

equipment, including smooth floor, industrial, mining, counterbalanced lift trucks,

industrial and mining vehicles other than smooth floor, skid-steers/mini- loaders, and

smooth floor off-the-road counterbalanced lift trucks.12The foregoing list of vehicles and

equipment generally have in common that they are used for hauling, towing, lifting,

and/or loading a wide variety of equipment and materials in agricultural, construction

and industrial settings. The foregoing descriptions are illustrative of the types of vehicles

and equipment that use certain OTR tires, but are not necessarily all-inclusive. While the

physical characteristics of certain OTR tires will vary depending on the specific

applications and conditions for which the tires are designed (e.g., tread pattern and

depth), all of the tires within the scope have in common that they are designed for

off-road and off-highway use. Except as discussed below, OTR tires included in the scope

of the petitions range in size (rim diameter) generally but not exclusively from 8 inches to

54 inches. The tires may be either tube-type or tubeless, radial or non-radial, and

intended for sale either to original equipment manufacturers or the replacement market.

The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings: 4011.20.10.25, 4011.20.10.35,

4011.20.50.30, 4011.20.50.50, 4011.61.00.00, 4011.62.00.00, 4011.63.00.00,

4011.69.00.00, 4011.92.00.00, 4011.93.40.00, 4011.93.80.00, 4011.94.40.00, and

4011.94.80.00. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs

purposes, our written description of the scope is dispositive. 

Specifically excluded from the scope are new pneumatic tires designed, manufactured and offered

for sale primarily for on-highway or on-road use, including passenger cars, race cars, station

wagons, sport utility vehicles, minivans, mobile homes, motorcycles, bicycles, on-road or

on-highway trailers, light trucks, and trucks and buses. Such tires generally have in common that

the symbol ‘‘DOT’’ must appear on the sidewall, certifying that the tire conforms to applicable

motor vehicle safety standards. Such excluded tires may also have the following designations that

are used by the Tire and Rim Association: 

Prefix letter designations: 

•P—Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on passenger cars; 

•LT—Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on light trucks; and, 

•ST—Identifies a special tire for trailers in highway service. 
 14 Importers have reported importing tires under the subject HTS numbers for use on hand trucks, lawnmowers,

garden and nursery carts, wheelbarrows, and golf and trailer applications. For example, an importer accounting for a

significant quantity of imports reported importing small tires for *** under HTS subheadings 4011.61 and 4011.62

(“***”), and consumer tires for horticulture (turf, lawn, and garden) under HTS subheading 4011.92. E-mail from

***, July 12, 2007. Counsel for petitioners asserts that imports of new pneumatic tires for lawn and garden, ATV,

“and the like” tires are properly provided for under HTS subheading 4011.99.80 pursuant to Customs rulings NY

A81065 (April 3, 1996) and HQ 966112 (April 2, 2003). Petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 27-28 and fn. 44-45. 

In addition, petitioners acknowledged that during the period of investigation, ***. Letter from Stewart and Stewart,

July 30, 2007.

 15 See Part IV and appendix D for a discussion of the methodology used to adjust official Commerce statistics to

account for misclassified and out-of-scope imported products.

I-6

Suffix letter designations: 

•TR—Identifies a tire for service on trucks, buses, and other vehicles with rims having specified

rim diameter of nominal plus 0.156. or plus 0.250.; 

•MH—Identifies tires for Mobile Homes; 

•HC—Identifies a heavy duty tire designated for use on ‘‘HC’’ 15. tapered rims used on trucks,

buses, and other vehicles. This suffix is intended to differentiate among tires for light trucks, and

other vehicles or other services, which use a similar designation. Example: 8R17.5 LT, 8R17.5

HC; 

•LT—Identifies light truck tires for service on trucks, buses, trailers, and multipurpose passenger

vehicles used in nominal highway service; and 

•MC—Identifies tires and rims for motorcycles. 

The following types of tires are also excluded from the scope: Pneumatic tires that are not new,

including recycled or retreaded tires and used tires; non-pneumatic tires, including solid rubber

tires; tires of a kind used on aircraft, all-terrain vehicles, and vehicles for turf, lawn and garden,

golf and trailer applications; and, tires of a kind used for mining and construction vehicles and

equipment that have a rim diameter equal to or exceeding 39 inches. Such tires may be

distinguished from other tires of similar size by the number of plies that the construction and

mining tires contain (minimum of 16) and the weight of such tires (minimum 1500 pounds). 

 Tariff Treatment

Imports of certain OTR tires are entered under statistical reporting numbers or subheadings 

4011.20.1025, 4011.20.1035, 4011.20.5030, 4011.20.5050, 4011.61.0000, 4011.62.0000, 4011.63.0000,

4011.69.0000, 4011.92.0000, 4011.93.4000, 4011.93.8000, 4011.94.4000, and 4011.94.8000 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”). During the course of these investigations, it

was found that certain U.S. imports entering under HTS subheadings 4011.61, 4011.62, 4011.69, and

4011.92 were consumer tires that are outside the scope of these investigations.14 Import data used in this

report have been adjusted to account for these out-of-scope products.15

Table I-1 presents data on the current tariff rates of the subheadings identified above.
 16 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 10. At the time of filing of postconference briefs (July 17, 2007),

Commerce had not yet initiated these investigations and had extended the deadline for determining the adequacy of

the antidumping and countervailing duty petitions until July 30, 2007. 72 FR 38816, July 16, 2007.

 17 GPX postconference brief, p. 4.

I-7

Table I-1

Certain OTR tires: Tariff treatment, 2007

HTS provision Article description

General1 Special2

Column

23

Rates (percent ad valorem)

4011

 4011.20 

 4011.20.10

 4011.20.1025

 4011.20.1035

 4011.20.50

 4011.20.5030

 4011.20.5050

 4011.61.0000

 4011.62.0000

 4011.63.0000

 4011.69.0000

 4011.92.0000

 4011.93

 4011.93.4000

 4011.93.8000

4011.94

 4011.94.8000

New pneumatic tires, of rubber: 

Of a kind used on buses or trucks: 

Radial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 Off-the-highway:

 For use on a rim measuring 40.6 cm or more in diameter . . 

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 Off-the-highway:

 For use on a rim measuring 40.6 cm or more in diameter . . 

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Other, having a “herring-bone” or similar tread:

Of a kind used on agricultural or forestry vehicles and machines . . 

Of a kind used on construction or industrial handling vehicles and

 machines and having a rim size exceeding 6 cm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Of a kind used on construction or industrial handling vehicles and

 machines and having a rim size exceeding 61 cm . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Other:

Of a kind used on agricultural or forestry vehicles and machines . . 

Of a kind used on construction or industrial handling vehicles and

 machines and having a rim size not exceeding 61 cm:

Radial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Of a kind used on construction or industrial handling vehicles and

 machines and having a rim size exceeding 61 cm:

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

4

3.4

Free

Free

Free

Free

Free

4

3.4

3.4

10

10

Free

Free

Free

Free

Free

10

10

10

 1 Normal trade relations, formerly known as the most-favored-nation duty rate. 

 2 Special rates not applicable when General rate is free. China is ineligible for special duty rate treatment.

 3

 Applies to imports from a small number of countries that do not enjoy normal trade relations duty status.

Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2007).

THE DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

The Commission’s determination regarding the appropriate domestic product that is “like” the

subject imported product is based on a number of factors, including (1) physical characteristics and uses;

(2) common manufacturing facilities and production employees; (3) interchangeability; (4) customer and

producer perceptions; (5) channels of distribution; and, where appropriate, (6) price. 

Petitioners contend that the Commission should find one domestic like product that is coextensive with the scope of merchandise subject to the investigations as identified by the petition.16

Respondents have not challenged the petitioners’ definition of the domestic like product and domestic

industry.17
 18 Staff field trip report, BFNA, July 19, 2007.

 19 Conference transcript, p. 98 (Burchfield).

 20 Conference transcript, pp. 145-148 (Ganz).

 21 Conference transcript, p. 35 (Kramer).

 22 The scope rim diameter range is generally, but not exclusively 8 to 54 inches. Petitioners’ response to

Commerce’s second supplemental questionnaire, June 27, 2007, p. 10.

 23 Petitioners argue that construction/industrial tires with a rim diameter of 39 inches or more require extra

components (e.g., beads, plies, and liners) and use heavier materials than subject OTR tires. For example, “the

largest agricultural OTR tires weigh about 1200 pounds while the largest earthmoving OTR tires weigh up to 12,000

pounds. The loads, conditions of use and speeds are significantly different and . . . . are not interchangeable with

any of the OTR tires that are within the scope of the petition.” Petitioners’ response to Commerce’s second

supplemental questionnaire, June 27, 2007, p. 4.

With respect to smaller and lighter OTR tires, petitioners argue that such tires are not interchangeable with

certain OTR tires, are not limited to off-road use (e.g., boat and utility trailers), and are produced for multiple uses

(e.g., a lawn tractor tire can be used on golf carts). Ibid., p. 11.

 24 Staff field trip report, BFNA, July 19, 2007.

I-8

Physical Characteristics and Uses

All pneumatic (air pressurized) rubber tires, whether passenger car, truck, or OTR, have the same

basic generic components, but structurally, are markedly different. The basic components of a tire consist

internally of a base rubber inner liner or a rubber inner tube, each impervious to air migration from the

tire; rubberized reinforcing tire cord plies and belts that give the tire strength and stability; and a

rubberized steel bead that provides an airtight seal of the tire with a given metal wheel. The outer

components of a tire that can be seen visually on an assembled tire are the tread that runs around the

outside of the tire, the sidewall, and the rubber rim. All tires contain varying amounts of natural and

synthetic rubber in addition to several other components such as carbon black reinforcement, sulfur

curing agents, nylon and steel tire cords and belts, and steel bead wire.18

Compared to the more familiar on-the-road passenger and truck tires, most certain OTR tires are

designed for more rugged use where physical strength is imperative to absorb the abuses experienced in

off-the-road applications, and where heavier load bearing characteristics are required. For this reason, a

generally higher content and ratio of stronger, more expensive, and more durable natural rubber is used in

certain OTR tires relative to the more supple, but lower strength synthetic rubbers used in higher

proportions in on-the-road tires.19 Also, more substantial internal reinforcement is required, including

textile and steel tire cords and belts, steel bead, and carbon black pigment reinforcement. Certain OTR

tires for a given application may be produced in a range of grades having different price points.20 

Certain OTR tires are produced in a wide variety of types and sizes, ranging from relatively small

agricultural implement tires, to larger agricultural, construction, and industrial tires found on the more

familiar farm tractors, earth movers, back hoe loaders, and fork lift trucks, for example. The rim diameter

(inside diameter) of certain OTR tires may range from eight to 72 inches,21 22 and the weight of a large

agricultural tire, up to 1,200 pounds.23 Unlike on-the-road tires, certain OTR tires are typically designed

for speeds no higher than 25-30 miles per hour. These tires may be of bias ply or radial construction

depending upon the end use, and consist of multiple tread types depending on the types of equipment and

end-use requirements. Certain OTR tires may be of the tubeless or tube variety, but are predominately

tubeless, while all are pneumatic (air pressurized) in nature, as defined in the scope.24 

In the United States, OTR producers have generally adopted The Tire and Rim Association

(“TRA”), Inc. standards. TRA standards for the subject tires are broken out into three categories: Offthe-Road, Agricultural, and Industrial. TRA standards identify items such as the type of equipment on

which the tire is used, the tire type and tire-type designation to be molded into the sidewall, the speed and
 25 2007 Yearbook, The Tire and Rim Association, Inc.

 26 Conference transcript, pp. 212-214 (Ganz).

 27 Certain Chinese tire producers are affiliate members of the TRA; 2007 Yearbook, The Tire and Rim

Association, Inc., p. V.

 28 See tables III-6 and IV-3.

I-9

load carrying ply ratings, and several other physical and quantitative descriptions.25 Designations used on

foreign tires may or may not conform to TRA standards, but they usually carry a tire size and country- oforigin marking.26 27 TRA tire standards are described in the following tabulation:

OTR tire:

45/65R45 NHS 16PR **

Agricultural tire:

14.5/75-16.1 SL 10PR 121 A8

Industrial tire:

23x10.50-12 NHS 4PR

45 Width of tire cross

section (inches)

14.5 Width of tire cross

section (inches)

23 Overall diameter

(inches)

65 Aspect ratio 75 Aspect ratio 10.5 Width of tire cross

section (inches)

R Radial - Bias - Bias

45 Rim diameter (inches) 16.1 Rim diameter (inches) 12 Rim diameter (inches)

NHS Suffix (Not for highway

service)

SL Service limited to

agricultural usage

NHS Suffix (Not for highway

service)

16PR Ply rating 10PR Ply rating 4PR Ply rating

** Load symbol (rated for

30 psi)

155 Load index (max. load)

A8 Speed symbol (25 mph)

Source: 2007 Year Book, Tire and Rim Association, contained in BFNA’s postconference brief, exh. 35. 

As described in the scope language, certain OTR tires are generally designed, manufactured, and

offered for sale for use on off-road or off-highway surfaces, including but not limited to agricultural

fields, forests, construction sites, factory and warehouse interiors, airport tarmacs, ports and harbors,

mines, quarries, gravel yards, and steel mills. Shipment and import data were gathered during these

preliminary phase investigations regarding end uses in terms of the agricultural/forestry,

construction/industrial, and other off-the-highway applications. The data indicate that the subject

products from all sources were present in all applications during the period of investigation. During

2006, the majority of U.S. producers’ shipments (72 percent by quantity and 57 percent by value) were

for agricultural/forestry applications, and the majority of imports were for construction/industrial

applications; 43 percent by quantity and 58 percent by value for U.S. imports from China, and 55 percent

by quantity and 69 percent by value for imports from all other sources.28

Manufacturing Process

The production processes for certain OTR tires are generally more labor intensive and typically 

require more semi-automated production sequences than for on-the-road passenger and truck tires. This

is due to the larger sizes, number of components, and higher strength properties demanded in certain OTR

tire end-use applications, although there may be exceptions, especially for smaller certain OTR tires. The
 29 Staff field trip report, BFNA, July 19, 2007.

I-10

majority of certain OTR tires are of tubeless design, i.e., do not usually contain inflatable inner tubes such

as those found in bicycle tires.29 

Several stages are required for the production of certain OTR tires. The initial stage is the

receiving and testing of various raw materials. These include natural and synthetic rubbers, textile tire

cord fabric, carbon black reinforcing pigment, steel wires for rim bead, and other rubber processing

chemicals, including antioxidants, plasticizers, sulfur curing agents, processing oils, and resins.

The rubber preparation stage involves the mixing of the various rubbers and selected raw

materials into several different types of compounds or recipes designed for specific downstream process

end uses, as shown in figure I-1. Each batch is placed into a Banbury mixer where the rubber is heated,

softened, and thoroughly mixed with the other ingredients under conditions of mixer blade shear and ram

pressure. Following the discharge of a given rubber compound batch from the mixer, the mass is cooled,

and sulfur curing agents are added. Subsequent Banbury mixing is usually required to complete this step.

Figure I-1

Rubber mixing process

Source: Staff field trip report, BFNA, July 19, 2007, attachment.

During the mixing process, heat and friction soften the rubber for several applications, including

a type of rubber compound designed to hold air on the inside of the tubeless tire; various types of rubber

compounds designed to adhere to wire and fabric used to make the casing; and other types of rubber

compounds designed for the outside of the tire; e.g., the steel bead, sidewalls, and tread. Following the

mixing process, the various rubber compounds or batches are milled into slab form for use in the factory. 

Several different types of equipment are used to process the rubber formulations into multiple

certain OTR tire components. Large machines equipped with rollers known as calendars are used to

produce sheets of butyl rubber interlining which prevent the migration of pressurized air through a
 30 Many types of certain OTR tires also have steel wire or textile belt material directly under the tread area for

added stability and impact resistance.

 31 Bias ply construction is one in which the reinforcing tire cords run diagonally from rim bead to rim bead, with

each successive ply running at equal, but opposite angles. In radial construction, the reinforcing tire cords run

parallel from bead to bead, or perpendicular to the direction of travel and have reinforcing belts directly underneath

the tread. Bias ply tires are popularly used in many OTR applications because of their sidewall strength, stiffness, 

and toughness, and the ability to carry the heavy loads demanded in the OTR industry. A radial tire will have better

traction and fuel because of less slippage. Radial tires reportedly have a longer tire life than bias ply tires; higher

resistance to cuts, punctures, and tears; excellent traction; improved handling and fuel economy; and a smoother ride

and operator comfort. 

Bias-type tires are estimated to account for 60 percent of the U.S. market for certain OTR tires. Conference

transcript, p. 63 (Burchfield). Reportedly, bias and radial tires “are both designed to the same standard, as far as

size. They are interchangeable, and the manufacturing process, at least in the case of Titan, is very similar.” 

Conference transcript, p. 102 (Stettman).

 32 ***. Staff field trip report, BFNA, July 19, 2007. 

I-11

tubeless tire casing. Calendars are also used to coat tire cord fabric or wire with selected rubber

formulations for reinforcement of the tire casing which supports the weight of the vehicle.

Machines called wire winders are used to apply a given rubber batch coating to the bead wire and

wrap it into an exact circular dimension needed to hold the tubeless tire securely to the steel wheel. The

smooth rubber pieces that will eventually become treads and sidewalls are produced with machines called

extruders which force various softened rubber compounds through a die to produce the desired

configurations. 

The next step involves a process known as tire building in which all of the individual components

that make up the tire are assembled, as shown in figure I-2. Certain OTR tire building is typically

performed manually by an employee known as a tire builder who places the various components in

sequence about a horizontally positioned cylindrical drum. The time necessary to complete a single tire

building cycle can vary from a few minutes or longer depending upon the type of tire being assembled. 

The tire builder first positions the bottom interlining about the drum and proceeds sequentially upwards

with the reinforcing tire cord plies, sidewall, and tread stock, ending with the positioning of the bead rims

into each side of the assembly.30 

In bias ply tire building, the tire cord plies are cut at alternating angles around the drum

circumference as the assembly proceeds; otherwise, radial construction involves a straight cut at right

angles.31 The green (uncured) tire assembly is removed from the drum in the form of ***, and positioned

with several others for transfer to the final molding and curing process.32

The final molding and curing process involves the placement of the green tire assembly about a

bladder sleeve in a circular curing press tire mold of the appropriate configuration as shown in figure I-3. 

After the curing press is closed, the bladder is injected with steam and expanded to force the green tire

assembly out against the mold walls. The green tire thus takes on the configuration of the tire mold,

including that of the sidewall, sidewall size designations, and tread type. Vulcanization or curing of the

green tire takes place in the mold at elevated temperature and pressure. Curing times vary widely

depending upon the size of the tire, and may vary nominally from a few minutes to several hours; each

tire model requires its own mold. During vulcanization, the original weak green tire rubber becomes

strong and rigid (thermoset), and will not again soften with heat due to molecular cross-linking or

bonding of the rubber with the sulfur chemical additives. 
I-12

Figure I-3

Curing process

Source: Staff field trip report, BFNA, July 19, 2007, attachment.

Following the molding and curing process, the finished tire is moved to the quality control area

for a final visual and x-ray inspection. The tires that pass inspection are then moved to a warehouse for

storage and shipping. Finished tires are coded to track their whereabouts, and to identify the plant of

manufacture and that of the individual tire builders. 

Channels of Distribution

Certain OTR tires are sold directly to original equipment manufacturers and tire distributors for

the aftermarket. Data compiled in response to Commission questionnaires concerning channels of

distribution are presented in table I-2. As indicated by the data, the majority of U.S. producers’ and

importers’ sales are through the distributor channel.

Table I-2

Certain OTR tires: U.S. producers’ and importers’ shares of reported U.S. shipments, by sources and

channels of distribution, 2004-06, January-March 2006, and January-March 2007

Item

Calendar year January-March

2004 2005 2006 2006 2007

Share of reported shipments, units (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments to:

Distributors 69.2 72.5 67.1 70.0 65.6

End users 30.8 27.5 32.9 30.0 34.4

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of imports from China to:

Distributors 94.6 89.6 87.0 85.8 88.2

End users 5.4 10.4 13.0 14.2 11.8

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of imports from all other countries to:

Distributors 69.5 69.2 67.8 70.2 74.3

End users 30.5 30.8 32.2 29.8 25.7

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
I-13

Price

Table I-3 presents average unit values (“AUVs”) for U.S. shipments of certain OTR tires

produced domestically and imported from China and all other sources, and AUVs of U.S. imports of

nonsubject OTR tires. AUVs for U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments ranged from $176-352 during 2004-06,

U.S. imports from China ranged from $45-122 per tire, and U.S. imports from all other import sources

ranged from $106-582 per tire. The highest unit values for all sources were reported in the

construction/industrial sector. With respect to nonsubject OTR tires, the AUVs of imports of OTR tires

with a rim diameter of 39 inches or more were 20 times greater than the AUVs of all imports of certain

OTR tires, while the AUVs for imports of smaller consumer-type OTR tires were 95 percent below those

of the subject imports during the period of investigation. Pricing practices and prices reported for certain

OTR tires in response to the Commission’s questionnaires are presented in Part V of this report, Pricing

and Related Information.

Table I-3

OTR tires: Average unit values of U.S. shipments and imports, by sources and types, 2004-06

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006

Unit value (per tire)

Certain OTR tires:

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments--

Agricultural/forestry $178 $199 $235

Construction/industrial 248 251 352

Off-the-highway 176 190 267

Average 200 216 266

U.S. imports from--

China:

Agricultural/forestry1 76 76 86

Construction/industrial2 67 74 122

Off-the-highway3 45 41 42

Average 64 67 89

All other sources:

Agricultural/forestry1 106 141 162

Construction/industrial2 265 295 373

Off-the-highway3 235 303 582

Average 177 216 295

Average 123 126 159

Nonsubject OTR tires–U.S. imports:

Rim width > 39 inches 3,090 2,715 3,175

Consumer (< $20 per tire) 5.97 6.47 6.41

1

 Includes HTS subheadings 4011.61 and 401.92.

2

 Includes HTS subheadings 4011.62, 4011.63, 4011.93.40, 4011.94.40, 4011.93.80, and 4011.94.80.

3

 Includes HTS statistical reported numbers 4011.20.1025, 4011.20.1035, 4011.20.5030, and 4011.20.5050.

Note: AUVs for U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments do not reconcile with the corresponding data presented in tables III-5 and C-1 due to

internal reporting inconsistencies between different sections of the questionnaire responses.

Source: Tables III-6, IV-3, and D-1 (pp. D-5-D-6).
 
 1

 Petitioner’s postconference brief, pp. 10-11.

 2

 Ralph Burchfield, President, Off-Road Tire at BFNA reported that BFNA charges a premium for its tires based

upon a strong reputation for quality. Conference transcript, p. 84 (Burchfield).

 3

 Conference transcript, p. 28 (Hawkins). 

 4

 Ibid.

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET SEGMENTS/CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

Certain OTR tires are used on a wide range of vehicles and equipment including those used in 

agricultural and forestry (e.g. agricultural tractors, combine harvesters, agricultural high clearance

sprayers, industrial tractors, log-skidders, agricultural implements, highway-towed implements,

agricultural logging, and agricultural, industrial, skid-steer/mini-loaders); construction vehicles and

equipment (e.g earthmover articulated dump trucks and rigid frame haul trucks, front end loaders, dozers,

lift trucks, straddle carriers, graders, mobile cranes, compactors); and industrial vehicles and equipment

(e.g smooth floor industrial, mining, counterbalanced lift trucks, industrial and mining vehicles other than

smooth floor, skid-steers/mini-loaders, and smooth off-the road counterbalanced lift trucks).1

 

In addition to different categories of end uses, the market is differentiated to some extent by

brand names in which certain companies typically charge a higher price than others.2

 Certain OTR tires

are also divided into other segments including the original equipment market “OEM” and the aftermarket

or replacement market. Reportedly, the replacement market is much larger than the original equipment

market, accounting for about 66 percent of total sales.3

 U.S. producers and importers of certain OTR tires

from China compete for sales in both market segments. Evidence presented at the conference indicates

that there are many distributors of tires in the replacement market in the United States ranging in size

from small local distributors to larger regional distributors and finally to the largest distributors that have

outlets nationwide.4

 

For U.S. producers, the share of sales to distributors ranged from a low of about 67 percent in

2006 to a high of about 73 percent in 2005, with the remainder going directly to end users. During

January-March 2007, the share going to distributors was about 66 percent. For importers of product from

China, the share of sales to distributors ranged from a low of about 87 percent in 2006 to a high of about

95 percent in 2004, with the remainder going directly to end users. During January-March 2007, the

share going to distributors was about 88 percent.

All seven U.S. producers and the majority of importers sell certain OTR tires nationally. Among

importers, 22 market nationally, one sells only in the Midwest, Northeast and Southeast, and another sells

only in the Southeast, the Midwest, and the West Coast. 

The majority of producers and importers reported that the largest share of their sales are made

from items in inventories rather than produced to order. Among producers, the lead times for delivery of

items in inventories ranges from 2 to 10 days. For items that are specially ordered, producers’ lead times

are as long as 12 weeks. Among importers that sell from inventory, delivery lead times typically range

from 1 to 10 days. For items produced to order, lead times can be as long as 6 months. 

U.S. Supply

Some importers have reported that broad categories of certain OTR tires have been in short

supply. They have attributed the shortages to an increased demand in the United States and in global

markets including China. They have further argued that U.S. producers have been unable to meet the
 5

 See GPX, Ghizhou, Strategic Import Supply, Tire Engineering and Distribution importer questionnaires, and

Conference transcript, p. 17 (Weymouth).

 6

 See Petitioner’s posthearing brief, p.8 and Conference transcript, p. 122 (Hawkins).

 7

 Petitioner’s postconference brief Exh. 4. 

II-2

high levels of demand.5

 The petitioners have stated that there has been a shortage of tires used for mining

and earthmoving equipment. However, they have argued that those tires in short supply are outside the

scope of the investigations.6

 

Domestic supply responsiveness depends upon such factors as the level of industry capacity

utilization, the level of inventories, the availability of export markets, and the flexibility of shifting

production equipment to other products.

 The available data suggest that the certain OTR tire industry is likely to have a high degree of

flexibility in expanding output and U.S. shipments in response to an increase in price. The main factors

contributing to this degree of supply responsiveness are low industry capacity utilization rates and high

ratios of inventories to shipments. U.S. producers’ capacity utilization rates ranged from a low of 37

percent in 2006 to a high of 51 percent in 2005. The ratio of U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories to

their total shipments ranged from a high of 26 percent in 2006 to a low of 16 percent in 2005. During

January-March 2007 the ratio was 20 percent. U.S. producers’ export shipments, as a percentage of total

shipments ranged from a low of 12 percent in 2004 to a high of 17 percent in 2006. During JanuaryMarch 2007, the ratio was 15 percent. 

All seven U.S. producers reported that they have manufactured other products using some of the

equipment used to manufacture certain OTR tires. These products include OTR tires with a rim diameter

of 39 inches or more, truck tires, lawn and garden tires, all terrain vehicle tires, and trailer tires.

Subject Imports

The supply responsiveness of the Chinese industry to changes in price in the U.S. market is likely

to depend upon such factors as capacity utilization rates in China, the availability of home markets, other

export markets besides the United States, and inventory levels. The evidence relating to capacity

utilization rates, alternative markets, and inventory levels indicates that China has some flexibility for

expanding exports to the United States in response to a change in price. The Chinese industry reported a

capacity utilization rate of 91 percent in 2004, 92 percent in 2005, and 88 percent in 2006. The projected

capacity utilization rate is 91 percent for both 2007 and 2008. The Chinese industry’s combined

shipments to its home market and to export markets other than the United States consistently amounted to

77 percent of its total shipments annually during 2004-06. It projects that these combined shipments will

amount to about 82 percent of the total annually in both 2007 and 2008. The industry’s inventories in

relation to shipments amounted to 15 percent in 2004, 10 percent in 2004, and 9 percent in 2006. Its

projected ratio of inventories to shipments is 9 percent in both 2007 and 2008. 

U.S. Demand

Since certain OTR tires are used principally in vehicles used in the agricultural, construction, and

industrial applications, the overall demand in the United States for certain OTR tires depends upon

demand in those industries. Annual data for the period 1992-2005 show that manufacturers shipments of

farm machinery, construction machinery, and industrial machinery have all increased substantially in

value terms over this period, contributing to an overall increase in demand for certain OTR tires during

this period.7

 There is evidence that demand for certain OTR tires tends to be cyclical and normally tracks

trends in U.S. farming and mining sectors with sales increasing as the farm economy and commodity
 8

 Conference transcript p. 42 (Burchfield).

 9

 Conference transcript p. 184 (Ganz).

II-3

prices increase.8

 It has also been argued that there are long-term global trends that have had an effect on

the agricultural and mining sectors.9

 

The overall demand for OTR tires, as measured by apparent consumption fluctuated during the

period rising from 8.0 million tires in 2004 to 9.3 million in 2005, and then falling back to 8.2 million in 

2006. During January-March 2007, apparent consumption was 2.0 million tires as compared to 2.2

million in the same period in 2006.

When asked whether demand in the United States has increased, remained the same or decreased

since January 1, 2004, responses were varied among producers while the majority of importers reported

that demand had increased. Of the seven U.S. producers, three firms stated that demand had increased,

one stated that it had remained unchanged, one reported that it had decreased (from its own company’s

perspective), one reported that demand was varied in different market sectors during the period, and one

firm reported that it was not familiar with overall trends in demand. Among importers, 14 reported that

demand had increased, 2 reported that it was unchanged, 4 reported that it had decreased, and 4 reported

that they were not familiar with trends in demand. Among producers and importers reporting increases in

demand in the United States several factors were cited including a strong economy and increased road

construction and repairs and military and mining spending. One firm reported that farm income has been

strong during the period covered and this has resulted in increased spending on new equipment with a

resulting increase in demand for agricultural tires. In addition, high commodity prices for oil, copper,

iron, gold and silver have resulted in increased demand for mining vehicles. 

The sensitivity of the overall demand for certain OTR tires in the United States to changes in

price depends upon such factors as availability of substitutes and the cost of these tires in final end use

products. Available evidence suggests that this demand is relatively insensitive to changes in prices.

Substitute Products

When asked whether other products can be substituted for OTR tires, the majority of

questionnaire respondents answered no. Among producers, one firm reported that retread tires can be

used as substitutes, and another reported that tracks can be substituted for tires on skid steers. However,

the other five producers reported that substitutes are not available. Among importers, one firm reported

that solid, semi-solid, and retread tires are all viable substitutes and another reported that tires with tubes

can be substituted for tubeless tires. None of the other 22 importers listed any substitutes. 

Cost Share

When producers and importers were asked to estimate the cost share of OTR tires in end-use

products where they are used, most firms that provided estimates indicated that these amounts are small. 

One producer estimated that it amounts to no more than 5 percent of the cost of a vehicle where it is used. 

Among importers, one firm estimated that it amounts to 2 to 5 percent of the cost of mining equipment,

and another firm estimated that it amounts to 6 to 7 percent of the cost of mechanized irrigation

equipment. A third importer reported that the cost share of OTR tires is 3 percent in agricultural and

forestry, 2 percent in industrial, and 1 percent in mining. 
II-4

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported ceratin OTR tires depends upon such

factors as relative prices, quality, and conditions of sale lead times between order and delivery dates,

payment terms, product services, etc. Based on available data, it is likely that there is some

substitutability between U.S.-produced certain OTR tires and imported certain OTR tires from China. 

Comparisons of Domestic Products, Subject Imports, and Nonsubject Imports

In order to determine whether U.S.-produced OTR tires can generally be used in the same

applications as imports from China and nonsubject sources, producers and importers were asked whether

the product can “always,” “frequently,”“sometimes,” or “never” be used interchangeably. As shown in

table II-1, a majority of questionnaire respondents reported that the products are always or frequently

interchangeable.

Table II-1

Certain OTR tires: Interchangeability of product from the United States and subject and nonsubject sources1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers

AFSN0AFSN 0

U.S. vs. China 5 0 1 0 1 6 5 7 0 6

U.S. vs. Nonsubject 5 0 1 0 1 6 5 7 0 6

China vs. Nonsubject 4 0 1 0 2 6 3 6 0 9

 1 Producers and importers, were asked if certain OTR tires produced in the United States and in other countries are used

interchangeably.

Note: “A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, “N” = Never, and “0” = No familiarity.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

One U.S. producer that classified the products from China as sometimes interchangeable with

U.S.-produced tires reported that in the cases of certain tires that must perform at high speeds, only a few

Chinese factories have the ability to build this product at an acceptable quality level. One importer

reported that the products that it imports from China are unique, highly engineered products that are not

interchangeable with any U.S.-produced product. One importer reported that the top-tier brands of tires

available in the United States do not compete with Chinese “value” brands. This importer also reported

that China does not export large radial tires to the United States. Another importer that sells virtually all

of its OTR tires as a part of an integrated irrigation system reported that it has switched from Titan to

imports from China as a result of the high failure rate of Titan tires. 

In addition to questions concerning interchangeability, producers and importers were also asked

to compare U.S.-produced products with imports from China and nonsubject imports in terms of product

differences other than price such as quality, availability, product range, and other characteristics, as a

factor in their sales of certain OTR tires. Six of seven producers reported that the differences are

sometimes or never significant (table II-2). Among the importers that responded to this question, the

responses were varied between always, frequently, sometimes, and never.

One producer reported that U.S. producers have an advantage over imports from China and other

import sources in availability, transportation, and technical support. One importer reported that its

imports from China have an advantage in product performance, reliability of supply, and customer

service. Another importer reported that the domestic products have the advantage of availability as

compared to imports from China with longer lead times. U.S. producers also offer a wider range of

products than importers. This importer also reported that domestic producers often offer rebates and more

attractive payment terms than importers, which makes the net price of the imports approximately the same
II-5

as the price of U.S. producers. In comparing imports from China with competition in other markets, one

firm reported that imports from China are at a disadvantage in Europe because of the brand name

premium enjoyed by Michelin in that market, and are also at a disadvantage in Japan because of the brand

name premium for Bridgestone tires in that market.

Table II-2

Certain OTR tires: U.S. producers’ and importers’ perceived importance of factors other than price in sales

of products produced in the United States and in other countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers

AFSN0AFSN 0

U.S. vs. China 0 0 4 2 1 9 3 5 1 6

U.S. vs. Nonsubject 0 0 5 1 1 9 3 6 0 6

China vs. Nonsubject 0 1 3 0 3 9 3 4 0 8

 1 Producers and importers, were asked if differences other than price between certain OTR tires produced in the United States

and in other countries are a significant factor in their firms’ sales of certain OTR tires .

Note: “A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, “N” = Never, and “0” = No familiarity.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 
 1

 Petition, pp. 25-26 and amendment to the petition, June 22, 2007, attach. 1.

 2

 The petition also identified Trelleborg Wheel Systems and GPX International Tire Corporation as possible U.S.

producers of the subject product. Both firms responded to the Commission’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire

indicating that they did not produce certain OTR tires in the United States since January 1, 2004. The firms reported

***. Importer questionnaire responses, section II-4.

 3

 Production of subject OTR tires in both units and pounds were *** percent of total tires produced for the ***

largest certain OTR tire producers, ***, during the period of investigation. For ***, production consisted of ***. 

See table III-4.

III-1

PART III: U.S. PRODUCERS’ PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, 

AND EMPLOYMENT

U.S. PRODUCERS

The Commission sent producer questionnaires to all firms identified in the petition as domestic

producers of certain OTR tires.1

 The Commission received completed producer questionnaire responses

from seven firms accounting for all known U.S. production of certain OTR tires during the period of

investigation.2

 Table III-1 presents U.S. producers’ positions on the petition, plant locations, shares of

total reported U.S. production in 2006, ownership, and affiliated foreign producers of certain OTR tires. 

U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization data for certain OTR tires are

presented in table III-2. These data show that capacity remained steady during 2004 to 2006 with

capacity utilization rates ranging from 37.1 to 58.8 percent when considering both number of tires and

weight. Average production weight increased by 14 percent during 2004 to 2006.

All U.S. producers reported production of nonsubject tires on some of the same machinery and

equipment used to produce certain OTR tires. As shown in tables III-3 and III-4, production of subject

OTR tires accounted for *** percent of total tire production from 2004 to 2006 based on units and ***

percent based on weight.3

 *** firms reported production of nonsubject OTR tires with a rim diameter

greater than 39 inches, which accounted for *** percent in units and *** percent in weight of total tires

produced.
III-2

Table III-1

Certain OTR tires: U.S. producers, positions on the petition, plant locations, shares of total reported U.S.

production in 2006, ownership, and affiliated foreign producers

Firm 

Position on

petition

U.S. plant 

location(s)

Share of 2006

production

(percent) Parent firm(s) Affiliated foreign producers

BFNA Supports

Des Moines, IA

Bloomington, IL ***

Bridgestone Americas

Holding, Inc.

Bridgestone Corporation (Japan); P.T.

Bridgestone Tire Indonesia; Bridgestone

Firestone de Mexico, S.A. de CV;

Bridgestone South Africa Holdings (Pty)

Ltd.; and Bridgestone Hispania, S.A.

(Spain)

Carlisle Opposes Aiken, SC ***

Carlisle Companies,

Inc. None

Denman Supports Leavittsburg, OH *** Pensler Capital Corp. None

Goodyear1 ***

Akron, OH

Fort Smith, AR ***

Goodyear Tire &

Rubber Co.

Nippon Giant Tire K.K. (Japan); P.T.

Goodyear Indonesia Tbk.; Goodyear do

Brasil Productos de Borracha Ltd.; and

Goodyear S.A. (Luxembourg)

Michelin *** Greenville, SC *** Michelin Corporation

Michelin North America (Canada) Inc.;

Manufacture Franqaise des

Pneumatiques Michelin (France);

Michelin Hungaria Tyre Manufacture Ltd.

(Hungary); Michelin Polska S.A.

(Poland); Silvania S.A. (Romania); and

Michelin Espaiia Portugal, S.A. (Spain) 

Specialty Supports

Indiana, PA

Unicoi, TN ***

Polymer Enterprises,

Inc. None

Titan2

Supports

(petitioner)

Des Moines, IA

Freeport, IL

Bryan, OH *** Titan International, Inc. None

 1 Goodyear sold its American farm tire plant and assets located in Freeport, IL to Titan for approximately $100 million in cash proceeds

on December 28, 2005.

 2

 In addition to the Goodyear assets acquired on December 28, 2005 (see footnote 2), Titan acquired Continental Tire North America’s

construction plant and assets located in Bryan, OH for approximately $53 million in cash proceeds on July 31, 2006. The data provided by

Titan in response to the Commission’s producer and importer questionnaires include estimates for the Goodyear and Continental

operations prior to acquisition by Titan. Petition, p. 17, fn. 6 and letter from Stewart and Stewart, July 12, 2007.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
III-3

Table III-2

Certain OTR tires: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2004-06, January-March 2006, and

January-March 2007

Item

Calendar year January-March Calendar year January-March

2004 2005 2006 2006 2007 2004 2005 2006 2006 2007

Capacity (1,000 tires) Capacity (1,000 pounds)

BFNA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Carlisle *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Denman *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Goodyear *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Michelin *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Specialty *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Titan *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 10,137 10,142 10,180 2,504 2,600 1,090,773 1,087,203 1,081,971 277,287 276,764

Production (1,000 tires) Production (1,000 pounds)

BFNA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Carlisle *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Denman *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Goodyear *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Michelin *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Specialty *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Titan *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 4,692 5,191 3,773 1,060 959 553,060 639,571 509,452 142,006 149,755

Capacity utilization (percent)

BFNA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Carlisle *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Denman *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Goodyear *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Michelin *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Specialty *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Titan *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Average 46.3 51.2 37.1 42.3 36.9 50.7 58.8 47.1 51.2 54.1

Average production weight (pounds per tire)

BFNA *** *** *** *** ***

Carlisle *** *** *** *** ***

Denman *** *** *** *** ***

Goodyear *** *** *** *** ***

Michelin *** *** *** *** ***

Specialty *** *** *** *** ***

Titan *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 118 123 135 134 156

 1 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 4

 U.S. producers assert that any shortage of U.S.-produced OTR tires was related to excluded large earthmoving

and mining tires, or resulted from *** of subject OTR tires which were generally eliminated by the end of 2006. 

Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 8 and exh. 20; and BFNA postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 4. Chinese

respondents argue that there has been a critical shortage of OTR tires since 2004 and that the “OTR tire shortage was

nation-wide, extensive (encompassing numerous tire sizes and models), and long lasting” and submitted statements

and press releases to this effect. Chinese respondents’ postconference brief, pp. 14-18 and exhs. 15-19.

III-4

Table III-3

Tires: U.S. producers’ total plant capacity and production, by products, 2004-06, January-March

2006, and January-March 2007

* * * * * * *

Table III-4

Tires: Production of tires using the same machinery and equipment, by firms, 2006

* * * * * * *

Several U.S. firms cited production curtailments due to a variety of factors such as Hurricane

Katrina, a workers’ strike, and inability to compete with China. The curtailments are listed below:4

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ SHIPMENTS

Table III-5 presents information on U.S. producers’ shipments of certain OTR tires. U.S.

producers’ U.S. shipments fell from 2004 to 2006 by 28.1 percent based on units, while the average unit

value increased by 38.0 percent and unit weight increased by 16.5 percent. The trend toward larger tires

continued during January-March 2007 when compared to January-March 2006. U.S. producers’ exports

increased their share of total shipments in units from 10.5 to 14.4 percent during 2004-06. This share

declined to 13.1 percent in units during interim 2007 when compared to the same period in 2006.
III-5

Table III-5

Certain OTR tires: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2004-06, January-March 2006, and January-March

2007

Item

Calendar year January-March

2004 2005 2006 2006 2007

Quantity (1,000 tires)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms1 *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments2 4,266 4,165 3,070 902 894

Export shipments3 500 653 517 146 135

Total shipments 4,766 4,818 3,587 1,048 1,029

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms1 *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments2 463,593 497,971 389,674 111,941 141,666

Export shipments3 65,170 77,905 67,310 18,217 19,743

Total shipments 528,763 575,875 456,984 130,158 161,409

Value (1,000 dollars)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms1 *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments2 855,902 915,271 850,062 246,754 265,778

Export shipments3 139,110 162,458 160,403 39,634 39,402

Total shipments 995,013 1,077,729 1,010,465 286,388 305,180

Unit value (per tire)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms1 *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments2 201 220 277 274 297

Export shipments3 278 249 310 272 291

Total shipments 209 224 282 273 297

Unit weight (pounds per tire)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms1 *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments2 109 120 127 124 159

Export shipments3 130 119 130 125 146

Total shipments 111 120 128 124 157

Table continued on next page.
III-6

Table III-5--Continued

Certain OTR tires: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2004-06, January-March 2006, and January-March

2007

Item

Calendar year January-March

2004 2005 2006 2006 2007

Share of quantity, units (percent)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms1 *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments2 89.5 86.4 85.6 86.1 86.9

Export shipments3 10.5 13.6 14.4 13.9 13.1

Total shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of quantity, weight (percent)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms1 *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments2 87.7 86.5 85.3 86.0 87.8

Export shipments3 12.3 13.5 14.7 14.0 12.2

Total shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms1 *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments2 86.0 84.9 84.1 86.2 87.1

Export shipments3 14.0 15.1 15.9 13.8 12.9

Total shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 ***.

 2

 With respect to military/Buy America sales, ***. 

 3

 Export destinations included Canada, Mexico, Latin America, South Africa, and Australia.

 4

 Not applicable; weight not reported.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 5

 Comparative data for U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and U.S. imports by end-use application are presented in

app. E, table E-1.

III-7

Table III-6 presents information on U.S. producers’ shipments of certain OTR tires by end-use

application. The majority of U.S. shipments were for agricultural/forestry applications which accounted

for 72 percent based on quantity and 57 percent based on value of total U.S. shipments during 2006. 

During 2006, the larger-size tires in each of the categories accounted for 20 percent of total U.S.

shipments by quantity and 42 percent based on value, while smaller-size tires accounted for 28 percent of

quantity and 12 percent of value.5

Table III-6

Certain OTR tires: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, by types, 2004-06

Item Calendar year

2004 2005 2006

Quantity (1,000 tires)

Agricultural/forestry:

Herringbone or similar tread *** *** ***

Not herringbone >= 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Not herringbone < 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Subtotal 2,807 2,671 2,356

Construction/industrial:

Herringbone < 61 cm (24") *** *** ***

Herringbone >= 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") *** *** ***

Radial less than 61 cm (24") *** *** ***

Radial >= to 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") *** *** ***

Other < 61 cm (24") *** *** ***

Other >= 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") *** *** ***

Subtotal 1,384 1,468 851

Off-the-highway:

Radial >= 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Radial < 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Other >= 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Other < 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Subtotal 167 189 83

Other 000

Total 4,358 4,327 3,291

Table continued on next page.
III-8

Table III-6-Continued

Certain OTR tires: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, by type, 2004-06

Item Calendar year

2004 2005 2006

Value ($1,000)

Agricultural/forestry:

Herringbone or similar tread *** *** ***

Not herringbone >= 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Not herringbone < 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Subtotal 500,807 531,188 554,546

Construction/industrial:

Herringbone < 61 cm (24") *** *** ***

Herringbone >= 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") *** *** ***

Radial less than 61 cm (24") *** *** ***

Radial >= to 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") *** *** ***

Other < 61 cm (24") *** *** ***

Other >= 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") *** *** ***

Subtotal 343,032 368,608 299,801

Off-the-highway:

Radial >= 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Radial < 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Other >= 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Other < 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Subtotal 29,448 35,753 22,210

Other 000

Total 873,287 935,549 876,558

Unit value (per tire)

Agricultural/forestry:

Herringbone or similar tread *** *** ***

Not herringbone >= 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Not herringbone < 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Average 178 199 235

Construction/industrial:

Herringbone < 61 cm (24") *** *** ***

Herringbone >= 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") *** *** ***

Radial less than 61 cm (24") *** *** ***

Radial >= to 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") *** *** ***

Other < 61 cm (24") *** *** ***

Other >= 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") *** *** ***

Average 248 251 352

Off-the-highway:

Radial >= 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Radial < 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Other >= 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Other < 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Average 176 190 267

Other (

1

) (1) (1)

Average 200 216 266

Table continued on next page.
III-9

Table III-6-Continued

Certain OTR tires: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, by type, 2004-06

Item Calendar year

2004 2005 2006

Share of quantity (percent)

Agricultural/forestry:

Herringbone or similar tread *** *** ***

Not herringbone >= 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Not herringbone < 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Subtotal 64.4 61.7 71.6

Construction/industrial:

Herringbone < 61 cm (24") *** *** ***

Herringbone >= 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") *** *** ***

Radial less than 61 cm (24") *** *** ***

Radial >= to 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") *** *** ***

Other < 61 cm (24") *** *** ***

Other >= 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") *** *** ***

Subtotal 31.8 33.9 25.9

Off-the-highway:

Radial >= 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Radial < 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Other >= 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Other < 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Subtotal 3.8 4.4 2.5

Other 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

Agricultural/forestry:

Herringbone or similar tread *** *** ***

Not herringbone >= 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Not herringbone < 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Subtotal 57.3 56.8 63.3

Construction/industrial:

Herringbone < 61 cm (24") *** *** ***

Herringbone >= 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") *** *** ***

Radial less than 61 cm (24") *** *** ***

Radial >= to 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") *** *** ***

Other < 61 cm (24") *** *** ***

Other >= 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") *** *** ***

Subtotal 39.3 39.4 34.2

Off-the-highway:

Radial >= 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Radial < 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Other >= 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Other < 40.6 cm (16") *** *** ***

Subtotal 3.4 3.8 2.5

Other 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 1

 Not applicable.

Note: Total U.S. shipment data reported above do not reconcile with the corresponding data presented in tables III-5 and C-1 due to

internal reporting inconsistencies between different sections of the questionnaire responses.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 6

 No U.S. producer reported purchases of imports from any source during the period of investigation.

 7

 The chairman of Denman stated that one of Denman’s business strategies is to import subject OTR tires from

China because it cannot manufacture them at the same price as its purchases from China. He noted that, “sometimes

we receive pricing that is below our material cost from the Chinese producers.” Conference transcript, pp. 49-50

(Pensler).

III-10

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS6

During the period of investigation, *** of seven U.S. producers reported imports of certain OTR

tires, *** Denman reported imports from China.7

 *** imported certain OTR tires from their affiliated

firms in countries other than China. Table III-7 presents company-specific information on U.S.

producers’ imports and ratios of imports to production of certain OTR tires.

Table III-7

Certain OTR tires: U.S. producers' U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratio of imports to

production, 2004-06, January-March 2006, and January-March 2007

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Table III-8 presents end-of-period inventories for certain OTR tires during the period of

investigation. The data based on units indicate that inventories grew by 21.3 percent from 2004 to 2006. 

Likewise, inventories as a ratio to production, to U.S. shipments, and to total shipments also rose from

2004 to 2006. However, inventories declined by 11.1 percent between January-March 2006 and JanuaryMarch 2007.

Table III-8

Certain OTR tires: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2004-06, January-March 2006, and JanuaryMarch 2007

Item

Calendar year January-March

2004 2005 2006 2006 2007

Units

Inventories (1,000 tires) 769 969 933 920 818

Ratio of inventories to production (percent) 16.4 18.7 24.7 21.7 21.3

Ratio of inventories to U.S. shipments (percent) 18.0 23.3 30.4 25.5 22.9

Ratio of inventories to total shipments (percent) 16.1 20.1 26.0 21.9 19.9

Weight

Inventories (1,000 pounds) 66,422 95,186 113,603 77,841 89,872

Ratio of inventories to production (percent) 12.0 14.9 22.3 13.7 15.0

Ratio of inventories to U.S. shipments (percent) 14.3 19.1 29.2 17.4 15.9

Ratio of inventories to total shipments (percent) 12.6 16.5 24.9 15.0 13.9

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
III-11

U.S. PRODUCERS’ EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

Table III-9 presents data on U.S. producers’ employment-related indicia. Employment of

production and related workers (“PRWs”) in the U.S. certain OTR tires industry declined by 8.2 percent

from 2004 to 2006. The largest employers in this industry were BFNA and Titan, accounting for ***

percent of all certain OTR tire employees in 2006. 

Table III-9

Certain OTR tires: U.S. producers’ employment-related indicators, 2004-06, January-March 2006, and

January-March 2007

Item

Calendar year January-March

2004 2005 2006 2006 2007

Production and related workers (PRWs) 4,325 4,300 3,972 4,056 3,884

Hours worked by PRWs (1,000 hours) 8,507 8,541 8,018 2,104 1,975

Wages paid to PRWs (1,000 dollars) 246,516 250,072 231,252 58,784 56,533

Hourly wages $28.98 $29.28 $28.84 $27.94 $28.63

Productivity:

Tires per hour 0.55 0.61 0.47 0.50 0.49

Pounds per hour 65.0 74.9 63.5 67.5 75.8

Unit labor costs:

Per tire $52.54 $48.18 $61.29 $55.44 $58.96

Per pound $0.45 $0.39 $0.45 $0.41 $0.38

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 
 1

 Ten firms *** reported that they did not import the subject merchandise during the period of investigation.

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION, 

AND MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

In response to Commission questionnaires sent to 50 importers in these investigations, 25 firms

supplied usable data.1

 Presented in table IV-1 are the responding 25 U.S. importers and estimates of their

shares of imports of certain OTR tires from China during 2006.

Table IV-1

Certain OTR tires: U.S. importers, locations, related and/or affiliated firms, and shares of imports from China in 2006

Firm name Location Related/affiliated firm(s)

Share of 

imports from China1

(percent)

American Kenda Rubber

Ind., Co. (“American

Kenda”) Chicago, IL ***1

 ***2 ***

American Pacific

Industries, Inc. (“API”) Valencia, CA None. ***

Bridgestone Firestone

North American Tire,

LLC 

Nashville,

TN

Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc.2

Bridgestone Corporation (Japan)4

Bridgestone Firestone Argentina S.A.I.C. (Argentina)4

Bridgestone Firestone Do Brasil Industria E Comercio Ltda. (Brazil)4

Bridgestone Firestone De Costa Rica, S.A. (Costa Rica)4

P.T. Bridgestone Tire Indonesia (Indonesia)4

Bridgestone Firestone de Mexico, S.A. DE C.V. (Mexico)4

Bridgestone South Africa Holdings (Pty) Ltd. (South Africa)4

Bridgestone Hispania, S.A. (Spain)4

Brisa Bridgestone Sabanci Lastik Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. (Turkey)4 (

3

)

Bridgestone Firestone

Retail and Commercial

Operations, LLC (dba

GCR Tire Centers) 

(“GCR Tire”) Austin, TX

Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc.2

Bridgestone Corporation (Japan)4

Bridgestone Firestone Argentina S.A.I.C. (Argentina)4

Bridgestone Firestone Do Brasil Industria E Comercio Ltda. (Brazil)4

Bridgestone Firestone De Costa Rica, S.A. (Costa Rica)4

P.T. Bridgestone Tire Indonesia (Indonesia)4

Bridgestone Firestone de Mexico, S.A. DE C.V. (Mexico)4

Bridgestone South Africa Holdings (Pty) Ltd. (South Africa)4

Bridgestone Hispania, S.A. (Spain)4

Brisa Bridgestone Sabanci Lastik Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. (Turkey)4 (

3

)

CGS Tires US, Inc.

(“CGS”)

Charlotte,

NC Ceska Gumarenska Spolencnosj, a.s. (The Czech Republic)2 ***

Cheng Shin Rubber USA

(dba Maxxis International

USA) (“Maxxis”)

Suwanee,

GA

Cheng Shin Rubber Ind., Co., Ltd. (Taiwan) (“Cheng Shin”)2

Cheng Shin Toyo Tire & Rubber Ind., Co., Ltd. (China)4

Cheng Shin=Petrel Tire Co., Ltd. (China)4 ***

China Manufacturers

Alliance, LLC (“CMA”)

Monrovia,

CA

Shanghai Tyre & Rubber Co., Ltd. (China)2 6

International New Market Investment Ltd.6

Shanghai Tyre & Rubber Rugao Group, Ltd.4

Shanghai Dong Hai Rubber Factory 4 ***

Continental Tire North

America, Inc.

(“Continental Tire”)

Charlotte,

NC None. ***

Denman Tire Corporation

Leavittsburg,

OH ***7 ***

Foreign Tire Sales

(“Foreign Tire”) Union, NJ None. ***

Goodyear Tire & Rubber

Company Akron, OH The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company2 ***

Table continued on next page.
IV-2

Table IV-1--Continued

Certain OTR tires: U.S. importers, locations, related and/or affiliated firms, and shares of imports from China in 2006

Firm name Location Related and/or affiliated firms

Share of 

imports from China1

(percent)

GPX International Tire

Corporation Malden, MA

Sterling Investment Partners, LP8

Hebei StarBright Tire Co., Ltd. (China)4

Rumaguma a.d. Ruma (Serbia)4 ***

Guizhou Tyre I/E Corp.

North America9

Gyiyan,

Guizhou

Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd. (China)2

Tire Engineerign & Distribution4 ***

Hercules Tire & Rubber

Co. (“Hercules Tire”) Findlay, OH None. ***

Michelin North America

(“Michelin”)

Greenville,

SC

Michelin Corporation2

Michelin North America (Canada) Inc. (Canada)4

Manufacture Francaise des Pneumatiques Michelin (France)4

Michelin Hungaria Tyre Manufacture Ltd. (Hungary)4

Michelin Polska S.A. (Poland)4

Silvania S.A. (Romania)4

Michelin Espana Portugal, S.A. (Portugal)4 ***

Nokian Tyres, Inc.

(“Nokian Tyres”)

LaVergne,

TN Nokian Tyres2 ***

OTR Wheel Engineering,

Inc. (“OTR Wheel”) Rome, GA Blackstone OTR, LLC.2 ***

Solideal USA (“Solideal”)

Charlotte,

NC

Swan International2

World Tyres Ltd. (Hong Kong)4

Loadstar (Sri Lanka)4 ***

Tire Engineering &

Distribution, Inc. (“Tire

Engineering”)

Massillon,

OH Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd. (China)2 ***

Titan Tire Corporation

Des Moines,

IA None. (

3

)

Toyo Tire International,

Inc. (“Toyo”) Cypress, CA

Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. (Japan)2

Nippon Giant Tire Co., Ltd. (Japan)4 ***

Trelleborg Wheel

Systems Americas, Inc.

(“Trelleborg”) Hartville, OH

Trelleborg Corporation2

Trelleborg Wheel Systems (Italy)4 ***

Tyres International, Inc.

(“Tyres International”) Stow, OH None. ***

Valmont Industries, Inc.

(“Valmont”) Omaha, NE None. ***

Total 41.86

 1 Shares of merchandise from China are derived from importers’ questionnaires’ imports from China divided by the adjusted imports from China

for 2006.

 2

 Parent.

 3

 Not applicable. No imports from China.

 4

 Affliate.

 5

 ***.

 6

 ***. 

 7 ***.

 8

 *** owns an estimated *** percent.

 9 ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and official Commerce statistics, adjusted.
 2

 With respect to the question of negligible imports (section 771(24)(A)(i) of the Act), the share of total imports

of certain OTR tires from China during the most recent 12-month period for which data are available that precedes

the filing of the petition (June 2006 through May 2007), was well above the 3-percent negligibility threshold.

 3

 Detailed data relating to the adjustments are presented in app. D, and result in a volume estimate of 3.4 million

certain OTR tire imports from China during 2006. Counsel for Chinese respondents argued that a “reliable volume

estimate of 2006 subject imports is 1.4 million units” and asserted that because the data submitted in response to the

Commission’s foreign producer questionnaire account for a “very high proportion” of the 1.4 million units, the

Commission should rely on the foreign producer questionnaire data as representative. Chinese respondents

postconference brief, pp. 9-11. However, Chinese respondents did not address the question of whether or how to

adjust official import statistics for imports from sources other than China. In an effort to apply the same

methodology to OTR imports from both China and nonsubject sources, import data in this report are presented based

on the adjustment methodology outlined in the tabulation.

IV-3

U.S. IMPORTS

U.S. import data presented in this report for certain OTR tires are based on official import

statistics adjusted to exclude small and large nonsubject tire imports.2

 Adjustments for the nonsubject

tires result in a 71 percent decrease in the number of imports of certain OTR tires and a 16 percent

reduction in landed, duty-paid value for 2006, and are explained below:3

Excluded products Data source

Deductions from official statistics for

2006 

Quantity 

(1,000 tires)

Value;

landed,

duty-paid 

($1,000)

Unit value

(per tire)

OTR tires with a rim diameter

exceeding 39 inches (i.e., having an

average weight greater than 1,500

pounds)

Census IM145 statistics1

 (using vessel

shipping weight, by statistical month

and entry district)

24 76,231 $3,175.25

OTR tires for retail consumer use

(i.e., having an average unit LDP

value of less than $20)2

1) Importer questionnaire responses of

seven firms reporting that their imports

of OTR tires during the period of

investigation were nonsubject and 2)

proprietary Customs data (detailed

entry-by-entry analysis for the

remaining firms)

8,707

3,971

56,624

24,599

6.50

6.19

Total/average 12,702 157,454 12.40

1 U.S. Imports for Consumption and General Imports (HTSUS Commodity by Country-of-Origin). Bureau of the Census. 2

 Petitioners proposed that adjustments to official import statistics for smaller nonsubject OTR tires be made by using

IM 145 statistics to exclude product with a vessel shipping weight of less than 15 pounds per tire. In order to utilize the detailed entry-byentry proprietary data from Customs (which does not include weight), data from the IM 145 database were used to calculate an equivalent

average unit value for a 15-pound tire; $20 was a conservative estimate of the average unit value of small nonsubject OTR tires. 

Table IV-2 details U.S. imports, by sources, for 2004 to 2006, January-March 2006, and JanuaryMarch 2007. The U.S. import data for China show an increase both in volume and value in each year

between 2004 and 2006, rising 90.6 percent by volume and 168.0 percent by value over the period. 

Between January-March 2006 and January-March 2007, volume declined by 7.9 percent and value rose

by 17.5 percent. Unit values of certain OTR tires imported from China grew steadily from $63.50 per tire

in 2004 to $89.28 in 2006. Further, unit values increased to $82.67 per tire during January-March 2006

when compared to $105.51 during January-March 2007. During the period of investigation, shares of

total U.S. imports of certain OTR tires from China grew from 47.3 percent in 2004 to 66.2 percent in

2006. U.S. Imports from all other sources accounted for a declining share of total imports of certain OTR

tires during 2004-06, down to 33.8 percent by quantity and 62.4 percent by value in 2006. Average unit

values of imports from nonsubject sources were more than double those of China throughout the period of
 4

 During the period of investigation, U.S. producers’ imports of certain OTR tires from nonsubject sources

accounted for a range of *** percent of U.S. imports from nonsubject sources based on units and *** percent based

on value.

 5

 Comparative data for U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and U.S. imports by end-use application are presented in

app. E, table E-1.

IV-4

investigation. Principle nonsubject sources include Canada, France, India, Japan, Mexico, Sri Lanka,

Taiwan, and Thailand.4

Table IV-3 presents information on U.S. imports of certain OTR tires by industry applications. 

The majority of U.S. imports from China were for construction/industrial applications which accounted

for 43 percent based on quantity and 58 percent based on value of total U.S. imports from China during

2006. During 2006, the smaller-size tires in 2 of the 3 categories accounted for 48 percent of total U.S.

imports from China by quantity and 30 percent based on value. The largest share of imports of certain

OTR tires from nonsubject sources was also for construction/industrial applications which accounted for

55 percent based on quantity and 69 percent based on value of total imports from sources other than

China during 2006. The larger-size tires in 2 of the 3 categories accounted for 26 percent of total imports

from nonsubject sources by quantity and 66 percent based on value during 2006.5
IV-5

Table IV-2

Certain OTR tires: U.S. imports, by sources, 2004-06, January-March 2006, and January-March 2007

Item

Calendar year January-March

2004 2005 2006 2006 2007

Quantity (1,000 tires)

China 1,796 3,129 3,424 813 749

Nonsubject:

Canada 174 69 90 18 15

France 81 80 87 28 18

India 200 223 129 51 37

Japan 104 126 123 28 24

Mexico 163 132 90 23 30

Sri Lanka 109 187 197 45 60

Taiwan 402 344 292 81 70

Thailand 269 337 318 89 45

All others 496 531 426 142 94

Subtotal nonsubject 1,998 2,029 1,751 505 393

Total 3,794 5,158 5,175 1,318 1,142

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

China 114,065 210,200 305,705 67,222 78,977

Nonsubject:

Canada 27,759 25,606 29,081 8,071 7,857

France 48,056 51,700 59,868 17,822 15,381

India 16,089 20,389 15,427 5,970 4,091

Japan 98,517 140,094 171,431 33,146 41,169

Mexico 7,021 6,993 3,961 928 1,564

Sri Lanka 10,542 17,947 22,324 5,030 6,817

Taiwan 22,231 20,955 17,537 4,780 4,193

Thailand 12,804 16,583 13,226 3,688 2,256

All others 110,071 139,838 174,673 44,301 45,382

Subtotal nonsubject 353,090 440,105 507,529 123,736 128,709

Total 467,155 650,305 813,233 190,959 207,686

Unit value (per tire)

China $63.50 $67.17 $89.28 $82.67 $105.51

Nonsubject:

Canada 159.67 373.61 324.58 446.47 521.81

France 592.26 647.45 688.82 636.13 860.64

India 80.51 91.27 119.95 118.19 111.30

Japan 947.56 1,108.59 1,395.13 1,177.74 1,712.87

Mexico 42.96 53.03 44.09 40.26 51.83

Sri Lanka 96.79 95.78 113.12 110.90 113.80

Taiwan 55.35 60.94 60.15 59.24 59.90

Thailand 47.67 49.22 41.54 41.49 49.61

All others 221.77 263.55 410.30 311.88 481.80

Subtotal nonsubject 176.74 216.93 289.88 245.13 327.13

Average 123.13 126.08 157.15 144.90 181.87

Table continued on next page.
IV-6

Table IV-2--Continued

Certain OTR tires: U.S. imports, by sources, 2004-06, January-March 2006, and January-March 2007

Item

Calendar year January-March

2004 2005 2006 2006 2007

Share of quantity (percent)

China 47.3 60.7 66.2 61.7 65.5

Nonsubject:

Canada 4.6 1.3 1.7 1.4 1.3

France 2.1 1.5 1.7 2.1 1.6

India 5.3 4.3 2.5 3.8 3.2

Japan 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.1 2.1

Mexico 4.3 2.6 1.7 1.7 2.6

Sri Lanka 2.9 3.6 3.8 3.4 5.2

Taiwan 10.6 6.7 5.6 6.1 6.1

Thailand 7.1 6.5 6.2 6.7 4.0

All others 13.1 10.3 8.2 10.8 8.2

Subtotal nonsubject 52.7 39.3 33.8 38.3 34.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

China 24.4 32.3 37.6 35.2 38.0

Nonsubject:

Canada 5.9 3.9 3.6 4.2 3.8

France 10.3 8.0 7.4 9.3 7.4

India 3.4 3.1 1.9 3.1 2.0

Japan 21.1 21.5 21.1 17.4 19.8

Mexico 1.5 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.8

Sri Lanka 2.3 2.8 2.7 2.6 3.3

Taiwan 4.8 3.2 2.2 2.5 2.0

Thailand 2.7 2.6 1.6 1.9 1.1

All others 23.6 21.5 21.5 23.2 21.9

Subtotal nonsubject 75.6 67.7 62.4 64.8 62.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1

 Landed, duty-paid.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics,

adjusted. 
IV-7

Table IV-3

Certain OTR tires: U.S. Imports, by sources and types, 2004-06, January-March 2006, and January-March

2007

Item

Imports from China Imports from all other sources

Calendar year Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

Quantity (1,000 tires)

Agricultural/forestry:

 Herringbone or similar tread 96 143 221 364 448 282

 Not herringbone 293 407 583 511 310 296

Subtotal 390 550 805 875 757 578

Construction/industrial:

 Herringbone < 61 cm (24") 293 455 521 91 117 126

 Herringbone >= 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") 59 129 159 302 260 228

 Radial less than 61 cm (24") 106 414 335 66 68 71

 Radial >= to 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") 1 1 12 46 81 91

 Other < 61 cm (24") 164 292 354 168 324 381

 Other >= 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") 27 49 76 31 47 66

Subtotal 650 1,341 1,458 704 897 962

Off-the-highway:

 Radial >= 40.6 cm (16") 2 10 4 101 73 45

 Radial < 40.6 cm (16") 14 3 2 27 17 16

 Other >= 40.6 cm (16") 270 312 518 80 69 29

 Other < 40.6 cm (16") 310 662 413 49 19 11

Subtotal 595 987 937 258 179 101

Other 161 253 224 164 208 121

Total 1,796 3,131 3,424 2,000 2,040 1,763

Value ($1,000)

Agricultural/forestry:

 Herringbone or similar tread 16,511 21,378 35,062 64,885 83,705 66,998

 Not herringbone 13,115 20,607 33,793 28,223 22,923 26,853

Subtotal 29,626 41,985 68,856 93,108 106,628 93,851

Construction/industrial:

 Herringbone < 61 cm (24") 16,770 29,028 39,619 18,646 22,579 22,343

 Herringbone >= 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") 10,546 30,473 61,082 56,631 51,349 78,375

 Radial less than 61 cm (24") 2,751 12,199 12,519 14,308 18,276 23,287

 Radial >= to 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") 883 1,073 13,029 71,081 127,660 177,338

 Other < 61 cm (24") 7,585 13,324 22,181 11,000 21,165 23,685

 Other >= 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") 5,260 13,028 29,405 14,872 23,133 34,240

Subtotal 43,795 99,124 177,835 186,539 264,163 359,269

Off-the-highway:

 Radial >= 40.6 cm (16") 300 1,563 684 37,961 38,567 41,399

 Radial < 40.6 cm (16") 1,210 285 240 3,381 3,095 4,356

 Other >= 40.6 cm (16") 12,637 15,915 21,596 16,830 10,059 11,726

 Other < 40.6 cm (16") 12,800 22,614 16,472 2,385 2,365 1,462

Subtotal 26,947 40,378 38,993 60,557 54,086 58,943

Other 13,697 28,871 20,124 12,915 15,287 8,758

Total 114,065 210,358 305,808 353,119 440,164 520,821

Table continued on next page.
IV-8

Table IV-3-Continued

Certain OTR tires: U.S. Imports, by sources and types, 2004-06, January-March 2006, and January-March

2007

Item

Imports from China Imports from all other sources

Calendar year Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

Unit Value (per tire)

Agricultural/forestry:

 Herringbone or similar tread $172 $150 $158 $178 $187 $237

 Not herringbone 45 51 58 55 74 91

Average 76 76 86 106 141 162

Construction/industrial:

 Herringbone < 61 cm (24") 57 64 76 205 193 178

 Herringbone >= 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") 179 237 384 188 198 344

 Radial less than 61 cm (24") 26 29 37 216 269 328

 Radial >= to 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") 848 758 1,122 1,542 1,571 1,946

 Other < 61 cm (24") 46 46 63 66 65 62

 Other >= 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") 196 264 385 472 491 522

Average 67 74 122 265 295 373

Off-the-highway:

 Radial >= 40.6 cm (16") 158 152 156 375 526 928

 Radial < 40.6 cm (16") 88 82 103 125 177 269

 Other >= 40.6 cm (16") 47 51 42 209 146 400

 Other < 40.6 cm (16") 41 34 40 49 127 132

Average 45 41 42 235 303 582

Other 85 114 90 79 74 72

Average 64 67 89 177 216 295

Share of value (percent)

Agricultural/forestry:

 Herringbone or similar tread 14.5 10.2 11.5 18.4 19.0 12.9

 Not herringbone 11.5 9.8 11.1 8.0 5.2 5.2

Subtotal 26.0 20.0 22.5 26.4 24.2 18.0

Construction/Industrial:

 Herringbone < 61 cm (24") 14.7 13.8 13.0 5.3 5.1 4.3

 Herringbone >= 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") 9.2 14.5 20.0 16.0 11.7 15.0

 Radial less than 61 cm (24") 2.4 5.8 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.5

 Radial >= to 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") 0.8 0.5 4.3 20.1 29.0 34.1

 Other < 61 cm (24")3 6.6 6.3 7.3 3.1 4.8 4.5

 Other >= 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") 4.6 6.2 9.6 4.2 5.3 6.6

Subtotal 38.4 47.1 58.2 52.8 60.0 69.0

Off-the-highway:

 Radial >= 40.6 cm (16") 0.3 0.7 0.2 10.8 8.8 7.9

 Radial < 40.6 cm (16") 1.1 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.7 0.8

 Other >= 40.6 cm (16") 11.1 7.6 7.1 4.8 2.3 2.3

 Other < 40.6 cm (16") 11.2 10.8 5.4 0.7 0.5 0.3

Subtotal 23.6 19.2 12.8 17.1 12.3 11.3

Other 12.0 13.7 6.6 3.7 3.5 1.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics, adjusted. 
IV-9

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

Data concerning apparent U.S. consumption of certain OTR tires during the period of

investigation are shown in table IV-4. Apparent U.S. consumption increased by 15.7 percent from 2004

to 2005, but decreased by 11.6 percent from 2005 to 2006. January-March 2006-07 showed a 8.3 percent

decline in U.S. consumption quantity but a corollary 8.2 percent increase by value.

Table IV-4

Certain OTR tires: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. imports (adjusted), by sources, and

apparent U.S. consumption, 2004-06, January-March 2006, and January-March 2007

Item

Calendar year January-March

2004 2005 2006 2006 2007

Quantity (1,000 tires)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 4,266 4,165 3,070 902 894

U.S. imports from--

China 1,796 3,129 3,424 813 749

Nonsubject:

Canada 174 69 90 18 15

France 81 80 87 28 18

India 200 223 129 51 37

Japan 104 126 123 28 24

Mexico 163 132 90 23 30

Sri Lanka 109 187 197 45 60

Taiwan 402 344 292 81 70

Thailand 269 337 318 89 45

All others 496 531 426 142 94

Subtotal nonsubject 1,998 2,029 1,751 505 393

Total U.S. imports 3,794 5,158 5,175 1,318 1,142

Apparent U.S. consumption 8,060 9,323 8,244 2,220 2,036

Table continued on next page.
IV-10

Table IV-4--Continued

Certain OTR tires: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. imports (adjusted), by sources, and

apparent U.S. consumption, 2004-06, January-March 2006, and January-March 2007

Item

Calendar year January-March

2004 2005 2006 2006 2007

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 855,902 915,271 850,062 246,754 265,778

U.S. imports from--

China 114,065 210,200 305,705 67,222 78,977

Nonsubject:

Canada 27,759 25,606 29,081 8,071 7,857

France 48,056 51,700 59,868 17,822 15,381

India 16,089 20,389 15,427 5,970 4,091

Japan 98,517 140,094 171,431 33,146 41,169

Mexico 7,021 6,993 3,961 928 1,564

Sri Lanka 10,542 17,947 22,324 5,030 6,817

Taiwan 22,231 20,955 17,537 4,780 4,193

Thailand 12,804 16,583 13,226 3,688 2,256

All others 110,071 139,838 174,673 44,301 45,382

Subtotal nonsubject 353,090 440,105 507,529 123,736 128,709

Total U.S. imports 467,155 650,305 813,233 190,959 207,686

Apparent U.S. consumption 1,323,057 1,565,576 1,663,295 437,713 473,464

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and official Commerce statistics,

adjusted.
IV-11

U.S. MARKET SHARES

U.S. market share data are presented in table IV-5. Shares of both quantity and value of subject

imports from China increased during 2004 to 2006, with Chinese import shares of U.S. consumption

growing by 19.2 percentage points in quantity and by 9.8 points in value. U.S. producers’ shares of the

domestic market dropped during each year, falling from 52.9 to 37.2 percent by quantity and 64.7 to 51.1

percent by value during 2004-06. 

Table IV-5

Certain OTR tires: Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares, 2004-06, January-March 2006,

and January-March 2007

Item

Calendar year January-March

2004 2005 2006 2006 2007

Quantity (1,000 tires)

Apparent U.S. consumption 8,060 9,323 8,244 2,220 2,036

Value (1,000 dollars)

Apparent U.S. consumption 1,323,057 1,565,576 1,663,295 437,713 473,464

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 52.9 44.7 37.2 40.6 43.9

U.S. imports from--

China 22.3 33.6 41.5 36.6 36.8

Nonsubject:

Canada 2.2 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.7

France 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.3 0.9

India 2.5 2.4 1.6 2.3 1.8

Japan 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.2

Mexico 2.0 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.5

Sri Lanka 1.4 2.0 2.4 2.0 2.9

Taiwan 5.0 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.4

Thailand 3.3 3.6 3.9 4.0 2.2

All others 6.2 5.7 5.2 6.4 4.6

Subtotal nonsubject 24.8 21.8 21.2 22.7 19.3

Total U.S. imports 47.1 55.3 62.8 59.4 56.1

Table continued on next page.
IV-12

Table IV-5--Continued

Certain OTR tires: Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares, 2004-06, January-March 2006,

and January-March 2007

Item

Calendar year January-March

2004 2005 2006 2006 2007

Quantity (1,000 tires)

Apparent U.S. consumption 8,060 9,323 8,244 2,220 2,036

Value (1,000 dollars)

Apparent U.S. consumption 1,323,057 1,565,576 1,663,295 437,713 473,464

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 64.7 58.5 51.1 56.4 56.1

U.S. imports from--

China 8.6 13.4 18.4 15.4 16.7

Nonsubject: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Canada 2.1 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.7

France 3.6 3.3 3.6 4.1 3.2

India 1.2 1.3 0.9 1.4 0.9

Japan 7.4 8.9 10.3 7.6 8.7

Mexico 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3

Sri Lanka 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.4

Taiwan 1.7 1.3 1.1 1.1 0.9

Thailand 1.0 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.5

All others 8.3 8.9 10.5 10.1 9.6

Subtotal nonsubject 26.7 28.1 30.5 28.3 27.2

Total U.S. imports 35.3 41.5 48.9 43.6 43.9

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and official Commerce statistics,

adjusted.
IV-13

RATIO OF SUBJECT IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Information concerning the ratio of subject imports to U.S. production of certain OTR tires is

presented in table IV-6. Subject imports were equivalent to 38.3 percent of U.S. production during 2004. 

This level increased to 60.3 percent during 2005 and further to 90.7 percent during 2006.

Table IV-6

Certain OTR tires: U.S. producers’ imports and ratios to U.S. production, by sources, 2004-06, January-March

2006, and January-March 2007

Item

Calendar year January-March

2004 2005 2006 2006 2007

Quantity (1.000 tires)

U.S. production 4,692 5,191 3,773 1,060 959

Imports:

China 1,796 3,129 3,424 813 749

Nonsubject:

Canada 174 69 90 18 15

France 81 80 87 28 18

India 200 223 129 51 37

Japan 104 126 123 28 24

Mexico 163 132 90 23 30

Sri Lanka 109 187 197 45 60

Taiwan 402 344 292 81 70

Thailand 269 337 318 89 45

All others 496 531 426 142 94

Subtotal nonsubject 1,998 2,029 1,751 505 393

Total imports 3,794 5,158 5,175 1,318 1,142

Ratio of U.S. imports to production (percent)

China 38.3 60.3 90.7 76.7 78.1

Nonsubject:

Canada 3.7 1.3 2.4 1.7 1.6

France 1.7 1.5 2.3 2.6 1.9

India 4.3 4.3 3.4 4.8 3.8

Japan 2.2 2.4 3.3 2.7 2.5

Mexico 3.5 2.5 2.4 2.2 3.1

Sri Lanka 2.3 3.6 5.2 4.3 6.2

Taiwan 8.6 6.6 7.7 7.6 7.3

Thailand 5.7 6.5 8.4 8.4 4.7

All others 10.6 10.2 11.3 13.4 9.8

Subtotal nonsubject 42.6 39.1 46.4 47.6 41.0

Total imports 80.9 99.4 137.1 124.3 119.1

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and official Commerce statistics, adjusted.
 
 1

 Petitioner’s posthearing brief, p. 13 

 2

 The estimated cost was obtained by subtracting the customs value from the c.i.f. value of the imports for 2006

and then dividing by the customs value.

 3

 Real exchange rates are calculated by adjusting the nominal rates for movements in producer prices in the

United States and other countries. 

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Material Costs

Raw material costs account for a large share of the cost of certain OTR tires. During 2004-06,

these costs consistently ranged between 53 percent and 61 percent of the cost of goods sold annually. A

major raw material input used in making these products is natural rubber. Other important materials

include synthetic rubber, carbon black, various chemicals, and textiles and steel.1

 

Transportation Costs to the U.S. Market

Ocean transportation costs for certain OTR tires shipped from China to the United States

(excluding U.S. inland costs) averaged 10.2 percent of the customs value of these imports during 2006.2

These estimates are derived from official import data and represent the transportation and other charges

on imports.

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

Transportation costs on U.S. inland shipments of certain OTR tires generally account for a small

to moderate share of the delivered price of these products. For the U.S. producers that provided

meaningful estimates, these costs ranged from 3 percent to as much as 8 percent of the delivered price. 

Among importers of product from the China and nonsubject sources that provided meaningful estimates,

U.S. inland transportation costs ranged from 0.5 percent to 7 percent of the delivered price. Estimates of

less than 5 percent or less were most common among importers. 

Producers were asked to estimate the shares of their sales that occurred within 100 miles of their

storage or production facility, between 101 and 1,000 miles, and over 1,000 miles. Among the five U.S.

producers that responded to the question, most shipments were for distances of 101 miles or more. The

largest share of producer shipments was within the 101 to 500 mile range with reported shipments of the

five firms ranging from 60 percent to 80 percent their totals. In the case of importers, the majority of

responding firms also reported that the largest share of their shipments were for distances of over 101

miles. 

Exchange Rates

Nominal exchange rates for the Chinese yuan in relation to the U.S. dollar are shown on a

quarterly basis in figure V-1 for the period January-March 2004 through January-March 2007. The data

show that the yuan has appreciated relative to the dollar since 2005. Real exchange rates could not be

computed because of the lack of producer price indices for China.3
V-2

Figure V-1

Exchange rates: Indexes of the nominal rate of the Chinese yuan relative to the U.S. dollar, by

quarters, January-March 2004-January-March 2007

Source: IMF International Financial Statistics, June 2007 and various earlier issues.

PRICING PRACTICES

While different methods of arriving at prices were reported by U.S. producers and by importers

of certain OTR tires, the use of price lists is very common in sales of certain OTR tires. All seven U.S.

producers and most of the 24 importers reported that they make use of price lists at least as a starting

point in arriving at prices. Some producers and importers reported that prices are determined by

transaction-by-transaction negotiations. In other cases contract arrangements and material costs are

important in determining prices.

Discounting is commonly used in the case of certain OTR tires. *** of seven U.S. producers

reported that they provide discounts based on such factors as volume, market conditions, and customer

needs and promotional considerations. In addition, five of seven producers also reported that they

provide discounts of 1 to 2 percent for early payment of accounts. Among importers, 16 of 24 firm

reported that they provide discounts usually based upon volume. Four of the 15 importers of certain OTR

tires from China also provide discounts based upon early payments of accounts ranging from 1 to 5

percent. 

In the case of both U.S. producers and importers of certain OTR tires from China, prices are

commonly quoted on either an f.o.b. or delivered basis. One U.S. producer reported that it quotes on an

f.o.b. warehouse basis to original equipment manufacturers, but quotes on a delivered basis to customers

in the replacement market. All seven U.S. producers and 19 of the 22 responding importers of certain

OTR tires from China and other sources reported that they arrange transportation for their customers

while three importers reported that their customers arrange transportation. None of the U.S. producers

and importers reported that they sell certain OTR tires over the internet. 

Producers and importers of certain OTR tires from China were asked to estimate the percentages

of their sales that are on a spot basis, a short-term contract basis of up to 12 months, or a long-term

contract of 12 months or more. Most sales of certain OTR tires are on a spot basis. Two of six
V-3

responding producers reported that all of their sales are on a spot basis, and the others reported that a

majority of their sales are spot. Among the 16 importers of certain OTR tires from China, 8 sell entirely

on a spot basis, 4 sell principally on a spot basis, and others sell principally or entirely on a contract basis. 

Among producers that reported using short-term contracts, contract periods range from 6 months to one

year with prices fixed during the contract period. Long-term contracts for producers range from 1 to 5

years with prices and quantities sometimes subject to adjustment during the period. Among importers

that reported the used of short-term contracts, contract periods reportedly range from up to 6 months to as

much as a year with prices and in some cases quantities fixed during the period. The one importer that

uses long-tem contracts reported that contracts are for *** with the price fixed during the year. 

PRICE DATA

The Commission asked U.S. producers and importers of certain OTR tires from China to provide

quarterly data for the total quantity and f.o.b value of certain OTR tires that were shipped to unrelated

purchasers in the U.S. market during January-March 2004 through January-March 2007. The products

for which pricing data were requested are as follows:

Type Size TT/TL Ply rating/

load index

Overall

diameter

Rim

width

Tire

width

Weight

Product 1.1 Skid steer 10-16.5NHS Tubeless 10 30.6" 8.25" 10.4" 88 lbs.

Product 2.2 Hi-Traction Lug R-1 11.2-24 Tubeless 4 43.6" 10" 11.8" 89 lbs.

Product 3.

3 Industrial Tractor Lug R-4 19.5L-24 Tubeless 12 51.8" 17" 19.1" 214 lbs.

Product 4.

4 Hi-Flotation I-1 11L-15SL Tubeless 8 31" 8" 10.8" 36 lbs.

Product 5.

5 Motor Grader HD G-2 14.00-24TG Tubeless 12 53" 10" 15.1" 204 lbs.

 1 Product 1 is defined as a “skid steer” tire having a size designation of 1–16.5NHS. These numbers and designations define the product as

having a nominal section width (sidewall to sidewall) of 10 inches, and a rim diameter of 16.5 inches. The NHS designation stands for “not for

highway service.” The “dash” between the 10 and 16.5 defines the tire as having a “bias ply” construction. There may be several other

designations printed on this tire, including “tubeless” or “tube type,” “ply and air pressure, speed ratings, and the equipment type.” 

 2

 Product 2 is defined as a “high traction lug R-1" agricultural tire having a size designation of 11.2-24 (11.2inch nominal section width, 24

inch rim diameter, bias ply construction). This description is indicative of a typical farm tractor rear wheel having a regular depth “lug-type” R-1

tread used for general farming, as defined by the Tire Rim Association “TRA” A farm tractor tire of this nature would typically have a

herringbone (criss-cross) tread design of medium depth. The tread types for rear wheels of agricultural tractors are variably by the industry as

“lug” or “bar tread.” The “bar tread” is a lug tread usually running at an approximate 23 degree angle around the tire directional circumference 

which helps power the equipment through the soil. 

 3

 Product 3 is defined as an “industrial tractor lug R-4" tire having a size designation of 19.5L-24 (19.5 inch nominal section width, 24 inch

rim diameter, bias ply construction). The L designation in this case is an RMA code for a “low section height tire sidewall”; that is, the tread

width is greater than the sidewall height. An R-4 herringbone-type lug tread has an intermediate tread depth. Tires of this type are commonly

found on the rear wheels of “backhoe loaders” which, for example, may be used in a stationary, braced position to dig holes and trenches with the

backhoe; for example, to tie into an underground water main or power supply in light construction areas. The front blade attachment may be used

to scoop up and lift dirt. TRA recommends this type of tire for light industrial service, and highway mowing.

 4

 Product 4 is defined as a “hi-flotation I-1" agricultural tire having a size designation of 11L-15SL (11 inch nominal section width, 15 inch

rim diameter, bias ply construction. The L in this case refers to a “low section height tire,” while the SL designation refers to “service limited to

agricultural usage.” A “hi-flotation” I-1 tire has a narrow sidewall (“low section height”) compared to the wider width of the tread, providing for

lower compaction of the soil compared to narrower tires. “I-1" type tire treads are known as “rib treads.” “Rib treads,” are smooth in shape and

run parallel to the direction of travel around the tire; they are made for rolling and directional control. “I-1" type tires are free wheel tires used on

farm implements that are pulled behind a tractor, such as a cultivator implement having knives that dig into the soil, for example. This is a

popular agricultural tire which is used for a free rolling axle alternate tractor, or cultivator.

 5

 Product 5 is defined as a “motor grader HDG.-2" tire having a size designation of 14.00-24TG (14 inch nominal section width, 24 inch rim

diameter, bias ply construction). The “T.G.” designation is defined as “tractor grader tires-not for highway service.” A G-2 tread is believed to be

of modified herringbone design. A motor grader is a long tractor having a slanted blade situated underneath, between the front and back tires. 

This type of machine is typically used for grading in the construction and forestry industries.
 4

 Some price data provided by importers were for Chinese products that are too light in weight to meet the

specifications for the requested product but were satisfactory in all other respects. These data are shown by company

and product category in app. F. In addition, some questionnaire respondents provided quarterly price data on U.S.

imports from India, Mexico, Serbia and South Africa, Sri Lanka and “all other.” These data are also shown in app.

F. 

V-4

Seven U.S. producers and nine importers provided varying amount of useable price data.4

 BFNA

and Titan reported prices in all quarters for all five products. Sales of the five representative products

accounted for a fairly small percentage of total sales for both producers and importers, since a broad range

of products are sold by both. In the case of U.S. producers it accounted for about 11 percent of sales, and

in the case of importers it accounted for about 4 percent of sales in 2006.

Price Trends

Weighted-average prices for the four products are shown in tables V-1 through V-5 and in figure

V-2 quarterly for the period January-March 2004 through January-March 2007. The data show that U.S.

producer prices for all products increased overall during this period. Trends in prices of imported

products from China are less evident than for U.S. producers. 

Price Comparisons

In the 49 quarterly price comparisons between U.S.-produced and imported Chinese certain OTR

tires, prices for the Chinese products were lower in 41 quarters and higher in 8 quarters. The prices of

Chinese imports were lower than U.S. prices of products 2, 4 and 5 in all quarterly comparisons. For all

comparisons margins of underselling ranged from 1.8 percent to 26.5 percent and margins of overselling

ranged from 1.4 percent to 26.5 percent.

Table V-1

Certain OTR tires: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities for product 1, and margins

of underselling/(overselling), January 2004-March 2007

* * * * * * *

Table V-2

Certain OTR tires: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities for product 2, and margins

of underselling/(overselling), January 2004-March 2007

* * * * * * *

Table V-3

Certain OTR tires: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities for product 3, and margins

of underselling/(overselling), January 2004-March 2007

* * * * * * *

Table V-4

Certain OTR tires: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities for product 4, and margins

of underselling/(overselling), January 2004-March 2007

* * * * * * *
 5

 The companies responding were ***.

V-5

Table V-5

Certain OTR tires: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities for product 5, and margins

of underselling/(overselling), January 2004-March 2007

* * * * * * *

Figure V-2

Certain OTR tires: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices for products 1-5, January 2004-March

2007

* * * * * * *

LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUES

Detailed lost sales and lost revenue allegations were generally not available in these preliminary

phase investigations. Titan reported in the petition that it does not have information available on lost

sales and lost revenues relating to certain OTR tires on a transaction-by-transaction basis. Titan did

provide a list of 19 customer accounts where it believed that it had lost business to imports from China. 

While company telephone numbers and fax numbers were provided, the list did not include any detailed

price and quantity data on specific transactions and did not include names of contact persons. Therefore

the staff attempted to contact all of these firms with some general questions concerning price competition

from China. Five of the firms provided responses.5

Two of the questions dealt specifically with the firms’ activities since January 2004. When asked

whether they had shifted from U.S.-produced certain OTR tires to imports of these products from China,

3 firms answered yes and 2 answered no. When asked if the lower price of the imports from China was

the reason for shifting, all three of the firms that had shifted answered yes. However, one purchaser

qualified the answer by also attributing the shift to an inadequate U.S. supply and a failure to adjust with

changing market conditions. 

Two other questions dealt with the U.S. industry as a whole. Firms were asked whether U.S.

producers had reduced their prices of OTR tires in order to compete with imports since January 2004. 

Three firms answered yes and two answered no. One firm that answered yes was not sure about all U.S.

producers, but believes that some reduced prices because of foreign and domestic competition. Another

firm reported that some producers reduced their prices because they were not competitive. 

One U.S. producer, ***, provided one lost sales allegation and one lost revenue allegation. ***

alleged that it lost a sale of *** tires for use on *** valued at $*** million to imports from China ***. 

Staff contacted *** concerning this allegation. However, the company did not respond to the request for

information. 

 *** also alleged that it was forced to lower its quote on sales of *** tires from 

 $*** to *** due to imports from China. However, *** reported that it did not have information

concerning this transaction. 

 
 
 1

 Michelin, whose parent company is headquartered in France, reported its financial results based on International

Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”). 

 2

 ***. 

 3

 According to its 2006 10-K, “Titan’s operations include manufacturing wheels, manufacturing tires, and

combining these wheels and tires into assemblies for use in the agricultural, earthmoving/construction and consumer

markets.” Titan 2006 10-K, p. 5. In supplemental information reported to the Commission, Titan stated that “***.” 

Letter from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of Titan, July 12, 2007. 

 4

 With the exception of selected pro forma financial information, the above-referenced acquisitions are reflected

in Titan’s public consolidated financial results prospectively from the date of acquisition. As such and in addition to

typical differences such as out-of-scope product included in a company’s overall financial results, the consolidated

financial results reported in Titan’s 10-K are not directly comparable to the financial results reported to the

Commission. 

VI-1

PART VI: FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF THE U.S. PRODUCERS

BACKGROUND

Seven U.S. producers reported their certain OTR tires financial results. With the exception of

Michelin, U.S. producers reported their financial results on the basis of U.S. generally accepted

accounting principles (“GAAP”) for calendar-year periods.1

While *** reported *** volume of transfers, the majority of overall certain OTR tire revenue

represents commercial sales. Internal consumption was reported by ***.2

 Overall revenue primarily

reflects standalone sales of certain OTR tires, but also includes an allocation of Titan’s revenue from the

sale of combined tire and wheel assemblies.3

As discussed in the trade section, Titan acquired the OTR farm production and related assets of

Goodyear at the end of 2005 and the OTR construction/industrial production and related assets of

Continental in mid 2006. As presented in this section, Titan’s certain OTR tire operations include the

financial results of the Goodyear and Continental operations prior and subsequent to Titan’s acquisition.4

The certain OTR tire operations reported by Goodyear represent that company’s remaining U.S.

certain OTR tire operations in Topeka, KS. 

OPERATIONS ON CERTAIN OTR TIRES 

Income-and-loss data for producers of certain OTR tires are presented in table VI-1 and on an

average unit basis in table VI-2. Table VI-3 presents selected company-specific financial information. A

variance analysis of the financial results is not presented because the overall increase in average unit

values, as discussed below, reflects changes in product mix. 

With *** percent, respectively, of cumulative sales value, BFNA and Titan account for the *** of

overall activity presented in table VI-1. Goodyear, with ***. The remaining producers Carlisle, Denman,

Michelin, and Specialty accounted for company-specific cumulative certain OTR tire sales ranging from

***. 

While all U.S. producers generally reported increasing average unit sales values during the

period, as shown in table VI-3, company-specific increases varied in terms of whether they were due to a

combination of higher manufacturing costs and a shift in product mix or just higher manufacturing costs. 
VI-2

Table VI-1

Certain OTR tires: Results of operations, 2004-06, January-March 2006, and January-March 2007

Item

Calendar year January-March

2004 2005 2006 2006 2007

Quantity (1,000 tires)

Total net sales quantity 4,851 4,983 3,808 1,109 1,090

Value ($1,000)

Total net sales value 995,663 1,083,867 1,020,377 289,236 308,421

Cost of goods sold:

Raw material 480,523 540,443 531,399 141,317 157,837

Direct labor 206,042 214,925 183,901 46,761 48,209

Other factory costs 215,544 203,392 181,390 48,777 52,357

 Total cost of goods sold 902,109 958,760 896,691 236,855 258,403

Gross profit 93,554 125,107 123,686 52,382 50,019

SG&A expenses 94,453 106,240 103,554 28,250 25,351

Operating income or (loss) (899) 18,866 20,133 24,132 24,667

Interest expense 134 236 239 63 56

Other expenses 10,673 29,172 7,583 3,740 4,195

Other income items 298 0 134 9 0

Net income or (loss) (11,408) (10,542) 12,446 20,338 20,416

Depreciation/amortization 36,634 34,889 28,980 7,533 7,856

Est. cash flow from operations 25,226 24,347 41,426 27,871 28,272

Ratio to net sales (percent)

Raw material 48.3 49.9 52.1 48.9 51.2

Direct labor 20.7 19.8 18.0 16.2 15.6

Other factory costs 21.6 18.8 17.8 16.9 17.0

 Cost of goods sold 90.6 88.5 87.9 81.9 83.8

Gross profit 9.4 11.5 12.1 18.1 16.2

SG&A expenses 9.5 9.8 10.1 9.8 8.2

Operating income or (loss) (0.1) 1.7 2.0 8.3 8.0

Net income or (loss) (1.1) (1.0) 1.2 7.0 6.6

Number of producers reporting

Operating losses 3 2 3 2 1

Data 7 7 7 7 7

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 5

 Letter from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of Titan, July 12, 2007. 

 6

 E-mail from Covington and Burling on behalf of Goodyear, July 20, 2007.

 7

 Letter from King and Spalding on behalf of BFNA, July 16, 2007.

 8

 Denman stated that “***.” E-mail from ***, Denman, July 10, 2007. According to Specialty “***.” E-mail

from ***, Specialty, July 12, 2007. Michelin stated that with regard to “***.” Letter from ***, Michelin, July 19,

2007. 

 9

 Titan 2006 10-K, p. 6.

VI-3

Table VI-2

Certain OTR tires: Results of operations (per tire), 2004-06, January-March 2006, and JanuaryMarch 2007

Item

Calendar year January-March

2004 2005 2006 2006 2007

Unit value (per tire)

Total net sales $205 $218 $268 $261 $283

Cost of goods sold:

 Raw material 99 108 140 127 145

 Direct labor 42 43 48 42 44

 Other factory costs 44 41 48 44 48

 Total cost of goods sold 186 192 235 214 237

Gross profit 19 25 32 47 46

SG&A expenses 19 21 27 25 23

Operating income or (loss) (0.19) 4 5 22 23

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Describing the period generally, Titan stated that “***.”5 Similarly, Goodyear stated that the ***.6

According to BFNA, “***.”7 In contrast, Denman, Michelin, and Specialty described the ***.8

Table VI-3

Certain OTR tires: Results of operations by firm, 2004-06, January-March 2006, and January-March

2007

* * * * * * *

According to Titan’s SEC filings, the primary raw material components in the production of tires

are natural rubber, synthetic rubber, carbon black, chemicals, steel, and textile materials.9

 Public

information generally indicates that these primary input costs increased throughout the period of
 10 Input costs began increasing prior to the period of investigation; e.g., Firestone boosts tire prices, Western

Farm Press, September 20, 2003, p. 23. A subsequent late 2003 article quoted a Firestone executive stating that

“{t}he tire maker {Firestone} has taken strong measures in all its facilities to increase efficiency and productivity . . .

{b}ut the price increases are necessary because even those actions have not been enough to offset the dramatic rise

of raw material costs, he said. Bridgestone/Firestone estimates its raw material costs have increased an average of

20 percent since mid-2002, depending on the tire line.” BFS units to raise tire prices Jan. 1, Rubber & Plastics

News, December 1, 2003, p. 7. 

 Industry projections early in the period also anticipated continued raw material cost increases; e.g., .“. . . several

major tire makers and marketers indicated tire prices would have to rise in 2004, by as much as 8 percent in one

company's opinion. The steady high price of crude oil continues to plague suppliers of synthetic rubber, carbon

black and rubber chemicals, while at the same time natural rubber is trading at a several-year high.” Makers expect

raw materials pricing squeeze to continue, Tire Business, January 5, 2004, p. 9. 

 11 According to Titan’s 2006 10-K, “{t}he Company does not generally enter into long-term commodity contracts

and does not use derivative commodity instruments to hedge its exposures to commodity market price fluctuations.

Therefore, the Company is exposed to price fluctuations of its key commodities, which consist primarily of steel and

rubber. The Company attempts to pass on certain material price increases and decreases to its customers, depending

on market conditions.” Titan 2006 10-K, p. 30. 

 12 With respect to certain OTR tire production, a U.S. industry witness at the staff conference stated that “. . . it's

extremely difficult to automate completely because of the size changes . . . it's hard to get one machine to do

everything, although we've done a very good job of a lot of the semi-automation, and I know that Firestone has as

well. There are portions of it that you can get some labor out of, but it's not going to look anything like a passenger

plant.” Conference transcript, p. 105 (Kramer). 

 13 “As the size of the OTR tire increases you generally will go from a single B, to a twin B, to a three B

construction or even to a four B construction, all of which creates more processes internal to the plant both in the

making bands component, making beads, as well as assembling them, as well as the curing of these tires will be

dramatically longer.” Conference transcript, pp. 95-96 (Steltman).

 14 Conference transcript, p. 47 (Burchfield), p. 96 (Kramer), and p. 194 (Ganz). While there are company-specific

differences in terms of how certain OTR tires are manufactured, these differences are generally not considered

fundamental. Conference transcript, pp. 99-100 (Pensler). Notwithstanding similarities in the basic production

process of certain OTR tires, comparisons of company-specific average raw material costs and overall COGS are

problematic given the relatively broad product scope represented by certain OTR tires. 

 15 E-mail from ***, Denman, July 10, 2007. The company indicated in this e-mail that the ***. 

 At the conference, Denman’s chairman stated that “{o}ver the last five years . . . Denman has lost substantial

amounts of business and market share in the OTR arena primarily to Chinese tires. Our prices with all our major

OTR customers have been dropped dramatically to meet Chinese pricing, almost to a customer. Our pricing is now

at negative margins. Positive contribution margins or else we would not keep it, but at negative margins in the OTR

area.” Conference transcript, p. 48 (Pensler) (emphasis added). Staff notes that the term contribution margin

generally refers to the difference between sales price and variable cost which, if positive, contributes to the coverage

(continued...)

VI-4

investigation10 and that, in response, U.S. tire producers initiated a series of price increases of varying

magnitudes for all tire types.11 

Direct labor costs as a share of certain OTR tire cost of goods sold (“COGS”) were the second

largest component after raw material cost during the full-year periods, ranging from 20.5 percent to 22.8

percent of total COGS. At the staff conference it was noted that the production of certain OTR tires is

less automated compared to the production of passenger tires12 and that direct labor costs generally

increase along with the size of the certain OTR tire diameter.13 The larger certain OTR tires which many

of the U.S. producers have shifted to also reportedly reflect smaller production runs and increased

manufacturing overhead costs associated with more frequent changeover of equipment.14

 As shown in table VI-3, most U.S. producers reported higher gross profit margins at the end of

the period compared to the beginning. ***. The company explained that “***.”15
 15 (...continued)

of fixed costs.

 16 E-mail from Covington and Burling on behalf of Goodyear, July 20, 2007. Goodyear also noted that “***.” 

Ibid. 

 17 E-mail from ***, Specialty, July 12, 2007. 

 18 Letter from King and Spalding on behalf of BFNA, July 16, 2007. 

 19 Ibid. ***. Letter from King and Spalding on behalf of BFNA, July 24, 2007. 

 ***. Ibid. 

 ***.

 20 Letter from King and Spalding on behalf of BFNA, July 16, 2007.

 21 Letter from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of Titan, July 12, 2007. 

 22 Ibid.

 23 “. . . the company {Titan} expects to report its 2006 farm tire business-tire and wheel revenues combined fell at

least $75 million from 2005 because of a down agricultural market.” Titan boosting capacity for OTR tires of two

sites, Tire Business, February 12, 2007, p. 3. The article further noted that, according to a Titan executive, a “. . .

combination of reorganizing and a lighter farm market probably left Titan short on its expectation of $720 million to

$735 million in corporate sales for 2006.” Ibid. Titan’s 2006 Annual Report noted that “{t}he agriculture tire and

wheel market was down 12-13 percent in 2006 with results below the strong level we experienced in 2004 and

2005.” Titan 2006 Annual Report, p. 7.

 Pro forma information in Titan’s 2006 10-K, which restates Titan’s operations as if all acquisition occurred at

the beginning of 2005, indicates that overall sales in 2006 were 8.0 percent lower compared to 2005. Titan 2006 10-

K, p. F-14. 

 24 E-mail from ***, Titan, July 18, 2007. 

 25 In its 2006 10-K and first quarter 2007 10-Q, Titan stated that its overall gross profit margin for 2006 and first

quarter 2007 had been reduced by approximately 2 percent and 3 percent, respectively, due to the realignment costs. 

Titan 2006 10-K, p. 20, and Titan 2007 10-Q (first quarter), p. 20. 

 In addition to other items, pro forma financial results presented in respondents’ postconference briefs

eliminated the effect of Titan’s capacity reconfiguration by reducing Titan’s COGS by the midpoint of public

estimates of the capacity reconfiguration’s impact on gross profit. With respect to alternative ways of recognizing

realignment costs in Titan’s consolidated financial results, Titan’s CEO specifically noted that the decision had been

(continued...)

VI-5

Notwithstanding ***, the pattern of stable or increasing gross margins reported by most U.S.

producers indicates that in general higher input costs were successfully passed through in the form of

higher prices.

While overall operating income followed a trend similar to gross profit, ***. The company stated

that “***.”16 

*** in 2004 and 2006, respectively. Specialty stated that “***.”17 

BFNA attributed its ***.18 As noted above and in addition to the general increases in raw

material inputs that all U.S. producers experienced, ***.”19 ***.”20 

In contrast with ***. With regard to the 2006 fall off in its sales, Titan stated that “***.”21 The

company also noted that ***.22 

 Notwithstanding the factors specified by Titan regarding the 2006 decline in its sales, public

information also indicates that Titan’s 2006 sales were lower in part due to a slower agriculture market.23

As shown in table VI-1, interim 2006 reflected higher profitability margins compared to full-year

2006. With regard to this pattern, Titan stated that “***.”24 

Titan’s capacity reconfiguration in the fourth quarter of 2006 and first quarter 2007, as noted

previously and in the context of *** in 2006, also impacted relative profitability between first quarter and

full-year 2006.25
 25 (...continued)

made not to capitalize associated labor costs. Titan Earnings Conference Call Q1 2007, p. 4 (GPX postconference

brief, attach. 2).

 26 Letter from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of Titan, July 12, 2007. 

 27 Ibid.

 28 According to the Commission’s income statement format, non-recurring expenses/charges would generally be

excluded from SG&A expenses and reported as part of other expenses. In this regard, it should be noted that Titan’s

consolidated income statement separately identified goodwill impairment, lawsuit-related charges, and depreciation

on idled assets. Titan 2006 10-K, p. F-4. Since Titan’s certain-OTR-tire-specific SG&A expense ratios were ***. 

 29 At the staff conference the BFNA representative noted that “{w}e have invested tens of millions of dollars in

recent years to improve our cost structure and productivity and lower our conversion cost to drive cost down in

producing OTR tires.” Conference transcript, pp. 43-44 (Burchfield). With respect to capital expenditures and the

manufacture of bias type tires, the BFNA company official also stated that “. . . we've been driving technology in an

older segment of business to drive costs down. So we have done what they told you not to do at business school, do

not capitalize in dead end markets, but when the market is 60 percent of your business you have no choice . . . {s}o

the point is we have capitalized in these segments of business to drive down costs because if you don't address costs

long-term you're out of business anyway.” Conference transcript, p. 99 (Burchfield). 

 30 Letter from King and Spalding on behalf of BFNA, July 16, 2007.

 31 Ibid.

VI-6

 At the end of the period, the U.S. industry’s interim 2007 operating income margin was lower

compared to interim 2006 due to the combination of a somewhat lower overall gross profit margin in part

offset by a lower SG&A expense ratio. The decline in the overall interim 2007 SG&A expense ratio was

***. In response to a question regarding its interim 2007 SG&A expenses, Titan explained that “***.”26 

As shown in table VI-1, “other expenses” increased notably in 2005. Titan, which accounted for

the *** of other expenses, stated that “***.”27 According to the company, these were the only specific

other expense items it was able to identify.28

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES, 

ASSETS, AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT

Data on capital expenditures, research and development (“R&D”) expenses, assets, and return on

investment are presented in table VI-4. As shown in table VI-4, overall capital expenditures increased

during the period with BFNA accounting for *** of cumulative capital expenditures. According to

BFNA, “***.”29 

In contrast with the majority of other U.S. producers, ***.30 The company also noted that

“***.”31
VI-7

Table VI-4

Certain OTR tires: Capital expenditures, R&D expenses, assets, and return on investment, by

firms, 2004-06, January-March 2006, and January-March 2007

Item

Calendar year January-March

2004 2005 2006 2006 2007

Capital expenditures ($1,000)

BFNA *** *** *** *** ***

Carlisle *** *** *** *** ***

Denman *** *** *** *** ***

Goodyear *** *** *** *** ***

Michelin1 *** *** *** *** ***

Specialty *** *** *** *** ***

Titan *** *** *** *** ***

 Total capital expenditures 23,393 25,176 27,241 2,523 4,014

R&D expenses ($1,000)

BFNA *** *** *** *** ***

Carlisle *** *** *** *** ***

Denman *** *** *** *** ***

Goodyear *** *** *** *** ***

Michelin *** *** *** *** ***

Specialty *** *** *** *** ***

Titan *** *** *** *** ***

 Total R&D expenses 13,737 9,519 8,259 2,050 2,393

Assets ($1,000)

BFNA *** *** *** *** ***

Carlisle *** *** *** *** ***

Denman *** *** *** *** ***

Goodyear *** *** *** *** ***

Michelin *** *** *** *** ***

Specialty *** *** *** *** ***

Titan *** *** *** *** ***

 Total assets 576,699 650,022 771,236 782,033 842,329

Table continued on next page.
 32 Letter from Stewart and Stewart on behalf of Titan, July 12, 2007.

 33 Ibid.

 34 Titan 2006 10-K, p. F-7.

 35 E-mail from Covington and Burling on behalf of Goodyear, July 20, 2007.

 36 Letter from ***, July 16, 2007.

VI-8

Table VI-4--Continued

Certain OTR tires: Capital expenditures, R&D expenses, assets, and return on investment, by

firms, 2004-06, January-March 2006, and January-March 2007

Item

Calendar year January-March

2004 2005 2006 2006 2007

Return on investment2

 (percent) 

BFNA *** *** *** *** ***

Carlisle *** *** *** *** ***

Denman *** *** *** *** ***

Goodyear *** *** *** *** ***

Michelin *** *** *** *** ***

Specialty *** *** *** *** ***

Titan *** *** *** *** ***

 Average (0.2) 2.9 2.6 12.3 11.7

 1 Public information cited in a postconference brief indicated that Michelin spent $85 million at its Lexington, SC

plant to increase tire capacity. In order to clarify the extent to which this investment was related to certain OTR tire

production, the company stated that “***.” E-mail from ***, Michelin, July 24, 2007. 

 2

 Return on investment, as presented in this table, is the ratio of annual operating income to total assets. 

Operating income was annualized for interim return on investment.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

***. According to Titan, “***.”32 While Titan also stated that, “***,”33 it should be noted that in

the investing activities section of Titan’s consolidated statement of cash flows, where total capital

expenditures are also identified, the company reported a $100 million investing cash outflow in 2005 for

its acquisition of Goodyear’s North American farm tire assets and a $44.6 million investing cash outflow

in 2006 for its acquisition of Continental’s OTR assets.34 As indicated previously, Titan’s acquisition of

Continental and Goodyear OTR assets are appropriately reflected in the financial information reported to

the Commission as if Titan owned these assets throughout the period. 

For the industry as a whole R&D declined during the period. This pattern was ***. Goodyear

stated that “***.”35 

In contrast with Goodyear, *** R&D expenses during the period. According to the company,

“***.”36
 37 E-mail from Covington and Burling on behalf of Goodyear, July 20, 2007. 

VI-9

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any actual or anticipated negative effects

of imports of certain OTR tires from China on their firms’ growth, investment, and ability to raise capital

or development and production efforts (including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced

version of the product). 

Actual Negative Effects

BFNA ***.

Carlisle ***.

Denman ***. 

Goodyear ***.

Michelin ***.

Specialty ***.

Titan ***. 

Anticipated Negative Effects

BFNA ***.

Carlisle ***.

Denman ***.

Goodyear ***.37

Michelin ***.

Specialty ***.

Titan ***.
 
 1

 Section 771(7)(F)(ii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii)) provides that “The Commission shall consider

[these factors] . . . as a whole in making a determination of whether further dumped or subsidized imports are

imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would occur unless an order is issued or a suspension

agreement is accepted under this title. The presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to

consider . . . shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the determination. Such a determination

may not be made on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition.”

VII-1

PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS

Section 771(7)(F)(I) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(I)) provides that–

In determining whether an industry in the United States is threatened

with material injury by reason of imports (or sales for importation) of

the subject merchandise, the Commission shall consider, among other

relevant economic factors1

--

(I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may be

presented to it by the administering authority as to the nature of the

subsidy (particularly as to whether the countervailable subsidy is a

subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement), and

whether imports of the subject merchandise are likely to increase,

(II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial

increase in production capacity in the exporting country indicating the

likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject merchandise

into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export

markets to absorb any additional exports,

(III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of

imports of the subject merchandise indicating the likelihood of

substantially increased imports,

(IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices

that are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on

domestic prices, and are likely to increase demand for further imports,

(V) inventories of the subject merchandise,

(VI) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in the

foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise,

are currently being used to produce other products,

(VII) in any investigation under this title which involves imports of both

a raw agricultural product (within the meaning of paragraph (4)(E)(iv))

and any product processed from such raw agricultural product, the

likelihood that there will be increased imports, by reason of product

shifting, if there is an affirmative determination by the Commission

under section 705(b)(1) or 735(b)(1) with respect to either the raw
 2

 Section 771(7)(F)(iii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(iii)) further provides that, in antidumping

investigations, “. . . the Commission shall consider whether dumping in the markets of foreign countries (as

evidenced by dumping findings or antidumping remedies in other WTO member markets against the same class or

kind of merchandise manufactured or exported by the same party as under investigation) suggests a threat of material

injury to the domestic industry.”

VII-2

agricultural product or the processed agricultural product (but not

both),

(VIII) the actual and potential negative effects on the existing

development and production efforts of the domestic industry, including

efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic

like product, and

(IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the probability

that there is likely to be material injury by reason of imports (or sale for

importation) of the subject merchandise (whether or not it is actually

being imported at the time).2

Information on the nature of the alleged subsidies is presented in Part I. Information on the

volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Parts IV and V. Information on

the effects of imports of the subject merchandise on U.S. producers’ existing development and production

efforts is presented in Part VI. Information on inventories of the subject merchandise; foreign producers’

operations, including the potential for “product-shifting;” any other threat indicators, if applicable; and

any dumping in third-country markets, follows.
 3

 Petition, exh. 4.

 4 Other identified sources of imports of certain OTR tires from China that did not submit foreign producer

questionnaire responses included: ***.

 5

 The coverage share is based on a summary of estimates provided by firms in response to the Commission’s

questionnaire. Chinese producers’ questionnaire responses, section II-8, fn. 3 and 4. Counsel for the Chinese

respondents assert that the foreign producer questionnaire data for the 17 responding firms “appear to account for a

very high proportion of total subject imports” based on surveys of the Chinese Rubber Industry Association. 

Chinese respondents postconference brief, pp. 9-11. Petitioners argue that the foreign producer questionnaire data

submitted to the Commission “significantly understates the size of the Chinese OTR industry,” citing Chinese export

statistics and the total of 100 companies identified in the petition “who either are or could be shipping subject

merchandise to the United States.” Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 39.

 6

 ***, reported that it plans to expand production of OTR tires in China and that approximately *** percent of the

new capacity being added will be dedicated to subject tires. As reported by the firm, “***.” ***’s foreign producer

questionnaire response, section II-1. 

 7 In addition to ***, *** reported plans to expand production. *** is currently undergoing an OTR tire

production expansion to add an additional *** units of annual production capacity to be completed by ***. Another

firm, ***, reported that it will *** if demand increases. ***’s foreign producer questionnaire responses, section II-1.

 8

 Capacity for responding firms was based on operating ranges of 40 to 168 hours per week, 45 to 52 weeks per

year. *** reported a 40-hour work week, while seven firms reported 160-hour work weeks, and two firms reported

168-hour work weeks. *** firms reported working 50 weeks each year.

VII-3

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

The petition in these investigations identified approximately 100 producers and/or exporters of

certain OTR tires in China.3

 The Commission sent foreign producer questionnaires to the 21 firms that

were identified with contact information, and received 17 completed foreign producer questionnaire

responses.4

 The responding firms reported that they accounted for an estimated 31.5 percent of certain

OTR tire production in China during 2006 and an estimated 75.3 percent of exports to the United States

of certain OTR tires during 2006.5

 Table VII-1 presents the responding subject producers in China, and

quantities and shares of reported 2006 production and exports to the United States of certain OTR tires. 

Table VII-1

Certain OTR tires: Chinese producers’ production, shares of reported production, and share of

reported exports to the United States, 2006

* * * * * * *

Table VII-2 presents information on Chinese producers’ certain OTR tire operations as compiled

from responses to the Commission’s questionnaire. Chinese capacity and production grew throughout the

period of investigation, and are projected to increase in 2007 and 2008.6 7

 Capacity utilization rates

registered approximately 90 percent throughout the period.8

 As was the case with U.S. producers, the

average production weight of certain OTR tires produced in China increased throughout the period of

investigation, by 6 percent from 2004 to 2006, and a projected 25 percent from 2006 to 2007.
 9

 Three Chinese producers, ***, indicated in their questionnaire responses that future projections are based on

certain factors that will cause exports to decline. These factors include the consistent rise of the Chinese renminbi

over the U.S. dollar, the recent VAT rebate reduction on subject products from 13 percent to 5 percent, the recent

rise in ocean transportation costs, and increases in global competition. Foreign producers’ questionnaire responses,

section II-7. In addition, counsel for Chinese respondents cite the reduction of the export tax rebates for rubber

products as factors that discourage exports to the United States. Chinese respondents’ postconference brief, p. 44.

VII-4

Table VII-2

Certain OTR tires: Chinese producers’ operations, 2004-06, January-March 2006, and January-March 2007

and projected 2007-08

Item

Actual experience January-March Projections

2004 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 tires)

Capacity 3,804 4,346 5,377 1,197 1,266 5,603 5,674

Production 3,450 4,014 4,751 1,079 1,171 5,107 5,191

End-of-period inventories 486 401 431 396 763 446 459

Shipments: 

 Internal consumption 5 2 25 0 0 1 2

 Home market 1,731 2,046 2,322 560 601 2,661 2,728

 Exports to--

 The United States 766 953 1,092 267 282 943 946

 All other markets 793 1,110 1,253 256 325 1,483 1,501

 Total exports 1,560 2,063 2,345 523 607 2,427 2,447

 Total shipments 3,295 4,111 4,693 1,083 1,208 5,089 5,176

Ratios and shares (percent), except as noted

Capacity utilization 90.7 92.4 88.4 90.1 92.5 91.2 91.5

Average production weight

(pounds per tire) 129 120 134 134 167 165 170

Ratio inventories to production 14.1 10.0 9.1 9.2 16.3 8.7 8.8

Ratio inventories to shipments 14.8 9.7 9.2 9.1 15.8 8.8 8.9

Share of shipments: 

 Internal consumption 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 (1

) (1)

 Home market 52.5 49.8 49.5 51.7 49.7 52.3 52.7

 Exports to--

 The United States 23.3 23.2 23.3 24.6 23.3 18.5 18.3

 All other markets 24.1 27.0 26.7 23.7 26.9 29.1 29.0

 Total exports 47.3 50.2 50.0 48.3 50.2 47.7 47.3

1

 Less than 0.05 percent.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 Home market sales accounted for approximately half of total shipments of certain OTR tires

during the period of investigation, and are projected to account for 52 to 53 percent of total shipments in

2007 and 2008. Exports as a share of total shipments fluctuated slightly. Exports to the United States

consistently accounted for 23 percent during 2004-06 and are projected to decrease to approximately 18

percent in 2007 and 2008.9

 The share of exports to all other markets increased from 24.1 percent to 26.7
 10 Counsel for respondents argued that the Chinese producers are focused on the home market and exports to third

countries. “On a combined basis, home market shipments and third country exports account for roughly 80 percent

of total in the 2006 unit volume and probably more on a value basis.” Conference transcript, pp. 180-181

(Anderson). Other export markets reported by Chinese producers included: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Egypt,

European Union, India, Indonesia, Liberia, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa,

Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Foreign producer questionnaire responses, section II-8.

VII-5

percent from 2004 to 2006, and is projected to increase to about 29 percent of total exports in 2007 and

2008.10

In addition to certain OTR tires, Chinese producers produce nonsubject OTR tires and truck tires

on the same equipment and machinery used to produce certain OTR tires. Of the 17 Chinese producers

that submitted questionnaire responses, two producers reported devoting production exclusively to

certain OTR tires. Table VII-3 presents Chinese producers’ share of subject and nonsubject OTR tire

production using the same equipment and machinery.

Table VII-3

Tires: Shares of Chinese production of tires using the same equipment and machinery, 2006

* * * * * * *
VII-6

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

Data collected in these investigations on U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of certain

OTR tires are presented table VII-4. U.S. importers’ reported inventories of certain OTR tires from China

decreased by 30.0 percent from 2004 to 2005, then increased by 57.1 percent from 2005 to 2006. 

Inventories from China increased by 28.0 percent during January-March 2007 when compared to

January-March 2006. These inventories from China, as a share of imports, fell from 21.2 percent in 2004

to 12.1 percent in 2006.

Table VII-4

Certain OTR tires: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source, 2004-06, January-March

2006, and January-March 2007

Item

Calendar year January-March

2004 2005 2006 2006 2007

China:

Inventories (1,000 tires) 111 78 123 83 106

Ratio of inventories to imports (percent) 21.2 10.1 12.1 10.2 10.6

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 19.9 9.8 13.1 10.7 10.3

Nonsubject sources:

Inventories (1,000 tires) 266 249 222 267 220

Ratio of inventories to imports (percent) 32.6 23.3 22.8 24.0 16.2

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 32.8 24.1 23.3 26.6 17.2

All sources:

Inventories (1,000 tires) 378 327 344 350 326

Ratio of inventories to imports (percent) 28.1 17.8 17.3 18.2 13.8

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 27.5 17.8 18.3 19.7 14.1

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. IMPORTERS’ CURRENT ORDERS

Thirteen U.S. importers reported that they had placed orders for certain OTR tires from China for

delivery into the United States after March 31, 2007. Table VII-5 presents U.S. importers’ orders for the

April-December 2007 period of certain OTR tires from China.

Table VII-5

Certain OTR tires: U.S. importers’ current orders from China for April-December 2007 delivery

* * * * * * *
 11 One firm, ***, reported that Argentina, Turkey, and South Africa all have antidumping duties on tires from

China, but it is unclear at this time as to whether the tires involved are certain OTR tires. In Argentina, antidumping

duties on imports of tires from China, Indonesia, and Thailand were imposed on March 21, 2003 and antidumping

duties on imports of tires from Brazil were imposed on June 14, 2005. In South Africa, provisional antidumping

duties on imports of tires from China were imposed on October 20, 2006. In Turkey, antidumping duties on imports

of new rubber pneumatic tires from China were imposed on August 20, 2005. *** importer questionnaire response,

section I-10.

 12 Silicon Metal from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-991 (Second Remand), USITC Publication 3910, March 2007, p. 2;

citing Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d at 1375. 

 13 In the silicon metal remand, Chairman Pearson noted “consistent with his views in Lined Paper School

Supplies From China, India, and Indonesia, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-442-443 and 731-TA-1095-1097 (Final), USITC Pub.

3884 (Sept. 2006) at 51, that while he agrees with the Commission that the Federal Circuit’s opinion suggests a

replacement/benefit test, he also finds that the Federal Circuit’s opinion could be read, not as requiring a new test,

but rather as a reminder that the Commission, before it makes an affirmative determination, must satisfy itself that it

has not attributed material injury to factors other than subject imports.” Silicon Metal from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA991 (Second Remand), USITC Publication 3910, March 2007, p. 2, fn. 17. Commissioner Okun joined in those

separate and dissenting views in Lined Paper. 

 14 Counsel for GPX noted that certain subject OTR tires can be considered as a commodity product, but asks the

Commission to “look carefully at whether or not the imposition of a dumping duty would benefit, for example, the

Trelleborgs that moved to Sri Lanka and not to the U.S. industry.” Conference transcript, p. 206 (Sailer). 

 15 Certain OTR tires are produced to be used on specific vehicles and equipment due to factors such as its size,

ply rating, and tread type. An example of differing applications for certain OTR tires, dependent on each specific

OTR tire specification: “If you have a tire that is operating on a vehicle that's mowing lawns in a park, you're going

to have a turf and flotation tire. It's not a severe duty. But these pieces of equipment also operate in steel yards and

scrap yards and severe-duty mining operations, and, in those cases, you need a much more severe-duty tire. You

simply cannot compare a size and ply rating and tread type across a broad range of tire applications.” Conference

(continued...)

VII-7

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY ORDERS 

IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

Based on questionnaire responses of U.S. producers, U.S. importers, and Chinese producers, no

known antidumping or countervailing duties on subject OTR tires exist in third-country markets.11

INFORMATION ON NONSUBJECT SOURCES

“Bratsk” Considerations

As a result of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) decision in Bratsk

Aluminum Smelter v. United States (“Bratsk”), the Commission is directed to:12 13

undertake an “additional causation inquiry” whenever certain triggering factors are

met: “whenever the antidumping investigation is centered on a commodity product, and

price competitive non-subject imports are a significant factor in the market.” The

additional inquiry required by the Court, which we refer to as the Bratsk

replacement/benefit test, is “whether non-subject imports would have replaced the

subject imports without any beneficial effect on domestic producers.

All parties agree that the Bratsk considerations do not apply to certain OTR tires because such

tires are not commodity products.14 15 16
 15 (...continued)

transcript, p. 149 (Gantz). No incentive exists for firms to shift production of the subject product from abroad to the

United States. Conference transcript, p. 87 (Stewart).

 16 The import values range broadly for certain OTR tires. For example, “the CIF value per unit for 2006, if all

categories at issue are combined, the average unit value for China was $25 per tire. The second-largest supplier in

value is Japan, and the average unit value there was $1,417 per tire. Next is Spain, at $1,191 per tire, and then

France, at $676 per tire.” Conference transcript, p. 120 (Dorn).

 17 Found at www.rubbernews.com, retrieved on July 27, 2007.

 18 International Rubber Study Group, Wembley, U.K., 2007.

VII-8

The Global Tire Industry

The tire industry is multinational in nature; therefore, production plants are situated in virtually

every geographic region, particularly in North America, Europe, Japan, other Asian countries, Oceania,

Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa.17 Strategic supplies of natural rubber integral to the

production of certain OTR tires are situated near the equator in many of the Asian countries, including

Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, India, China, and Sri Lanka; there is also significant production in Brazil,

and several West African countries.18 Tire plants of one form or another are also found in all of these

countries. Large global tire plants in many regions of the world have the capability to produce a variety

of tires, including, passenger car, truck and bus, and certain OTR tires, variably dependent upon logistics,

demand, and affiliation. 

Based on 2006 new tire sales of all types, Bridgestone is the largest tire manufacturer in the

world, followed by Michelin and Goodyear. Among them, they accounted for $56 billion, or about 67

percent of the aggregate $84 billion total of new tire sales by the top 10 global leaders.
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

34478 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 120 / Friday, June 22, 2007 / Notices 

Recreation Site, unless BLM publishes a 

Federal Register notice to the contrary. 

The Western Montana Resource 

Advisory Council (RAC) has reviewed 

the proposal to charge a fee at the White 

Sandy Recreation Site. Future 

adjustments in the fee amount will be 

modified in accordance with the Butte 

Field Office Recreation Fee Business 

Plan, consultation with the Western 

Montana Resource Advisory Council 

and other public notice prior to a fee 

increase. 

ADDRESSES: Mail: Field Manager, Butte 

Field Office, 106 N. Parkmont, Butte, 

MT 59701. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick 

Hotaling, Field Manager Butte Field 

Office, 106 N. Parkmont, Butte, MT 

59701. (406) 533–7600. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 

section 3(g) of the REA, the White 

Sandy Recreation Site on Hauser Lake 

qualifies as a site wherein visitors can 

be charged an ‘‘Expanded Amenity 

Recreation Fee.’’ Visitors wishing to use 

the expanded amenities BLM has 

developed at the White Sandy 

Recreation Site (e.g. camping and picnic 

areas, boat launches, day use areas) 

could purchase a recreation use permit 

as described at 43 CFR part 2930. 

Pursuant to the REA and implementing 

regulations at 43 CFR subpart 2933, fees 

may be charged for day-use facilities, 

overnight camping, and group use 

reservations. Specific visitor fees will be 

identified and posted at the site. Fees 

must be paid at the self-service pay 

station located at the site. People 

holding the America The Beautiful—

The National Parks and Federal 

Recreational Lands—Senior Pass (i.e. 

Interagency Senior Pass), a Golden Age 

Passport, the America The Beautiful—

The National Parks and Federal 

Recreational Lands—Access Pass (i.e. 

Interagency Access Pass) or a Golden 

Access Passport will be entitled to a 50 

percent fee reduction on all fees except 

group reservations. 

The White Sandy Recreation Site is a 

highly developed 30-unit campground 

and day-use site located along the 

Missouri River on Hauser Lake. The site 

is about 18 miles northeast of Helena, 

Montana, and is accessible via Interstate 

I–15, Highway 453 (Lincoln Road) and 

the Hauser Dam County Road. The BLM 

is committed to provide and receive fair 

value for the use of developed 

recreation facilities and services in a 

manner that meets public use demands, 

provides quality experiences and 

protects important resources. It is BLM’s 

policy to collect fees at all specialized 

recreation sites or where the BLM 

provides facilities, equipment or 

services, at Federal expense, in 

connection with outdoor use. In an 

effort to meet increasing demands for 

services and maintenance of developed 

facilities, the BLM would implement a 

fee program for the White Sandy 

Recreation Site. Implementing a fee 

program at the White Sandy Recreation 

Site will help ensure that funding is 

available to maintain existing facilities 

and recreational opportunities, to 

provide for law enforcement presence, 

to develop additional services, and to 

protect resources. This entails 

communication with those who will be 

most directly affected by establishing 

fees at the White Sandy Recreation Site, 

for example, recreationists, other 

recreation providers, partners, 

neighbors, as well as those who will 

have a stake in solving concerns that 

may arise throughout the life of the 

White Sandy Recreation Site. 

Acquisition and development of the 

White Sandy Recreation Site is 

consistent with the 1984 Headwaters 

Resource Management Plan, and was 

analyzed in the White Sandy Recreation 

Site Development and Acquisition 

Project Environmental Assessment (EA) 

of December 2004 (No. MT–070–05–06, 

DR/FONSI signed 12/15/04). 

Information concerning the proposed 

new fees is analyzed in that EA, which 

states that fees would be consistent with 

other established fee sites in the area 

and coordinated with other managing 

agencies, specifically, the Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

(MFWP). Future adjustments in the fee 

amount will be made in accordance 

with the Butte Field Office Recreation 

Fee Business Plan, consultation with the 

Western Montana Resource Advisory 

Council, and after other public notice. 

In December 2004, the REA was 

signed into law. The REA provides 

authority for 10 years for the Secretaries 

of the Interior and Agriculture to 

establish, modify, charge, and collect 

recreation fees for use of some Federal 

recreation lands and waters, and 

contains specific provisions addressing 

public involvement in the establishment 

of recreation fees, including a 

requirement that Recreation Resource 

Advisory Committees or Councils have 

the opportunity to make 

recommendations regarding 

establishment of such fees. The REA 

also directed the Secretaries of the 

Interior and Agriculture to publish 

advance notice in the Federal Register 

whenever new recreation fee areas are 

established under their respective 

jurisdictions. In accordance with the 

BLM recreation fee program policy, the 

Butte Field Office Recreational Fee 

Business Plan explains the fee 

collection process, and outlines how the 

fees will be used at the White Sandy 

Recreation Site. BLM has notified and 

involved the public at each stage of the 

planning process, including the 

proposal to collect fees. The Western 

Montana Resource Advisory Council 

has reviewed the fee proposal as well. 

Fee amounts will be posted on-site and 

at the Butte Field Office. Copies of the 

Business Plan will be available at the 

Butte Field Office, 106 N. Parkmont, 

Butte, MT 59701 and the BLM Montana 

State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, 

Billings, Montana 59101. 

The BLM welcomes public comments 

on this proposal. Before including your 

address, phone number, e-mail address, 

or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, be 

advised that your entire comment—

including your personal identifying 

information—may be made publicly 

available at any time. While you can ask 

us in your comment to withhold from 

public review your personal identifying 

information, we cannot guarantee that 

we will be able to do so. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 6803(b). 

Dated: June 1, 2007. 

Rick Hotaling, 

Field Manager, Butte Field Office. 

[FR Doc. E7–12136 Filed 6–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–$$–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–448 and 731–

TA–1117 (Preliminary)] 

Certain Off-The-Road Tires From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of countervailing 

duty and antidumping investigations 

and scheduling of a preliminary phase 

investigations. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the institution of investigations 

and commencement of preliminary 

phase countervailing duty and 

antidumping investigations Nos. 701–

TA–448 and 731–TA–1117 

(Preliminary) under sections 703(a) and 

733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 

U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)) (the Act) 

to determine whether there is a 

reasonable indication that an industry 

in the United States is materially 

injured or threatened with material 

injury, or the establishment of an 

industry in the United States is 

materially retarded, by reason of certain 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 120 / Friday, June 22, 2007 / Notices 34479 

1The imported products covered by these 

investigations are new pneumatic tires designed for 

off-the-road and off-highway use. Vehicles and 

equipment using the subject tires include, but are 

not limited to, agricultural and forestry vehicles and 

equipment (e.g., agricultural tractors, combine 

harvesters, agricultural high clearance sprayers, 

industrial tractors, log-skidders, agricultural 

implements, highway-towed implements, 

agricultural logging, and agricultural dump trucks 

and rigid frame haul trucks, front end loaders, 

dozers, lift trucks, straddle carriers, graders, mobile 

cranes, compactors); and industrial vehicles and 

equipment (e.g., smooth floor industrial, mining, 

counterbalanced lift trucks, industrial and mining 

vehicles other than smooth floor, skid-steers/miniloaders, and smooth floor off-the-road 

counterbalanced lift trucks). The tires may be either 

tube-type or tubeless, radial or non-radial, and 

intended for sale either to original equipment 

manufacturers or the replacement market. The 

subject tires currently enter under the following 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule the United States 

subheadings: 4011.20.1025, 4011.20.1035, 

4011.20.5030, 4011.20.5050, 4011.61.0000, 

4011.62.0000, 4011.63.0000, 4011.69.0000, 

4011.92.0000, 4011.93.4000, 4011.93.8000, 

4011.94.4000, and 4011.94.8000. 

Expressly excluded from the petition are: tires of 

a kind designed primarily for on-highway or onroad use, including passenger cars, race cars, station 

wagons, sport utility vehicles, minivans, mobile 

homes, motorcycles, bicycles, on-road or onhighway trailers, light trucks, trucks and buses, and 

other such vehicles. Also excluded are tires of a 

kind used on aircraft, all-terrain vehicles, and 

vehicles for turf, lawn and garden, golf and trailer 

applications (so-called consumer tires). Also 

excluded are tires of a kind used for mining and 

construction vehicles and equipment that have a 

rim diameter equal to or exceeding 39 inches. Such 

tires may be distinguished from other tires of 

similar size by the numbers of plies that the 

construction and mining tires contain (minimum of 

16) and the weight of such tires (minimum of 1,500 

pounds). The written description of the scope of 

these investigations is dispositive. 

off-the-road tires imports from China,1

that are alleged to be subsidized by the 

government of China and sold in the 

United States at less than fair value. 

Unless the Department of Commerce 

extends the time for initiation pursuant 

to sections 701(c)(1)(B) and 732(c)(1)(B) 

of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1671a(c)(1)(B) 

§ 1673a(c)(1)(B)), the Commission must 

reach a preliminary determination in 

antidumping investigations in 45 days, 

or in this case by Wednesday, August 1, 

2007. The Commission’s views are due 

at Commerce within five business days 

thereafter, or by August 9, 2007. 

For further information concerning 

the conduct of these investigations and 

rules of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: June 18, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joanna Lo (202–205–1888), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

These investigations are being 

instituted in response to a petition filed 

on June 18, 2007, by Titan Tire 

Corporation, Des Moines, IA, and 

United Steel, Paper and Forestry, 

Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied 

Industrial and Service Workers 

International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC 

(‘‘USW’’), Pittsburgh, PA. 

Participation in the investigations and 

public service list.—Persons (other than 

petitioners) wishing to participate in the 

investigations as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the 

Commission’s rules, not later than seven 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Industrial users 

and (if the merchandise under 

investigations is sold at the retail level) 

representative consumer organizations 

have the right to appear as parties in 

Commission countervailing duty and 

antidumping investigations. The 

Secretary will prepare a public service 

list containing the names and addresses 

of all persons, or their representatives, 

who are parties to these investigations 

upon the expiration of the period for 

filing entries of appearance. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in these investigations 

available to authorized applicants 

representing interested parties (as 

defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are 

parties to the investigations under the 

APO issued in the investigations, 

provided that the application is made 

not later than seven days after the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. A separate service list will be 

maintained by the Secretary for those 

parties authorized to receive BPI under 

the APO. 

Conference 

The Commission’s Director of 

Operations has scheduled a conference 

in connection with these investigations 

for 9:30 a.m. on July 9, 2007, at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC. Parties wishing to 

participate in the conference should 

contact Joanna Lo (202–205–1888) not 

later than July 5, 2007, to arrange for 

their appearance. Parties in support of 

the imposition of countervailing or 

antidumping duties in these 

investigations and parties in opposition 

to the imposition of such duties will 

each be collectively allocated one hour 

within which to make an oral 

presentation at the conference. A 

nonparty who has testimony that may 

aid the Commission’s deliberations may 

request permission to present a short 

statement at the conference. 

Written Submissions 

As provided in sections 201.8 and 

207.15 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person may submit to the Commission 

on or before July 12, 2007, a written 

brief containing information and 

arguments pertinent to the subject 

matter of the investigations. Parties may 

file written testimony in connection 

with their presentation at the conference 

no later than three days before the 

conference. If briefs or written 

testimony contain BPI, they must 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even 

where electronic filing of a document is 

permitted, certain documents must also 

be filed in paper form, as specified in II 

(C) of the Commission’s Handbook on 

Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 

68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the investigations 

must be served on all other parties to 

the investigations (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: These investigations are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.12 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
34480 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 120 / Friday, June 22, 2007 / Notices 

1The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)). 

2Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane dissenting 

with respect to casing and tubing from all countries 

and Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert dissenting with 

respect to casing and tubing from Japan and Korea.

Issued: June 19, 2007. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–12114 Filed 6–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–711 and 713–

716 (Second Review)] 

Oil Country Tubular Goods From 

Argentina, Italy, Japan, Korea, and 

Mexico 

Determinations 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject five-year reviews, the 

United States International Trade 

Commission (Commission) determines, 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the 

Act), that revocation of the antidumping 

duty orders on oil country tubular goods 

from Argentina, Italy, Japan, Korea, and 

Mexico would not be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to the industries in the United 

States producing oil country tubular 

goods other than drill pipe (‘‘casing and 

tubing’’) and, with respect to Japan, drill 

pipe, within a reasonably foreseeable 

time.2

Background 

The Commission instituted these 

reviews on June 1, 2006 (71 F.R. 31207) 

and determined on September 5, 2006 

that it would conduct full reviews (71 

FR 54520, September 15, 2006). Notice 

of the scheduling of the Commission’s 

reviews and of a public hearing to be 

held in connection therewith was given 

by posting copies of the notice in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 

Washington, DC, and by publishing the 

notice in the Federal Register on 

September 29, 2006 (71 FR 57566). The 

hearing was held in Washington, DC, on 

April 12, 2007, and all persons who 

requested the opportunity were 

permitted to appear in person or by 

counsel. 

The Commission transmitted its 

determinations in these reviews to the 

Secretary of Commerce on June 18, 

2007. The views of the Commission are 

contained in USITC Publication 3923 

(June 2007), entitled Oil Country 

Tubular Goods From Argentina, Italy, 

Japan, Korea, and Mexico: Investigation 

Nos. 731–TA–711 and 713–716 (Second 

Review). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: June 18, 2007. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–12091 Filed 6–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of Job Corps; Advisory 

Committee on Job Corps; Meeting 

AGENCY: Office of Job Corps, Labor. 

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee 

meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on 

Job Corps (ACJC) was established in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Workforce Investment Act, 29 U.S.C. 

2895, and the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act on August 22, 2006 (71 

FR 48949). The Committee was 

established to advance Job Corps’ new 

vision for student achievement aimed at 

21st century high-growth employment. 

This Committee will also evaluate Job 

Corps program characteristics, including 

its purpose, goals, and effectiveness, 

efficiency, and performance measures in 

order to address the critical issues 

facing the provision of job training and 

education to the youth population that 

it serves. The Committee may provide 

other advice and recommendations with 

regard to identifying and overcoming 

problems, planning program or center 

development or strengthening relations 

between Job Corps and agencies, 

institutions, or groups engaged in 

related activities. 

DATES: July 10, 2007, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

The meeting will be in the morning and 

a panel of experts will brief the 

Committee in the afternoon on various 

topics related to the Job Corps program. 

ADDRESSES: The Advisory Committee 

meeting will be held at the Residence 

Inn Arlington Pentagon City, 550 Army 

Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. 

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT: 

The Office of Job Corps at 202-693–3000 

(this is not a toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Advisory Committee on Job Corps 

(ACJC) was established in accordance 

with the provisions of the Workforce 

Investment Act, 29 U.S.C. 2895, and the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act on 

August 22, 2006 (71 FR 48949). The 

Committee was established to advance 

Job Corps’ new vision for student 

achievement aimed at 21st century highgrowth employment. This Committee 

will also evaluate Job Corps program 

characteristics, including its purpose, 

goals, and effectiveness, efficiency, and 

performance measures in order to 

address the critical issues facing the 

provision of job training and education 

to the youth population that it serves. 

The Committee may provide other 

advice and recommendations with 

regard to identifying and overcoming 

problems, planning program or center 

development or strengthening relations 

between Job Corps and agencies, 

institutions, or groups engaged in 

related activities. 

Agenda: The agenda for the meeting is 

as follows: 

• Overview of the Job Corps Program 

and the current state of the Program; 

• Discussion of Job Corps new vision 

for student achievement and 21st 

century high-growth jobs; 

• Discussion of on-board strength and 

retention issues; and 

• Discussion of overall performance 

of the program. 

Public Participation: The meeting will 

be open to the public. Seating will be 

available to the public on a first-come, 

first-served basis. Seats will be reserved 

for the media. People with disabiities 

should contact the Job Corps Official, 

listed below, if special accommodations 

are needed. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of 

June, 2007. 

Esther R. Johnson, 

National Director, Office of Job Corps. 

[FR Doc. E7–12074 Filed 6–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–23–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–61,000] 

Gibraltar DFC Strip Steel LLC; Farrell, 

PA; Notice of Revised Determination 

on Reconsideration 

On May 21, 2007, the Department 

issued an Affirmative Determination 

Regarding Application on 

Reconsideration applicable to workers 

and former workers of the subject firm. 

The notice was published in the Federal 

Register on May 30, 2007 (72 FR 30031). 

The previous investigation initiated 

on February 22, 2007, resulted in a 

negative determination issued on April 

6, 2007, was based on the finding that 

increased imports of cold rolled strip 

steel did not contribute importantly to 

worker separations or the decline in 

sales or production at the subject firm. 

Furthermore, there was no shift of 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
38816 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Notices 

matters the premature disclosure of 

which would be likely to significantly 

frustrate implementation of an agency 

action as described in 5 U.S.C. 

552b(c)(9)(B), and the portion of the 

meeting dealing with matters that are 

(A) specifically authorized under 

criteria established by an Executive 

Order to be kept secret in the interests 

of national defense or foreign policy and 

(B) in fact properly classified pursuant 

to such Executive Order (5 U.S.C. 

552b(c)(1)(A) and (1)(B)), shall be 

exempt from the provisions relating to 

public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 

2 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). All other 

portions of the DEAC meeting will be 

open to the public. 

For more information, please call 

Yvette Springer at (202) 482–2813.

Dated: July 10, 2007. 

Yvette Springer, 

Committee Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 07–3452 Filed 7–13–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–JT–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–912]

[C–570–913]

Extension of the Deadline for 

Determining the Adequacy of the 

Antidumping Duty and Countervailing 

Duty Petitions: New Pneumatic Off–

The-Road Tires from The People’s

Republic of China 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 16, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laurel LaCivita or Charles Riggle, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 8 

(antidumping); or Mark Hoadley or 

Thomas Gilgunn, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6 (countervailing), Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4243, (202) 482–

0650, (202) 482–3148, and (202) 482–

4236, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

BACKGROUND

The Petitions 

On June 18, 2007, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received 

antidumping duty and countervailing 

duty petitions (‘‘petitions’’) filed in 

proper form by Titan Tire Corporation, 

a subsidiary of Titan International, Inc. 

(‘‘Titan’’), and the United Steel, Paper 

and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service 

Workers International Union, AFL–CIOCLC (‘‘USW’’) (collectively, 

‘‘Petitioners’’), on behalf of the domestic 

industry producing new pneumatic off–

the-road tires (‘‘OTR tires’’).

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petitions 

Sections 702(b)(1) and 732(b)(1) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’)

require that antidumping and 

countervailing duty petitions be filed by 

or on behalf of the domestic industry. 

Sections 702(c)(4)(A) and 732(c)(4)(A) of 

the Act provide that the Department’s

industry support determination be 

based on whether a minimum 

percentage of the relevant industry 

supports the petition. 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, sections 702(c)(4)(D) 

and 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provide 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 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) if 

there is a large number of producers, 

determine industry support using a 

statistically valid sampling method to 

poll the industry. 

Extension of Time 

Sections 702(c)(1)(A)(ii) and 

732(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act provide that 

within 20 days of the filing of 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

petitions, the Department will 

determine, inter alia, whether the 

petitions have been filed by or on behalf 

of the U.S. industry producing the 

domestic like product. Sections 

702(c)(1)(B) and 732(c)(1)(B) of the Act 

provide that the deadline for the 

initiation determination can be 

extended by 20 days in any case in 

which the Department must ‘‘poll or 

otherwise determine support for the 

petition by the industry . . . .’’ Because 

it is not clear from the petitions whether 

the industry support criteria have been 

met, we have determined to extend the 

time limit for initiating the 

investigations in order to poll the 

domestic industry. We intend to issue 

polling questionnaires to all known 

domestic producers of OTR tires 

identified in the petitions. The 

questionnaires will be on file in the 

Central Records Unit in room B–099 of 

the main Department of Commerce 

building. The questionnaire requests 

each company to respond to the 

questions and fax its response to the 

Department.

We will need additional time to 

analyze the domestic producers’

responses to our request for information. 

See the ‘‘Determination of Industry 

Support for the Petitions’’ section of this 

notice, above. Therefore, in accordance 

with sections 702(c)(1)(B) and 

732(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are extending 

the deadline for determining the 

adequacy of the petitions until July 28, 

2007, which is 40 days from the filing 

date of the petitions. Because July 28, 

2007, falls on a Saturday, the initiation 

determination will be due no later than 

Monday, July 30, 2007, the first business 

day following the statutory deadline. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification

Because the Department has extended 

the deadline for the initiation 

determinations, the Department has 

contacted the International Trade 

Commission (‘‘ITC’’) and has made this 

extension notice available to the ITC. 

Dated: July 6, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. E7–13719 Filed 7–13–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–909, A–520–802]

Certain Steel Nails from the People’s

Republic of China and the United Arab 

Emirates:Initiation of Antidumping 

Duty Investigations 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 16, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nicole Bankhead (People’s Republic of 

China) or David Goldberger (United 

Arab Emirates), AD/CVD Operations, 

Offices 9 and 2, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 18, 2007 / Notices 39445 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–402 and 731–

TA–892 and 893 (Review)] 

Honey From Argentina and China 

Determinations 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject five-year reviews, the 

United States International Trade 

Commission (Commission) determines, 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), that 

revocation of the countervailing duty 

order on honey from Argentina and the 

antidumping duty orders on honey from 

Argentina and China would be likely to 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury to an industry in the 

United States within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. 

Background 

The Commission instituted these 

reviews on November 1, 2006 (71 F.R. 

64292) and determined on February 5, 

2007 that it would conduct expedited 

reviews (72 F.R. 6745, February 13, 

2007). The Commission transmitted its 

determinations in these reviews to the 

Secretary of Commerce on June 29, 

2007. The views of the Commission are 

contained in USITC Publication 3929 

(June 2007), entitled Honey From 

Argentina and China: Investigation Nos. 

701–TA–402 and 731–TA–892 and 893 

(Review). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: July 11, 2007. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–13838 Filed 7–17–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–448 and 731–

TA–1117 (Preliminary)] 

Certain Off-the-Road Tires From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Revised schedule for the subject 

investigations. 

SUMMARY: On June 18, 2007, the 

Commission established a schedule for 

the conduct of the subject investigations 

(72 FR 30831, June 4, 2007). 

Subsequently, the Department of 

Commerce extended the date for its 

initiation of the investigations from July 

9 to July 30, 2007. The Commission, 

therefore, is revising its schedule to 

conform with Commerce’s new 

schedule. 

The Commission’s new schedule for 

the investigations is as follows: the 

deadline for filing written briefs is July 

17, 2007, and the administrative 

deadline for transmitting determinations 

and views to Commerce is August 27, 

2007. 

For further information concerning 

the conduct of these investigations and 

rules of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 18, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joanna Lo (202–205–1888/ 

joanna.lo@usitc.gov), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at: http://edis.usitc.gov. 

Authority: These investigations are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to § 207.12 of the Commission’s 

rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: July 12, 2007. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–13829 Filed 7–17–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

SUMMARY: In a letter dated July 26, 2006, 

the United States Trade Representative 

(USTR) requested, under section 332(g) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1332(g)), that the U.S. International 

Trade Commission (Commission) 

prepare three annual reports relating to 

factors that affect trade patterns of 

selected industries in sub-Saharan 

African (SSA) countries. In response, 

the Commission instituted investigation 

No. 332–477, Sub-Saharan Africa: 

Factors Affecting Trade Patterns of 

Selected Industries, and delivered its 

first report on April 3, 2007. This notice 

announces the scheduling of the second 

report in this series, the industries to be 

covered, and the scheduling of a public 

hearing. 

DATES: October 1, 2007: Deadline for 

filing requests to appear at the public 

hearing. 

October 3, 2007: Deadline for filing prehearing briefs and statements. 

October 23, 2007: Public hearing. 

November 2, 2007: Deadline for filing 

post-hearing briefs and statements. 

April 3, 2008: Transmittal of 

Commission report to USTR. 

ADDRESSES: All Commission offices, 

including the Commission’s hearing 

rooms, are located in the United States 

International Trade Commission 

Building, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC. All written 

submissions should be addressed to the 

Secretary, United States International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. The public 

record for this investigation may be 

viewed on the Commission’s electronic 

docket (EDIS) at: http://www.usitc.gov/ 

secretary/edis.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Project leader Falan Yinug (202–205–

2160 or (falan.yinug@usitc.gov) or 

deputy project leader James Fetzer (202–


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Notices Federal Register

43591 

Vol. 72, No. 150 

Monday, August 6, 2007 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Siskiyou County Resource Advisory 

Committee 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The siskiyou County 

Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) 

will meet in Yreka, California, August 

20, 2007. The meeting will include 

routine business and a presentation on 

the Community Wildfire Protection Plan 

by the Fire Safe Council of Siskiyou 

County. 

DATES: The meeting will be held August 

20, 2007, from 4 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Yreka High School Library, Preece 

Way, Yreka California. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob 

Talley, Forest RAC coordinator, 

Klamath National Forest, (530) 841– 

4423 or electronically at 

rtalley@fs.fed.us. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

meeting is open to the public. Public 

comment opportunity will be provided 

and individuals will have the 

opportunity to address the Committee at 

that time. 

Dated: July 30, 2007. 

Margaret J. Boland, 

Designated Federal Official. 

[FR Doc. 07–3825 Filed 8–3–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–570–848) 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China; Notice of 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Howard Smith or Jeff Pedersen, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–5193 and (202) 

482–2769, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 30, 2006, the Department 

of Commerce (Department) published a 

notice of initiation of four new shipper 

reviews of the antidumping duty order 

on freshwater crawfish tail meat from 

the People’s Republic of China (PRC), 

covering the period September 1, 2005, 

through August 31, 2006. See 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Reviews, 71 FR 63284 (October 30, 

2006). One of the four new shipper 

reviews covers Shanghai Now Again 

International Trading Co., Ltd. 

(Shanghai Now Again), an exporter of 

subject merchandise. On March 26, 

2007, Shanghai Now Again withdrew its 

request for a new shipper review. 

Shanghai Now Again explained that the 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) had recently rejected its only 

entry of subject merchandise made 

during the period of review. Shanghai 

Now Again stated that, since the FDA’s 

rejection resulted in no sale being made 

during the period of review, it was 

withdrawing its request for a new 

shipper review. No other party 

requested a new shipper review of 

Shanghai Now Again. 

Rescission of Review 

19 CFR 351.214(f)(1) provides that the 

Department may rescind a new shipper 

review if the party that requested the 

review withdraws its request for review 

within 60 days of the date of publication 

of the notice of initiation of the 

requested review. Although Shanghai 

Now Again withdrew its request after 

the 60-day deadline, we find it 

reasonable to accept the withdrawal 

because we have not yet committed 

significant resources to the new shipper 

review of Shanghai Now Again. 

Specifically, we have not calculated a 

preliminary margin for Shanghai Now 

Again nor have we verified Shanghai 

Now Again’s data. Further, no party has 

opposed Shanghai Now Again’s 

withdrawal from this review. For these 

reasons, we are rescinding the 2005– 

2006 new shipper review of the 

antidumping duty order on freshwater 

crawfish tail meat from the PRC with 

respect to Shanghai Now Again in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(f)(1). 

Assessment 

The Department will instruct Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. For Shanghai Now Again, 

antidumping duties shall be assessed at 

a rate equal to the cash deposit of 

estimated antidumping duties required 

at the time of entry, or withdrawal from 

warehouse, for consumption, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department will 

issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 

days after the publication of this notice. 

Dated: July 30, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–15214 Filed 8–3–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–912] 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Certain New Pneumatic 

Off-the-Road Tires From the People’s 

Republic of China 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 6, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurel LaCivita or Charles Riggle, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 8, Import 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
43592 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 150 / Monday, August 6, 2007 / Notices 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4243 or (202) 482–

0650, respectively. 

Initiation of Investigation 

The Petition 

On June 18, 2007, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received a 

petition on imports of certain new 

pneumatic off-the-road tires (‘‘certain 

OTR tires’’) from the People’s Republic 

of China (‘‘PRC’’) filed in proper form by 

Titan Tire Corporation, a subsidiary of 

Titan International, Inc. (‘‘Titan’’), and 

the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, 

Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied 

Industrial and Service Workers 

International Union, AFL–CIO–CLC 

(‘‘USW’’), (collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’) 

on behalf of the domestic industry 

producing certain OTR tires. The period 

of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is October 1, 

2006 through March 31, 2007. 

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), Petitioners alleged that imports of 

certain OTR tires from the 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 issued 

supplemental questions to Petitioners 

on June 21 and 22, 2007. Petitioners 

filed an amendment to the petition on 

June 22, 2007 and responded to both 

questionnaires on June 27, 2007. 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are certain OTR tires. For 

a full description of the scope of the 

investigation, please see the Scope of 

Investigation in Attachment I of this 

notice. 

Comments on the Scope of the 

Investigation 

During our review of the petition, we 

discussed the scope with Petitioners to 

ensure that it accurately reflects the 

product for which the domestic industry 

is seeking relief. During this review, we 

noted that, while the Department 

typically prefers to rely upon physical 

characteristics to determine the scope of 

product coverage, the scope description 

proposed by Petitioners relied upon, in 

part, end-use applications as a method 

for determining scope coverage. As 

discussed in the preamble to the 

Department’s regulations, we are setting 

aside a period for interested parties to 

raise issues regarding product coverage. 

See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 

(May 19, 1997). The Department 

encourages all interested parties to 

submit comments on the scope of the 

investigation, including whether the 

definition of covered merchandise 

should be based on end-use application, 

and whether additional Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) numbers should be included 

in the scope description. The deadline 

for submitting such comments is 

fourteen calendar days after publication 

of this initiation notice. Rebuttal 

comments are due seven calendar days 

after the deadline for submitting 

comments on the scope of the 

investigation. Comments should be 

addressed to Import Administration’s 

Central Records Unit in Room 1870, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230—Attention: 

Laurel LaCivita, Room 4416. The period 

of scope consultations is intended to 

provide the Department with ample 

opportunity to consider all comments 

and consult with interested parties prior 

to the issuance of the preliminary 

determination. 

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, 

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. 

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 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 a 

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 

render the decision of either agency 

contrary to law. 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), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (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 subtitle.’’ Thus, 

the reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, the Petitioners do not offer a 

definition of domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigation. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that certain 

OTR tires 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 

this case, see the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: 

Certain Off-the-Road Tires from the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC), 

Industry Support at Attachment II (AD 

Initiation Checklist), on file in the 

Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B–

099 of the main Department of 

Commerce building. On July 6, 2007, 

the Department extended the initiation 

deadline by 20 days to poll the domestic 

industry in accordance with section 

732(c)(4)(D) of the Act, because it was 

‘‘not clear from the petitions whether 

the industry support criteria have been 

met * * *’’ See Extension of the 

Deadline for Determining the Adequacy 

of the Antidumping Duty and 

Countervailing Duty Petitions: New 

Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the 

People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 38816 

(July 16, 2007). On July 16, 2007, we 

issued polling questionnaires to all 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 150 / Monday, August 6, 2007 / Notices 43593 

known domestic producers of certain 

OTR tires identified in the petitions and 

by the Department’s research. The 

questionnaires are on file in the CRU. 

For a detailed discussion of the 

responses received, see AD Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment II. 

Based on an analysis of the data 

collected, we determine that the 

Petitioners have demonstrated industry 

support representing over 50 percent of 

the total production of the domestic like 

product. Therefore, the domestic 

producers or workers 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) of the Act are 

met. Furthermore, given that the 

Petitioners represent more than 50 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product, the requirements 

of section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act are 

also met. Accordingly, we determine 

that this petition is filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry within the meaning 

of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. See AD 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

The Department finds that the 

Petitioners filed the petition on behalf of 

the domestic industry because they are 

interested parties as defined in sections 

771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and they 

have demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the 

countervailing duty investigation that 

they are requesting the Department 

initiate. See AD Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II. 

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 this investigation on 

imports of certain OTR tires from the 

PRC. The source of data for the 

deductions and adjustments relating to 

the U.S. price as well as normal value 

(‘‘NV’’) for the PRC are also discussed in 

the AD 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 will reexamine the 

information and revise the margin 

calculations, if appropriate. 

Export Price 

Petitioners relied on nineteen U.S. 

prices for certain OTR tires 

manufactured in the PRC and offered by 

U.S. distributors for sale in the United 

States. The prices provided were 

invoice prices for specific models of 

certain OTR tires falling within the 

scope of this petition for delivery to the 

U.S. customer during the POI. 

Petitioners deducted from the invoice 

prices the costs associated with 

exporting and delivering the product, 

which include ocean freight and 

insurance, and foreign brokerage and 

handling, distributor costs and profit, 

U.S. inland freight and, where 

applicable, U.S. duties. Petitioners did 

not deduct foreign-inland-freight 

charges or domestic brokerage and 

handling (in China) from the export 

price (‘‘EP’’) because such costs were 

included in the valuation of 

international movement expenses. See 

Volume I of the petition at Exhibit 5. 

Normal Value 

Petitioners stated that the PRC is a 

non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) and no 

determination to the contrary has yet 

been made by the Department. In 

previous investigations, the Department 

has determined that the PRC is a NME. 

See, e.g., 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 presumption of NME status 

remains in effect until revoked by the 

Department. The presumption of NME 

status for the PRC has not been revoked 

by the Department and remains in effect 

for the purpose of initiating this 

investigation. Accordingly, the NV of 

the product is appropriately based on 

factors of production valued in a 

surrogate market-economy country in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act. In 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. 

Petitioners selected India as the 

surrogate country. Petitioners argued 

that, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the 

Act, India is an appropriate surrogate 

country because it is a market-economy 

country that is at a comparable level of 

economic development to that of the 

PRC and is a significant producer and 

exporter of certain OTR tires. See 

Volume I of the petition at Exhibits 6 

and 7. Based on the information 

provided by Petitioners, we believe that 

their 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 

factors of production within 40 calendar 

days after the date of publication of the 

preliminary determination. 

Petitioners 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. Petitioners calculated NV 

based on consumption rates for inputs 

used to produce certain OTR tires 

experienced by U.S. producers. In 

accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the 

Act, Petitioners valued factors of 

production, where possible, on 

reasonably available, public surrogate 

country data. To value certain factors of 

production, Petitioners used official 

Indian government import statistics, 

excluding shipments from countries 

previously determined by the 

Department to be NME countries and 

excluding shipments into India from 

Indonesia, the Republic of Korea and 

Thailand, because the Department has 

previously excluded prices from these 

countries because they may maintain 

broadly-available, non-industry specific 

export subsidies. See, e.g., Hand Trucks 

and Certain Parts Thereof From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Administrative Review and 

Final Results of New Shipper Review, 72 

FR 27287 and Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 23 (May 15, 

2007). Petitioners valued two separate 

inputs using Indonesian import 

statistics gathered from Statistics 

Indonesia, the official Indonesian 

import statistics, because it claimed that 

the Indian import values were 

aberrationally high. Citing Saccharin 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 7515, 7516 (February 13, 

2006) and The Timken Company v. 

United States, 59 F. Supp. 2d 1371, 

1375–76 (CIT 1999) (sustaining the 

Department’s practice of resorting to a 

second surrogate country when the 

values in the primary surrogate country 

are deemed to be inappropriate), 

Petitioners explained that the 

Department looks to secondary 

countries when a particular value in the 

primary country is questionable. See 

Volume I of the petition at Exhibit 8B. 

For inputs valued in Indian rupees 

and not contemporaneous with the POI, 

Petitioners developed an inflation factor 

based on import prices into India as 

published in Chemical Weekly. See 

Volume II of the petition at Exhibit 8F. 

Where such information was 

unavailable, Petitioners used 

information from the wholesale price 

indices (‘‘WPI’’) in India as published in 

the International Financial Statistics 

(‘‘IFS’’) of the International Monetary 

Fund (‘‘IMF’’) for input prices during 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
43594 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 150 / Monday, August 6, 2007 / Notices 

the period preceding the POI. Id. In 

addition, Petitioners made currency 

conversions, where necessary, based on 

the average exchange rate for the POI, 

based on monthly exchange rates 

published by the U.S. Federal Reserve 

Board. See Volume I of the petition at 

Exhibit 5 and 8K. 

We revised Petitioners’ calculation of 

the surrogate values for material inputs 

to include more contemporaneous data 

than was provided in the petition, and 

to base our calculations on a single 

source of information. As a result, we 

valued raw material inputs using the 

weighted-average unit import values 

derived from the Monthly Statistics of 

the Foreign Trade of India, as published 

by the Directorate General of 

Commercial Intelligence and Statistics 

of the Ministry of Commerce and 

Industry, Government of India in the 

World Trade Atlas, available at http:// 

www.gtis.com/wta.htm (‘‘WTA’’) for the 

period July through December 2006, 

which includes the first three months of 

the POI, and the three months 

immediately preceding the POI. We 

made no adjustments for inflation since 

the surrogate values for this period 

include a significant portion of the POI. 

In addition, we corrected the values for 

certain factors to correct clerical errors 

made by Petitioners in the transcription 

of the U.S. dollar values recorded for the 

POI by Statistics Indonesia into the 

normal value calculations. See Exhibits 

8B and 8E of the petition and AD 

Initiation Checklist at Attachments V 

and V–R. We also calculated the 

surrogate values for two factors for 

which there were no imports into India 

during the period July to December 2006 

using the most contemporaneous values 

available in the Indian WTA data. We 

made appropriate adjustments for 

inflation. See AD Initiation Checklist at 

Attachments V and V–R. 

The Department calculates and 

publishes the surrogate values for labor 

to be used in NME cases on its Web site. 

Therefore, to value labor, Petitioners 

used a labor rate of $0.83 per hour, 

published on the Department’s Web site, 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages, in 

accordance with the Department’s 

regulations. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3) 

and AD Initiation Checklist. 

Petitioners valued electricity in the 

production of certain OTR tires based 

on the Indian electricity rate as reported 

in the Key World Energy Statistics 2003, 

published by the International Energy 

Agency for the year 2000. See Volume 

II of the petition at Exhibit 8J. 

Petitioners valued water by calculating 

the weighted-average rate of water for 

industrial use from various regions as 

reported by the Maharashtra Industrial 

Development Corporation at http:// 

midcindia.org. dated June 1, 2003. Id. 

Petitioners valued natural gas using the 

rate published by the Gas Authority of 

India Ltd. Web site, a supplier of natural 

gas in India, covering the period January 

through June 2002. Id. In each case, 

Petitioners inflated these figures to the 

POI using information published in IFS. 

See Volume II of the petition at Exhibit 

8I. We revised these calculations to take 

into account more current information 

concerning the WPI in India based on 

the IFS statistics. See AD Initiation 

Checklist at Attachments 5 and 5–H 

through 5–M. 

For the NV calculations, Petitioners 

derived the figures for factory overhead, 

selling, general and administrative 

expenses, and profit from the financial 

ratios of seven Indian producers of 

merchandise that is either identical or 

similar to the domestic like product: 

Apollo Tyres Ltd. (‘‘Apollo’’), 

Balkrishna Industries Limited 

(‘‘Balkrishna’’), CEAT Limited 

(‘‘CEAT’’), Goodyear India 

(‘‘Goodyear’’), J.K. Industries Ltd. (‘‘J.K. 

Industries’’), MRF Limited (‘‘MRF’’) and 

TVS Srichakra Limited (‘‘TVS’’). The 

financial statements provided covered 

the periods of April 2004 to March 2005 

(Apollo), October 2004 to September 

2005 (J.K. Industries, MRF Ltd.), January 

to December 2005 (‘‘Goodyear’’) and 

April 2005 to March 2006 (CEAT, 

Balkrishna, Apollo and TVS). We 

accepted the information presented in 

the financial statements provided in 

Volume I of the petition at Exhibit 8N 

for Balkrishna, CEAT and TVS for the 

purposes of initiation, because these 

data appear to be the most 

contemporaneous and best information 

on such expenses currently available to 

Titan. We did not use the information 

from the financial statements for Apollo, 

Goodyear, J.K. Industries and MRF, 

because of the availability of more 

contemporaneous information from 

Balkrishna, CEAT and TVS. 

We made one adjustment to 

Petitioners’ calculations of the financial 

ratios: We excluded commissions from 

the calculation of selling, general and 

administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’) 

because commissions are ordinarily 

accounted for in the calculation of U.S. 

price. Therefore, in order to avoid 

double counting direct selling expenses, 

we omitted them from the calculation of 

the financial ratio for SG&A. See AD 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment V and 

V–Q. 

Based on the data provided by 

Petitioners, there is reason to believe 

that imports of certain OTR tires from 

the PRC are being, or are likely to be, 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value. Based upon comparisons of EP to 

the NV, calculated in accordance with 

section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated 

calculated dumping margins for certain 

OTR tires from the PRC range from 

30.49 percent to 210.48 percent. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioners allege that the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product is being materially injured by 

reason of the imports of the subject 

merchandise sold at less than NV. 

Petitioners contend that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by the 

reduced market share, lost sales, 

reduced production and capacity 

utilization, reduced shipments, 

underselling and price depressing and 

suppressing effects, lost revenue and 

sales, reduced employment, decline in 

financial performance, decrease in 

capital expenditure, and 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 

AD Initiation Checklist at Attachment 

III. 

Separate-Rates Application 

On April 5, 2005, 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,’’

available on the Department’s Web site 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05–

1.pdf. The process now requires the 

submission of a separate-rate status 

application. Based on our experience in 

processing separate-rate applications in 

antidumping duty investigations, we 

have modified the application for this 

investigation to make it more 

administrable and easier for applicants 

to complete. See Certain Steel Nails 

from the People’s Republic of China and 

the United Arab Emirates: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigations, 72 FR 

38816 (July 16, 2007); Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation: 

Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel 

Pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China, 72 FR 36663 (July 5, 2007); and, 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations: Coated Free Sheet Paper 

from Indonesia, the People’s Republic of 

China, and the Republic of Korea, 71 FR 

68537 (November 27, 2006). The 

specific requirements for submitting the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 150 / Monday, August 6, 2007 / Notices 43595 

1Agricultural tractors are four-wheeled vehicles 

usually with large rear tires and small front tires 

that are used to tow farming equipment. 

2Combine harvesters are used to harvest crops 

such as corn or wheat. 

3Agricultural sprayers are used to irrigate 

agricultural fields. 

4 Industrial tractors are four-wheeled vehicles 

usually with large rear tires and small front tires 

that are used to tow industrial equipment. 

5A log skidder has a grappling lift arm that is 

used to grasp, lift and move trees that have been 

cut down to a truck or trailer for transport to a mill 

or other destination. 

6Skid-steer loaders are four-wheel drive vehicles 

with the left-side drive wheels independent of the 

right-side drive wheels and lift arms that lie 

alongside the driver with the major pivot points 

behind the driver’s shoulders. Skid-steer loaders are 

used in agricultural, construction and industrial 

settings. 

7Haul trucks, which may be either rigid frame or 

articulated (i.e., able to bend in the middle) are 

typically used in mines, quarries and construction 

sites to haul soil, aggregate, mined ore, or debris. 

8Front loaders have lift arms in front of the 

vehicle. It can scrape material from one location to 

another, carry material in its bucket or load material 

into a truck or trailer. 

9A dozer is a large four-wheeled vehicle with a 

dozer blade that is used to push large quantities of 

soil, sand, rubble, etc., typically around 

construction sites. They can also be used to perform 

‘‘rough grading’’ in road construction. 

separate-rate application in this 

investigation are outlined in detail in 

the application itself, which will be 

available on the Department’s Web site 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ on the date of 

publication of this initiation notice in 

the Federal Register. Submission of the 

separate-rate application is due no later 

than August 20, 2007. 

NME Respondent Selection and 

Quantity and Value Questionnaire 

For NME investigations, it is the 

Department’s practice to request 

quantity and value information from all 

known exporters identified in the 

petition. Although many NME exporters 

respond to the quantity and value 

information request, at times some 

exporters may not have received the 

quantity and value questionnaire or may 

not have received it in time to respond 

by the specified deadline. Therefore, the 

Department typically requests the 

assistance of the NME government in 

transmitting the Department’s quantity 

and value questionnaire to all 

companies who manufacture and export 

subject merchandise to the United 

States, as well as to manufacturers who 

produce the subject merchandise for 

companies who were engaged in 

exporting subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POI. The 

quantity and value data received from 

NME exporters is used as the basis to 

select the mandatory respondents. 

The Department requires that the 

respondents submit a response to both 

the quantity and value questionnaire 

and the separate-rates application by the 

respective deadlines in order to receive 

consideration for separate-rate status. 

Appendix II of this notice contains the 

quantity and value questionnaire that 

must be submitted by all NME exporters 

no later than August 20, 2007. In 

addition, the Department will post the 

quantity and value questionnaire along 

with the filing instructions on the 

Department’s Web site at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-andnews.html. The Department will send 

the quantity and value questionnaire to 

those exporters identified in Volume I of 

the petition at Exhibit 4, and to the PRC 

government. 

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 states the following: 

{w}hile 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 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. 

See Separate-Rates and Combination 

Rates Bulletin, at 6. 

Initiation of Antidumping Investigation 

Based upon our examination of the 

petition on certain OTR tires from the 

PRC, we find that the petition meets the 

requirements of section 732 of the Act. 

Therefore, we are initiating an 

antidumping duty investigation to 

determine whether imports of certain 

OTR tires from the PRC are being, or are 

likely to be, sold in the United States at 

less than fair value. Unless postponed, 

we will make our preliminary 

determination no later than 140 

calendar days after the date of 

publication of this initiation notice. 

Distribution of Copies of the Petition 

In accordance with section 

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the 

public version of the petition has been 

provided to 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 preliminarily determine, 

within 25 days after the date on which 

it receives notice of this initiation, 

whether there is a reasonable indication 

that imports of certain OTR tires from 

the PRC are causing material injury, or 

threatening to cause material injury, to 

a U.S. industry. See section 

733(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. 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. 

Dated: July 30, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I—Scope of The Investigation 

Attachment I—Scope of the 

Investigation for the Petitions Covering 

Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road 

Tires From the People’s Republic of 

China 

The products covered by the scope are 

new pneumatic tires designed for offthe-road (OTR) and off-highway use, 

subject to exceptions identified below. 

Certain OTR tires are generally 

designed, manufactured and offered for 

sale for use on off-road or off-highway 

surfaces, including but not limited to, 

agricultural fields, forests, construction 

sites, factory and warehouse interiors, 

airport tarmacs, ports and harbors, 

mines, quarries, gravel yards, and steel 

mills. The vehicles and equipment for 

which certain OTR tires are designed for 

use include, but are not limited to: (1) 

Agricultural and forestry vehicles and 

equipment, including agricultural 

tractors,1 combine harvesters,2

agricultural high clearance sprayers,3

industrial tractors,4 log-skidders,5

agricultural implements, highwaytowed implements, agricultural logging, 

and agricultural, industrial, skid-steers/ 

mini-loaders; 6 (2) construction vehicles 

and equipment, including earthmover 

articulated dump products, rigid frame 

haul trucks,7 front end loaders,8 dozers,9


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
43596 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 150 / Monday, August 6, 2007 / Notices 

10A straddle carrier is a rigid frame, enginepowered machine that is used to load and offload 

containers from container vessels and load them 

onto (or off of) tractor trailers. 

11A grader is a vehicle with a large blade used 

to create a flat surface. Graders are typically used 

to perform ‘‘finish grading.’’ Graders are commonly 

used in maintenance of unpaved roads and road 

construction to prepare the base course onto which 

asphalt or other paving material will be laid. 

12A counterbalanced lift truck is a rigid frame, 

engine-powered machine with lift arms that has 

additional weight incorporated into the back of the 

machine to offset or counterbalance the weight of 

loads that it lifts so as to prevent the vehicle from 

overturning. An example of a counterbalanced lift 

truck is a counterbalanced fork lift truck. 

Counterbalanced lift trucks may be designed for use 

on smooth floor surfaces, such as a factory or 

warehouse, or other surfaces, such as construction 

sites, mines, etc. 

lift trucks, straddle carriers,10 graders,11

mobile cranes, compactors; and (3) 

industrial vehicles and equipment, 

including smooth floor, industrial, 

mining, counterbalanced lift trucks, 

industrial and mining vehicles other 

than smooth floor, skid-steers/miniloaders, and smooth floor off-the-road 

counterbalanced lift trucks.12 The 

foregoing list of vehicles and equipment 

generally have in common that they are 

used for hauling, towing, lifting, and/or 

loading a wide variety of equipment and 

materials in agricultural, construction 

and industrial settings. The foregoing 

descriptions are illustrative of the types 

of vehicles and equipment that use 

certain OTR tires, but are not 

necessarily all-inclusive. While the 

physical characteristics of certain OTR 

tires will vary depending on the specific 

applications and conditions for which 

the tires are designed (e.g., tread pattern 

and depth), all of the tires within the 

scope have in common that they are 

designed for off-road and off-highway 

use. Except as discussed below, OTR 

tires included in the scope of the 

petitions range in size (rim diameter) 

generally but not exclusively from 8 

inches to 54 inches. The tires may be 

either tube-type or tubeless, radial or 

non-radial, and intended for sale either 

to original equipment manufacturers or 

the replacement market. The subject 

merchandise is currently classifiable 

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) 

subheadings: 4011.20.10.25, 

4011.20.10.35, 4011.20.50.30, 

4011.20.50.50, 4011.61.00.00, 

4011.62.00.00, 4011.63.00.00, 

4011.69.00.00, 4011.92.00.00, 

4011.93.40.00, 4011.93.80.00, 

4011.94.40.00, and 4011.94.80.00. While 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and Customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope is 

dispositive. 

Specifically excluded from the scope 

are new pneumatic tires designed, 

manufactured and offered for sale 

primarily for on-highway or on-road 

use, including passenger cars, race cars, 

station wagons, sport utility vehicles, 

minivans, mobile homes, motorcycles, 

bicycles, on-road or on-highway trailers, 

light trucks, and trucks and buses. Such 

tires generally have in common that the 

symbol ‘‘DOT’’ must appear on the 

sidewall, certifying that the tire 

conforms to applicable motor vehicle 

safety standards. Such excluded tires 

may also have the following 

designations that are used by the Tire 

and Rim Association: 

Prefix Letter Designations 

P—Identifies a tire intended primarily 

for service on passenger cars; 

LT—Identifies a tire intended 

primarily for service on light trucks; 

and, 

ST—Identifies a special tire for 

trailers in highway service. 

Suffix Letter Designations 

TR—Identifies a tire for service on 

trucks, buses, and other vehicles with 

rims having specified rim diameter of 

nominal plus 0.156’’ or plus 0.250’’; 

MH—Identifies tires for Mobile 

Homes; 

HC—Identifies a heavy duty tire 

designated for use on ‘‘HC’’ 15’’ tapered 

rims used on trucks, buses, and other 

vehicles. This suffix is intended to 

differentiate among tires for light trucks, 

and other vehicles or other services, 

which use a similar designation. 

Example: 8R17.5 LT, 8R17.5 HC; 

LT—Identifies light truck tires for 

service on trucks, buses, trailers, and 

multipurpose passenger vehicles used 

in nominal highway service; and 

MC—Identifies tires and rims for 

motorcycles. 

The following types of tires are also 

excluded from the scope: Pneumatic 

tires that are not new, including 

recycled or retreaded tires and used 

tires; non-pneumatic tires, including 

solid rubber tires; tires of a kind used on 

aircraft, all-terrain vehicles, and 

vehicles for turf, lawn and garden, golf 

and trailer applications; and, tires of a 

kind used for mining and construction 

vehicles and equipment that have a rim 

diameter equal to or exceeding 39 

inches. Such tires may be distinguished 

from other tires of similar size by the 

number of plies that the construction 

and mining tires contain (minimum of 

16) and the weight of such tires 

(minimum 1500 pounds). 

Appendix II—Quantity and Value 

Questionnaire 

Where it is not practicable to examine 

all known producers/exporters of 

subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as amended) 

permits us to investigate (1) A sample of 

exporters, producers, or types of 

products that is statistically valid based 

on the information available at the time 

of selection, or (2) exporters and 

producers accounting for the largest 

volume and value of the subject 

merchandise that can reasonably be 

examined. 

In the chart below, please provide the 

total quantity and total value of all your 

sales of merchandise covered by the 

scope of this investigation (See scope 

section of this notice), produced in the 

PRC, and exported/shipped to the 

United States during the period October 

1, 2006, through March 31, 2007. 

Market Total quantity Terms of sale Total value 

United States ....................................................................................................................

1. Export Price Sales ........................................................................................................

2. .......................................................................................................................................

a. Exporter name .......................................................................................................

b. Address .................................................................................................................

c. Contact ..................................................................................................................

d. Phone No. .............................................................................................................

e. Fax No. ..................................................................................................................

3. Constructed Export Price Sales ...................................................................................

4. Further Manufactured Sales .........................................................................................

Total Sales .........................................................................................................


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 150 / Monday, August 6, 2007 / Notices 43597 

Total Quantity 

Please report quantity on a metric ton 

basis. If any conversions were used, 

please provide the conversion formula 

and source. 

Terms of Sales 

Please report all sales on the same 

terms, such as ‘‘free on board’’ at port 

of export. 

Total Value 

All sales values should be reported in 

U.S. dollars. Please provide any 

exchange rates used and their respective 

dates and sources. 

Export Price Sales 

Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as 

an export price sale when the first sale 

to an unaffiliated customer occurs 

before importation into the United 

States. 

Please include any sales exported by 

your company directly to the United 

States. 

Please include any sales exported by 

your company to a third-country market 

economy reseller where you had 

knowledge that the merchandise was 

destined to be resold to the United 

States. 

If you are a producer of subject 

merchandise, please include any sales 

manufactured by your company that 

were subsequently exported by an 

affiliated exporter to the United States. 

Please do not include in your figures 

any sales of merchandise manufactured 

in Hong Kong. 

Constructed Export Price Sales 

Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as 

a constructed export price sale when the 

first sale to an unaffiliated customer 

occurs after importation. However, if the 

first sale to the unaffiliated customer is 

made by a person in the United States 

affiliated with the foreign exporter, 

constructed export price applies even if 

the sale occurs prior to importation. 

Please include any sales exported by 

your company directly to the United 

States. 

Please include any sales exported by 

your company to a third-country market 

economy reseller where you had 

knowledge that the merchandise was 

destined to be resold to the United 

States. 

If you are a producer of subject 

merchandise, please include any sales 

manufactured by your company that 

were subsequently exported by an 

affiliated exporter to the United States. 

Please do not include in your figures 

any sales of merchandise manufactured 

in Hong Kong. 

Further Manufactured Sales 

Further manufacture or assembly 

(including re-packing) sales (further 

manufactured sales’’) refers to 

merchandise that undergoes further 

manufacture or assembly in the United 

States before being sold to the first 

unaffiliated customer. 

Further manufacture or assembly 

costs include amounts incurred for 

direct materials, labor and overhead, 

plus amounts for general and 

administrative expense, interest 

expense, and additional packing 

expense incurred in the country of 

further manufacture, as well as all costs 

involved in moving the product from 

the U.S. port of entry to the further 

manufacturer. 

[FR Doc. E7–15200 Filed 8–3–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–806] 

Notice of Initiation of the 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Silicon 

Metal From the People’s Republic of 

China 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) received a timely 

request to conduct an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on silicon metal from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC). The 

anniversary month of this order is June. 

In accordance with the Department’s 

regulations, we are initiating this 

administrative review. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 6, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scot 

Fullerton or Kristina Horgan, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, 

telephone: (202) 482–1386 or (202) 482–

8173, respectively. 

Background 

On June 1, 2007, the Department 

published in the Federal Register its 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 30542 

(Notice of Opportunity). In the Notice of 

Opportunity, the Department stated ‘‘for 

any party the Department was unable to 

locate in prior segments, the Department 

will not accept a request for an 

administrative review of that party 

absent new information as to the party’s 

location. Moreover, if the interested 

party who files a request for review is 

unable to locate the producer or 

exporter for which it requested the 

review, the interested party must 

provide an explanation of the attempts 

it made to locate the producer or 

exporter at the same time it files its 

request for review, in order for the 

Secretary to determine if the interested 

party’s attempts were reasonable, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii).’’

See Notice of Opportunity, 72 FR at 

30543. 

The Department received a timely 

request from Globe Metallurgical Inc. 

(petitioner) in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(1) for an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on silicon metal from the PRC. 

Petitioner requested an administrative 

review for 18 companies. Therefore, the 

Department is hereby initiating an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on silicon 

metal from the PRC for the 18 

companies for which the Department 

has received a request for review. 

Initiation 

In accordance with section 751(a)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act), we are initiating an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on silicon 

metal from the PRC (i.e., silicon metal 

originating in the PRC). We intend to 

issue the final results of this review on 

approximately June 30, 2008. 

Antidumping duty proceeding Period to be reviewed 

PRC: 1 2 June 1, 2007 through May 31, 2007. 

Alloychem Impex Corp.

Bomet (Canada) Inc.

Carbonsi Metallurgical Inc.

Chemical and Alloy Inc.

Coldstone Metals Inc.


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
44122 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 7, 2007 / Notices 

rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with each 

argument: (1) a statement of the issue; 

(2) a brief summary of the argument 

with an electronic version included; and 

(3) a table of statutes, regulations, and 

cases cited. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any such written briefs 

or hearing, within 120 days of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of the 

administrative review, the Department 

shall determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), for all sales made by 

respondents for which they have 

reported the importer of record and the 

entered value of the U.S. sales, we have 

calculated importer–specific assessment 

rates based on the ratio of the total 

amount of antidumping duties 

calculated for the examined sales to the 

total entered value of those sales. Where 

the respondents did not report the 

entered value for U.S. sales, we have 

calculated importer–specific assessment 

rates for the merchandise in question by 

aggregating the dumping margins 

calculated for all U.S. sales to each 

importer and dividing this amount by 

the total quantity of those sales. To 

determine whether the duty assessment 

rates were de minimis, in accordance 

with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer–

specific ad valorem rates based on the 

estimated entered value. Where the 

assessment rate is above de minimis, we 

will instruct CBP to assess duties on all 

entries of subject merchandise by that 

importer. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate without regard to antidumping 

duties any entries for which the 

assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less 

than 0.50 percent). The Department will 

issue appraisement instructions directly 

to CBP. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

produced by the respondent for which 

it did not know its merchandise was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the all–

others rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediate company(ies) involved in 

the transaction. For a full discussion of 

this clarification, see Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

On July 20, 2007, the Department 

published a Federal Register notice 

that, inter alia, revoked this order, 

effective July 9, 2007. See IQF Red 

Raspberries from Chile: Final Results of 

Sunset Review and Revocation of Order, 

72 FR 39793 (July 20, 2007). Therefore, 

there will be no need to issue new cash 

deposit instructions pursuant to the 

final results of this administrative 

review. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: July 31, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–15327 Filed 8–6–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–913] 

Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road 

Tires From the People’s Republic of 

China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

EFFECTIVE DATES: August 7, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Hoadley or Toni Page, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3148 and (202) 

482–1398, respectively. 

Initiation of Investigation 

The Petition 

On June 18, 2007, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) received a 

petition filed in proper form by Titan 

Tire Corporation and United Steel, 

Paper and Forestry, Rubber, 

Manufacturing, Energy Allied Industrial 

and Service Workers International 

Union, ALF–CIO–CLC (petitioners). On 

June 22, 2007 and July 3, 2007, the 

Department issued requests for 

additional information and clarification 

of certain areas of the petition involving 

general issues concerning the 

countervailing duty (CVD) allegations. 

Based on the Department’s requests, the 

petitioners filed additional information 

concerning the petition on June 27, 2007 

and July 5, 2007. 

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act), petitioners allege that 

manufacturers, producers, or exporters 

of certain new pneumatic off-the-road 

tires (OTR tires) in the People’s 

Republic of China (the PRC) received 

countervailable subsidies within the 

meaning of section 701 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 sections 

771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and 

petitioners have demonstrated sufficient 

industry support with respect to the 

countervailing duty investigation that 

they are requesting the Department to 

initiate (see, infra, ‘‘Determination of 

Industry Support for the Petition’’). 

Scope of Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is certain new pneumatic 

off-the-road tires from the PRC. See 

Attachment to this notice for a complete 

description of the merchandise covered 

by this investigation. 

Comments on Scope of Investigation 

During our review of the petition, we 

discussed the scope with petitioners to 

ensure that it is an accurate reflection of 

the products for which the domestic 

industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as 

discussed in the preamble to the 

regulations (Antidumping Duties: 

Countervailing Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are 

setting aside a period for interested 

parties to raise issues regarding product 

coverage. The Department encourages 

all interested parties to submit such 

comments within 20 calendar days of 

the publication of this notice. 

Comments should be addressed to 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 7, 2007 / Notices 44123 

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 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 determination. 

Consultations 

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Act, the Department invited 

representatives of the Government of the 

People’s Republic of China (hereinafter, 

the GOC) for consultations with respect 

to the countervailing duty petition. The 

Department held these consultations in 

Beijing, China with representatives of 

the GOC on July 16, 2007. See the 

Memorandum to The File, entitled, 

‘‘Consultations with Officials from the 

Government of the People’s Republic of 

China’’ (July 16, 2007) (public document 

on file in the CRU of the Department of 

Commerce, Room B–099). 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition 

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) At least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

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. 

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 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 a 

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 

render the decision of either agency 

contrary to law. 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 

(1988), aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 

1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (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 subtitle.’’ Thus, 

the reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, the petitioners do not offer a 

definition of domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigation. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that certain 

OTR tires 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 

this case, see the Countervailing Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: 

Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road 

Tires from the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC) (OTR Tires CVD Initiation 

Checklist), Industry Support at 

Attachment II, on file in the Central 

Records Unit (CRU), Room B–099 of the 

main Department of Commerce 

building. 

On July 6, 2007, the Department 

extended the initiation deadline by 20 

days to poll the domestic industry in 

accordance with section 702(c)(4)D) of 

the Act, because it was ‘‘not clear from 

the petitions whether the industry 

support criteria have been met * * *’’

See Extension of the Deadline for 

Determining the Adequacy of the 

Antidumping Duty and Countervailing 

Duty Petitions: New Pneumatic Off-theRoad Tires from the People’s Republic 

of China, 72 FR 38816 (July 16, 2007). 

On July 16, 2007, we issued polling 

questionnaires to all known domestic 

producers of certain OTR tires identified 

in the petition and by the Department’s 

research. The questionnaires are on file 

in the CRU. For a detailed discussion of 

the responses received, see OTR Tires 

CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment 

II. 

Based on an analysis of the data 

collected, we determine that the 

petitioners have demonstrated industry 

support representing over 50 percent of 

the total production of the domestic like 

product. Therefore, the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for at least 25 percent 

of the total production of the domestic 

like product, and the requirements of 

section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act are 

met. Furthermore, given that the 

petitioners represent more than 50 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product, the requirements 

of section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act are 

also met. Accordingly, we determine 

that this petition is filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry within the meaning 

of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. See OTR 

Tires CVD Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II. 

The Department finds that the 

petitioners filed the petition on behalf of 

the domestic industry because they are 

interested parties as defined in sections 

771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and they 

have demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the 

countervailing duty investigation that 

they are requesting the Department 

initiate. See OTR Tires CVD Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment II. 

Injury Test 

Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the 

meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, 

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

this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC 

must determine whether imports of the 

subject merchandise from the PRC 

materially injure, or threaten material 

injury to, a U.S. industry. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Iniury and Causation 

Petitioners allege that the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product is being materially injured by 

reason of the imports of the subject 

merchandise sold at less than NV. 

Petitioners contend that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by the 

reduced market share, lost sales, 

reduced production and capacity 

utilization rate, reduced shipments, 

underselling and price depressing and 

suppressing effects, lost revenue and 

sales, reduced employment, decline in 

financial performance, decrease in 

capital expenditure, and increase in 

import penetration. We have assessed 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
44124 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 7, 2007 / Notices 

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 

OTR Tires CVD Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment III. 

Subsidy Allegations 

Section 702(b) of the Act requires the 

Department to initiate a countervailing 

duty proceeding whenever an interested 

party files a petition on behalf of an 

industry that (1) alleges the elements 

necessary for an imposition of a duty 

under section 701(a) of the Act and (2) 

is accompanied by information 

reasonably available to petitioners 

supporting the allegations. The 

Department has examined the 

countervailing duty petition on OTR 

tires from the PRC and found that it 

complies with the requirements of 

section 702(b) of the Act. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 702(b) of the 

Act, we are initiating a countervailing 

duty investigation to determine whether 

manufacturers, producers, or exporters 

of OTR tires in the PRC receive 

countervailable subsidies. For a 

discussion of evidence supporting our 

initiation determination, see OTR Tires 

CVD Initiation Checklist. 

We are including in our investigation 

the following programs alleged in the 

petition to have provided 

countervailable subsidies to producers 

and exporters of the subject 

merchandise: 

GOC Loan Programs 

1. Discounted Loans for Export-Oriented 

Enterprises 

2. Loan Forgiveness for State Owned 

Enterprises (SOEs) 

3. Preferential Lending to SOEs 

GOC Currency Program 

4. Foreign Currency Retention Scheme 

GOC Grant Programs 

5. Grants to the Tire Industry for 

Electricity 

6. The State Key Technologies 

Renovation Project Fund 

GOC Provision of Goods or Services for 

Less Than Adequate Remuneration 

7. Provision of Land and Utilities to 

SOEs for Less than Adequate 

Remuneration 

8. Provision of Land and Utilities to 

Foreign Invested Enterprises (FIEs) for 

Less than Adequate Remuneration 

GOC Income Tax Programs 

9. Preferential Tax Policies for 

Enterprises with Foreign Investment 

(Two Free, Three Half Income 

Program) 

10. Preferential Tax Policies for ExportOriented FIEs 

11. Corporate Income Tax Refund 

Program for Reinvestment of FIE 

Profits in Export-Oriented Enterprises 

12. Tax Benefits for FIEs in Encouraged 

Industries that Purchase Domestic 

Origin Machinery 

13. Tax Subsidies to FIEs Based in 

Specially Designated Geographic 

Areas 

GOC Indirect Tax Programs and Import 

Tariff Programs 

14. Value Added Tax (VAT) Rebate for 

FIE Purchases of Domestically 

Produced Equipment 

15. VAT and Tariff Exemptions for FIEs 

and Certain Domestic Enterprises 

Using Imported Equipment in 

Encouraged Industries 

16. VAT Export Rebates 

17. Exemption from Payment of Staff 

and Worker Benefit Taxes for ExportOriented Enterprises 

Provincial Grant Programs 

18. Funds for Outward Expansion of 

Industries in Guangdong Province 

19. Export Interest Subsidy Funds for 

Enterprises Located in Guangdong 

and Zhejiang Provinces 

Provincial Provision of Goods and 

Services for Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration 

20. Provision of Land and Utilities at 

Less Than Adequate Remuneration to 

Export-Oriented Enterprises and FIEs 

by Provincial Governments 

Provincial and Local Tax Programs for 

FIEs 

21. Local Income Tax Exemption and 

Reduction Programs for ‘‘Productive’’

FIEs 

For further information explaining 

why the Department is investigating 

these programs, see the OTR Tires CVD 

Initiation Checklist. 

We are not including in our 

investigation the following programs 

alleged to benefit producers and 

exporters of the subject merchandise in 

the PRC: 

1. Managed Exchange Rate Export 

Subsidy (Currency Manipulation) 

Petitioners allege that the GOC’s 

manipulates its currency to maintain an 

undervalued RMB. According to 

petitioners, the undervalued RMB 

benefits PRC exporters. Petitioners have 

not sufficiently alleged the elements 

necessary for the imposition of a 

countervailing duty and did not support 

the allegation with reasonably available 

information. Therefore, we do not plan 

to investigate the currency manipulation 

program. 

2. Preferential Lending to the Tire 

Industry 

Petitioners allege that state-owned 

commercial banks must be under 

directives from the GOC to give 

preferential loans to the tire industry. 

Petitioners failed to demonstrate that 

such loans could be specific to the tire 

industry. 

3. Grants to the Tire Industry for LandUsage Fees 

Petitioners allege that the GOC offers 

grants to Chinese tire manufacturers to 

cover land-usage fees. Petitioners did 

not provide any evidence of grants to 

cover land usage fees specific to the tire 

industry. 

4. VAT Export Rebate of Prior-Stage, 

Cumulative Taxes 

Petitioners allege that the VAT levied 

on capital goods in the PRC actually 

constitutes a prior stage cumulative tax. 

Paragraph (h) of the Illustrative List of 

Export Subsidies in Annex I to the WTO 

Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 

Agreement applies to prior stage 

indirect taxes and VAT systems are 

expressly excluded from consideration 

under paragraph (h). 

5. Lower VAT Rebates for Downstream 

Products 

Petitioners allege that the GOC 

provides lower rebates for exports of 

major inputs to tire production than it 

provides to exports of tires; thus, 

benefitting tire production by 

suppressing the market for inputs. 

Petitioners were unable to demonstrate 

that the price of inputs (e.g., rubber) had 

been affected by the alleged lower 

export rebate. 

Application of the Countervailing Duty 

Law to the PRC 

The Department has treated the PRC 

as an NME country in all past 

antidumping duty investigations and 

administrative reviews. In accordance 

with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, 

any determination that a country is an 

NME country shall remain in effect until 

revoked by the administering authority. 

See e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and 

Parts Thereof, Finished and 10 

Unfinished, (TRBs) From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of 2001–2002 Administrative Review 

and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 

7500, 7500–1 (February 14, 2003), 

unchanged in TRBs from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of 

2001–2002 Administrative Review, 68 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 7, 2007 / Notices 44125 

1Agricultural tractors are four-wheeled vehicles 

usually with large rear tires and small front tires 

that are used to tow farming equipment. 

2Combine harvesters are used to harvest crops 

such as corn or wheat. 

3Agricultural sprayers are used to irrigate 

agricultural fields. 

4 Industrial tractors are four-wheeled vehicles 

usually with large rear tires and small front tires 

that are used to tow industrial equipment. 

5A log skidder has a grappling lift arm that is 

used to grasp, lift and move trees that have been 

cut down to a truck or trailer for transport to a mill 

or other destination. 

6Skid-steer loaders are four-wheel drive vehicles 

with the left-side drive wheels irIdependent of the 

right-side drive wheels and lift arms that lie 

alongside the driver with the major pivot points 

behind the driver’s shoulders. Skid-steer loaders are 

used in agricultural, construction and industrial 

settings. 

7Haul trucks, which may be either rigid frame or 

articulated (i.e., able to bend in the middle) are 

typically used in mines, quarries and construction 

sites to haul soil, aggregate, mined ore, or debris. 

8Front loaders have lift arms in front of the 

vehicle. It can scrape material from one location to 

another, carry material in its bucket or load material 

into a truck or trailer. 

9A dozer is a large four-wheeled vehicle with a 

dozer blade that is used to push large quantities of 

soil, sand, rubble, etc., typically around 

construction sites. They can also be used to perform 

‘‘rough grading’’ in road construction. 

10A straddle carrier is a rigid frame, enginepowered machine that is used to load and offload 

containers from container vessels and load them 

onto (or off of) tractor trailers. 11A grader is a vehicle with a large blade used 

to create a flat surface. Graders are typically used 

to perform ‘‘finish grading.’’ Graders are commonly 

used in maintenance of unpaved roads and road 

construction to prepare the base course onto which 

asphalt or other paving material will be laid. 12A counterbalanced lift truck is a rigid frame, 

engine-powered machine with lift arms that has 

additional weight incorporated into the back of the 

machine to offset or counterbalance the weight of 

loads that it lifts so as to prevent the vehicle from 

overturning. An example of a counterbalanced lift 

truck is a counterbalanced fork lift truck. 

Counterbalanced lift trucks may be designed for use 

on smooth floor surfaces, such as a factory or 

warehouse, or other surfaces, such as construction 

sites, mines, etc. 

FR 70488, 70488–89 (December 18, 

2003). 

In the amended preliminary 

determination in the investigation of 

coated free sheet paper from the PRC, 

the Department preliminarily 

determined that the current nature of 

the PRC economy does not create 

obstacles to applying the necessary 

criteria in the CVD law. See Coated Free 

Sheet Paper from the People’s Republic 

of China: Amended Preliminary 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination, 72 FR 17484, 17486 

(April 9, 2007) (CFS Preliminary 

Determination), and Memorandum for 

David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary 

for Import Administration, 

‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation of 

Coated Free Sheet Paper from The 

People’s Republic of China—Whether 

the Analytic Elements of the 

Georgetown Steel Opinion are 

Applicable to China’s Present-Day 

Economy,’’ (March 29,2007), on file in 

the CRU. Therefore, because the 

petitioners have provided sufficient 

allegations and support of their 

allegations to meet the statutory criteria 

for initiating a countervailing duty 

investigation of OTR tires from the PRC, 

initiation of a CVD investigation is 

warranted in this case. 

Distribution of Copies of the Petition 

In accordance with section 

702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, a copy of the 

public version of the petition has been 

provided to the GOC. 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 for under 19 CFR 

351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 702( d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determination by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

within 25 days after the date on which 

it receives notice of this initiation, 

whether there is a reasonable indication 

that imports of subsidized OTR tires 

from the PRC are materially injuring, or 

threatening material injury to, a u.s. 

industry. See section 703(a)(2) of the 

Act. A negative ITC determination will 

result in the investigation being 

terminated; otherwise, the investigation 

will proceed according to statutory and 

regulatory time limits. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: July 30, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Attachment—Scope of the Investigation 

for the Petitions Covering Certain New 

Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the 

People’s Republic of China 

The products covered by the scope are 

new pneumatic tires designed for offthe-road (OTR) and off-highway use, 

subject to exceptions identified below. 

Certain OTR tires are generally 

designed, manufactured and offered for 

sale for use on off-road or off-highway 

surfaces, including but not limited to, 

agricultural fields, forests, construction 

sites, factory and warehouse interiors, 

airport tarmacs, ports and harbors, 

mines, quarries, gravel yards, and steel 

mills. The vehicles and equipment for 

which certain OTR tires are designed for 

use include, but are not limited to: (1) 

Agricultural and forestry vehicles and 

equipment, including agricultural 

tractors,1 combine harvesters,2

agricultural high clearance sprayers,3

industrial tractors,4 log-skidders,5

agricultural implements, highwaytowed implements, agricultural logging, 

and agricultural, industrial, skid-steers/ 

mini-loaders; 6 (2) construction vehicles 

and equipment, including earthmover 

articulated dump products, rigid frame 

haul trucks,7 front end loaders,8 dozers,9

lift trucks, straddle carriers,10 graders,11

mobile cranes, compactors; and (3) 

industrial vehicles and equipment, 

including smooth floor, industrial, 

mining, counterbalanced lift trucks, 

industrial and mining vehicles other 

than smooth floor, skid-steers/miniloaders, and smooth floor off-the-road 

counterbalanced lift trucks.12 The 

foregoing list of vehicles and equipment 

generally have in common that they are 

used for hauling, towing, lifting, and/or 

loading a wide variety of equipment and 

materials in agricultural, construction 

and industrial settings. The foregoing 

descriptions are illustrative of the types 

of vehicles and equipment that use 

certain OTR tires, but are not 

necessarily all-inclusive. While the 

physical characteristics of certain OTR 

tires will vary depending on the specific 

applications and conditions for which 

the tires are designed (e.g., tread pattern 

and depth), all of the tires within the 

scope have in common that they are 

designed for off-road and off-highway 

use. Except as discussed below, OTR 

tires included in the scope of the 

petitions range in size (rim diameter) 

generally but not exclusively from 8 

inches to 54 inches. The tires may be 

either tube-type or tubeless, radial or 

non-radial, and intended for sale either 

to original equipment manufacturers or 

the replacement market. The subject 

merchandise is currently classifiable 

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) 

subheadings: 4011.20.10.25, 

4011.20.10.35, 4011.20.50.30, 

4011.20.50.50, 4011.61.00.00, 

4011.62.00.00, 4011.63.00.00, 

4011.69.00.00, 4011.92.00.00, 

4011.93.40.00, 4011.93.80.00, 

4011.94.40.00, and 4011.94.80.00. While 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and Customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope is 

dispositive. 

Specifically excluded from the scope 

are new pneumatic tires designed, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
44126 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 7, 2007 / Notices 

manufactured and offered for sale 

primarily for on-highway or on-road 

use, including passenger cars, race cars, 

station wagons, sport utility vehicles, 

minivans, mobile homes, motorcycles, 

bicycles, on-road or on-highway trailers, 

light trucks, and trucks and buses. Such 

tires generally have in common that the 

symbol ‘‘DOT’’ must appear on the 

sidewall, certifying that the tire 

conforms to applicable motor vehicle 

safety standards. Such excluded tires 

may also have the following 

designations that are used by the Tire 

and Rim Association: 

Prefix letter designations: 

• P—Identifies a tire intended 

primarily for service on passenger cars; 

• LT—Identifies a tire intended 

primarily for service on light trucks; 

and, 

• ST—Identifies a special tire for 

trailers in highway service. 

Suffix letter designations: 

• TR—Identifies a tire for service on 

trucks, buses, and other vehicles with 

rims having specified rim diameter of 

nominal plus 0.156′′ or plus 0.250′′; 

• MH—Identifies tires for Mobile 

Homes; 

• HC—Identifies a heavy duty tire 

designated for use on ‘‘HC’’ 15′′ tapered 

rims used on trucks, buses, and other 

vehicles. This suffix is intended to 

differentiate among tires for light trucks, 

and other vehicles or other services, 

which use a similar designation. 

Example: 8R17.5 LT, 8R17.5 HC; 

• LT—Identifies light truck tires for 

service on trucks, buses, trailers, and 

multipurpose passenger vehicles used 

in nominal highway service; and 

• MC—Identifies tires and rims for 

motorcycles. 

The following types of tires are also 

excluded from the scope: Pneumatic 

tires that are not new, including 

recycled or retreaded tires and used 

tires; non-pneumatic tires, including 

solid rubber tires; tires of a kind used on 

aircraft, all-terrain vehicles, and 

vehicles for turf, lawn and garden, golf 

and trailer applications; and, tires of a 

kind used for mining and construction 

vehicles and equipment that have a rim 

diameter equal to or exceeding 39 

inches. Such tires may be distinguished 

from other tires of similar size by the 

number of plies that the construction 

and mining tires contain (minimum of 

16) and the weight of such tires 

(minimum 1500 pounds). 

[FR Doc. 07–3833 Filed 8–6–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M 

COMMITTEE FOR THE 

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE 

AGREEMENTS 

Adjustment of Import Limits for Certain 

Cotton, Wool, Man-Made Fiber, Silk 

Blend and Other Vegetable Fiber 

Textiles and Textile Products 

Produced or Manufactured in the 

People’s Republic of China 

August 2, 2007. 

AGENCY: Committee for the 

Implementation of Textile Agreements 

(CITA). 

ACTION: Issuing a directive to the 

Commissioner, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection adjusting limits. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ross 

Arnold, International Trade Specialist, 

Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, (202) 482–

4212. For information on the quota 

status of this limit, refer to the Bureau 

of Customs and Border Protection 

website (http://www.cbp.gov), or call 

(202) 344-2650. For information on 

embargoes and quota re-openings, refer 

to the Office of Textiles and Apparel 

Web site at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority: Section 204 of the Agricultural 

Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); 

Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as 

amended. 

Pursuant to the Memorandum of 

Understanding between the 

Governments of the United States and 

the People’s Republic of China 

concerning Trade in Texile and Apparel 

Products, signed and dated on 

November 8, 2005, the current limits for 

certain categories are being increased for 

carryover. 

A description of the textile and 

apparel categories in terms of HTS 

numbers is available in the 

CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel 

Categories with the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (see 

Federal Register notice 71 FR 62999, 

published on October 27, 2006). Also 

see 71 FR 65090 published on 

November 7, 2006. 

R. Matthew Priest, 

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation 

of Textile Agreements. 

Committee for the Implementation of Textile 

Agreements 

August 2, 2007. 

Commissioner, 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

Washington, DC 20229. 

Dear Commissioner: This directive 

amends, but does not cancel, the directive 

issued to you on October 23, 2006, as 

amended on November 2, 2006, by the 

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation 

of Textile Agreements. That directive 

concerns imports of certain cotton, wool, 

man-made fiber, silk blend and other 

vegetable fiber textiles and textile products, 

produced or manufactured in China and 

exported during the twelve-month period 

which began on January 1, 2007 and extends 

through December 31, 2007. 

Effective on August 8, 2007, you are 

directed to adjust the current limits for the 

following categories, as provided for under 

the terms of the Memorandum of 

Understanding between the Governments of 

the United States and the People’s Republic 

of China concerning Trade in Texile and 

Apparel Products, signed and dated on 

November 8, 2005: 

Category Adjusted twelvemonth limit 1

200/301 ..................... 8,832,199 kilograms. 

222 ............................ 18,728,689 kilograms. 

229 ............................ 39,237,301 kilograms. 

332/432/632-T (plus 

baby socks) 2..

75,443,136 dozen 

pairs, of which not 

more than 

71,724,800 dozen 

pairs shall be in 

categories 332/432/ 

632-B (plus baby 

socks) 3. 

338/339pt. 4 ............... 23,893,373 dozen. 

340/640 ..................... 7,738,332 dozen. 

345/645/646 .............. 9,385,644 dozen. 

347/348 ..................... 22,566,791 dozen. 

349/649 ..................... 26,146,827 dozen. 

352/652 ..................... 21,743,905 dozen. 

359-S/659-S5 ........... 5,267,743 kilograms. 

363 ............................ 118,556,112 numbers. 

443 ............................ 1,544,629 numbers. 

447 ............................ 246,718 dozen. 

619 ............................ 63,466,510 square 

meters. 

620 ............................ 92,026,342 square 

meters. 

622 ............................ 37,846,860 square 

meters. 

638/639pt. 6 ............... 9,248,922 dozen. 

647/648pt. 7 ............... 9,134,507 dozen. 

666pt. 8 ...................... 1,106,206 kilograms. 

847 ............................ 20,250,225 dozen. 

1The limit has not been adjusted to account 

for any imports exported after December 31, 

2006. 2 Categories 332/432/632-T: baby socks: 

only HTS numbers 6111.20.6050, 

6111.30.5050 and 6111.90.5050; within Category 632: only HTS numbers 6115.10.4000, 

6115.10.5500, 6115.30.9010, 6115.96.6020, 

6115.99.1420, 6115.96.9020, 6115.99.1920. 2 Categories 332/432/632-T: baby socks: 

only HTS numbers 6111.20.6050, 

6111.30.5050 and 6111.90.5050; within Category 632: only HTS numbers 6115.10.4000, 

6115.10.5500, 6115.30.9010, 6115.96.6020, 

6115.99.1420, 6115.96.9020, 6115.99.1920. 3 Categories 332/432/632-B: baby socks: 

only HTS numbers 6111.20.6050, 

6111.30.5050 and 6111.90.5050; within Category 632: only HTS numbers 6115.10.4000, 

6115.10.5500, 6115.96.6020, 6115.96.9020, 

6115.99.1420, 6115.99.1920. 4 Categories 338/339pt: all HTS numbers 

except: 6110.20.1026, 6110.20.1031, 

6110.20.2067, 6110.20.2077, 6110.90.9067, 

and 6110.90.9071. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:56 Aug 06, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07AUN1.SGM 07AUN1

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
 
B-1

APPENDIX B

CONFERENCE WITNESSES

B-3

CALENDAR OF THE PUBLIC CONFERENCE

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade Commission’s

conference:

Subject: Certain Off-the-Road Tires from China

Inv. Nos.: 701-TA-448 and 731-TA-1117 (Preliminary)

Date and Time: July 9, 2006 - 9:30 am

The conference was held in Room 101 (Main Hearing Room) of the United States International

Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street, SW, Washington, DC.

OPENING REMARKS:

In Support of the Imposition of Countervailing and Antidumping Duties (Terence P. Stewart, 

Stewart & Stewart)

In Opposition to Imposition of Countervailing and Antidumping Duties (Francis J. Sailer,

Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt)

IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPOSITION OF COUNTERVAILING AND ANTIDUMPING DUTIES: 

Stewart & Stewart LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Titan Tire Corporation and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied

Industrial and Service Works International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (“USW”)

Jeff M. Vasichek, Vice President, Titan Marketing Services 

Paul Hawkins, Vice President, Operations, Titan Tire Corporation

Jeffrey J. Kramer, Operations Manager, Titan Tire Corporation

Daniel Steltmann, Research and Development, Titan Tire Corporation

Richard Hofmaster, USW Local 745, Freeport, IL

Sanford Pensler, Chairman, Denman Tire Corporation

Terence P. Stewart )

Eric P. Salonen )

--OF COUNSEL Elizabeth A. Argenti )

Carl Moyer )

King & Spalding LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc.

Ralph Burchfield, President, Off-Road Products, Bridgestone Firestone North America Tire 

Joseph W. Dorn )– OF COUNSEL
B-4

IN OPPOSITION TO THE IMPOSITION OF COUNTERVAILING AND ANTIDUMPING DUTIES: 

Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

GPX International Tire Corporation, Inc.

Brian Ganz, Chairman, GPX International Tire Corporation, Inc.

Ned Edwards, Owner, Star Tire Company

Dan Denis, Director of Commercial Sales, VIP Quirk Tire

Charles Anderson, Principal, Capital Trade Incorporated

Andy Szamosszegi, Managing Consultant, Capital Trade Incorporated

Francis J. Sailer )

– OF COUNSEL Ned H. Marshak )

Hogan & Hartson LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

Aeolus Tyre Co., Ltd.; Guizhou Tyre Co. Ltd.; Hangzhou Zhongce Rubber Co., Ltd.; 

Jiangsu Feichi Co., Ltd.; Laizhou Xiongying Rubber Industry Co., Ltd.; 

Shangdong Jinyu Tyre Co., Ltd.; Shangdong Linglong Rubber Co., Ltd.; 

Shangdong Taishan Tyre Co., Ltd.; Shangdong Xingyuan International Trading Co., Ltd.; 

Shangdong Wanda Boto Tyre Co., Ltd.; Shifeng Double-Star Tyre Co., Ltd.; 

Tianjin United Tire & Rubber International Co., Ltd.; Wendeng Sanfeng Tyre Co., Ltd.; 

Xuzhou Midland Specialty Tyre Co., Ltd.; and Xuzhou Xugong Tyres Co., Ltd.

John Reilly, Economist, Nathan Associates, Inc.

T. Clark Weymouth )

Craig A. Lewis )--OF COUNSEL

Jonathan T. Stoel )

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS:

In Support of the Imposition of Duties (Terence P. Stewart, 

Stewart & Stewart)

In Opposition to Imposition of Duties (T. Clark Weymouth,

Hogan & Hartson)
C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

Table C-1

OTR tires: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2004-06, January-March 2006, and January-March 2007

(Quantity=1,000 tires, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per tire; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-March Jan.-Mar.

Item 2004 2005 2006 2006 2007 2004-06 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,060 9,323 8,244 2,220 2,036 2.3 15.7 -11.6 -8.3

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.9 44.7 37.2 40.6 43.9 -15.7 -8.3 -7.4 3.3

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.3 33.6 41.5 36.6 36.8 19.2 11.3 8.0 0.1

Nonsubject:

 Canada 2.2 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.7 -1.1 -1.4 0.4 -0.1

 France 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.3 0.9 0.0 -0.2 0.2 -0.4

 India 2.5 2.4 1.6 2.3 1.8 -0.9 -0.1 -0.8 -0.5

 Japan 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 -0.1

 Mexico 2.0 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.5 -0.9 -0.6 -0.3 0.4

 Sri Lanka 1.4 2.0 2.4 2.0 2.9 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.9

 Taiwan 5.0 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.4 -1.4 -1.3 -0.2 -0.2

 Thailand 3.3 3.6 3.9 4.0 2.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 -1.8

 All others 6.2 5.7 5.2 6.4 4.6 -1.0 -0.5 -0.5 -1.8

 Subtotal Nonsubject 24.8 21.8 21.2 22.7 19.3 -3.5 -3.0 -0.5 -3.4

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.1 55.3 62.8 59.4 56.1 15.7 8.3 7.4 -3.3

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,323,057 1,565,576 1,663,295 437,713 473,464 25.7 18.3 6.2 8.2

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64.7 58.5 51.1 56.4 56.1 -13.6 -6.2 -7.4 -0.2

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 13.4 18.4 15.4 16.7 9.8 4.8 5.0 1.3

Nonsubject:

 Canada 2.1 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.7 -0.3 -0.5 0.1 -0.2

 France 3.6 3.3 3.6 4.1 3.2 -0.0 -0.3 0.3 -0.8

 India 1.2 1.3 0.9 1.4 0.9 -0.3 0.1 -0.4 -0.5

 Japan 7.4 8.9 10.3 7.6 8.7 2.9 1.5 1.4 1.1

 Mexico 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 -0.3 -0.1 -0.2 0.1

 Sri Lanka 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.4 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3

 Taiwan 1.7 1.3 1.1 1.1 0.9 -0.6 -0.3 -0.3 -0.2

 Thailand 1.0 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.5 -0.2 0.1 -0.3 -0.4

 All others 8.3 8.9 10.5 10.1 9.6 2.2 0.6 1.6 -0.5

 Subtotal Nonsubject 26.7 28.1 30.5 28.3 27.2 3.8 1.4 2.4 -1.1

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.3 41.5 48.9 43.6 43.9 13.6 6.2 7.4 0.2

U.S. imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,796 3,129 3,424 813 749 90.6 74.2 9.4 -7.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114,065 210,200 305,705 67,222 78,977 168.0 84.3 45.4 17.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $63.50 $67.17 $89.28 $82.67 $105.51 40.6 5.8 32.9 27.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . 111 78 123 83 106 9.9 -30.0 57.1 28.0

 Nonsubject

 Canada

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 69 90 18 15 -48.5 -60.6 30.7 -16.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,759 25,606 29,081 8,071 7,857 4.8 -7.8 13.6 -2.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $159.67 $373.61 $324.58 $446.47 $521.81 103.3 134.0 -13.1 16.9

 France

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 80 87 28 18 7.1 -1.6 8.8 -36.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48,056 51,700 59,868 17,822 15,381 24.6 7.6 15.8 -13.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $592.26 $647.45 $688.82 $636.13 $860.64 16.3 9.3 6.4 35.3

 India

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 223 129 51 37 -35.6 11.8 -42.4 -27.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,089 20,389 15,427 5,970 4,091 -4.1 26.7 -24.3 -31.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $80.51 $91.27 $119.95 $118.19 $111.30 49.0 13.4 31.4 -5.8

 Japan

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 126 123 28 24 18.2 21.5 -2.8 -14.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98,517 140,094 171,431 33,146 41,169 74.0 42.2 22.4 24.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $947.56 $1,108.59 $1,395.13 $1,177.73 $1,712.87 47.2 17.0 25.8 45.4

 Mexico

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 132 90 23 30 -45.0 -19.3 -31.9 30.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,021 6,993 3,961 928 1,564 -43.6 -0.4 -43.4 68.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $42.96 $53.03 $44.09 $40.26 $51.83 2.6 23.4 -16.9 28.8

 Sri Lanka

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 187 197 45 60 81.2 72.0 5.3 32.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,542 17,947 22,324 5,030 6,817 111.8 70.2 24.4 35.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $96.79 $95.78 $113.12 $110.90 $113.80 16.9 -1.0 18.1 2.6

 Taiwan

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402 344 292 81 70 -27.4 -14.4 -15.2 -13.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,231 20,955 17,537 4,780 4,193 -21.1 -5.7 -16.3 -12.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $55.35 $60.94 $60.15 $59.24 $59.90 8.7 10.1 -1.3 1.1

 Thailand

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 337 318 89 45 18.5 25.4 -5.5 -48.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,804 16,583 13,226 3,688 2,256 3.3 29.5 -20.2 -38.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $47.67 $49.22 $41.54 $41.49 $49.61 -12.8 3.3 -15.6 19.6

 All others

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496 531 426 142 94 -14.2 6.9 -19.8 -33.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110,071 139,838 174,673 44,301 45,382 58.7 27.0 24.9 2.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $221.77 $263.55 $410.30 $311.88 $481.80 85.0 18.8 55.7 54.5

 Subtotal, nonsubject

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,998 2,029 1,751 505 393 -12.4 1.6 -13.7 -22.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353,090 440,105 507,529 123,736 128,709 43.7 24.6 15.3 4.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $176.74 $216.93 $289.88 $245.13 $327.13 64.0 22.7 33.6 33.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . 266 249 222 267 220 -16.7 -6.6 -10.9 -17.7

 Total imports 

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,794 5,158 5,175 1,318 1,142 36.4 36.0 0.3 -13.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467,155 650,305 813,233 190,959 207,686 74.1 39.2 25.1 8.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $123.13 $126.08 $157.15 $144.90 $181.87 27.6 2.4 24.6 25.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 378 327 344 350 326 -8.9 -13.5 5.4 -6.9

Table continued on next page.

C-3
Table C-1--Continued

OTR tires: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2004-06, January-March 2006, and January-March 2007

(Quantity=1,000 tires, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per tire; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-March Jan.-Mar.

Item 2004 2005 2006 2006 2007 2004-06 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity (tires). . . . 10,137 10,142 10,180 2,504 2,600 0.4 0.1 0.4 3.8

 Average capacity quantity (pounds). 1,090,773 1,087,203 1,081,971 277,287 276,764 -0.8 -0.3 -0.5 -0.2

 Production quantity (tires). . . . . . . . . 4,692 5,191 3,773 1,060 959 -19.6 10.6 -27.3 -9.6

 Production quantity (pounds). . . . . . 553,060 639,571 509,452 142,006 149,755 -7.9 15.6 -20.3 5.5

 Capacity utilization (tires) (1) . . . . . . 46.3 51.2 37.1 42.3 36.9 -9.2 4.9 -14.1 -5.5

 Capacity utilization (pounds) (1) . . . . 50.7 58.8 47.1 51.2 54.1 -3.6 8.1 -11.7 2.9

 Unit weight (pounds per tire) 118 123 135 134 156 14.6 4.5 9.6 16.6

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,266 4,165 3,070 902 894 -28.1 -2.4 -26.3 -0.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855,902 915,271 850,062 246,754 265,778 -0.7 6.9 -7.1 7.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $200.61 $219.73 $276.94 $273.53 $297.36 38.0 9.5 26.0 8.7

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500 653 517 146 135 3.5 30.7 -20.8 -7.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139,110 162,458 160,403 39,634 39,403 15.3 16.8 -1.3 -0.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $278.50 $248.79 $310.20 $271.65 $291.87 11.4 -10.7 24.7 7.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . 769 969 933 920 818 21.4 26.0 -3.7 -11.0

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . . . . . 16.1 20.1 26.0 21.9 19.9 9.9 4.0 5.9 -2.1

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,325 4,300 3,972 4,056 3,884 -8.2 -0.6 -7.6 -4.2

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . . . . . 8,507 8,541 8,018 2,104 1,975 -5.7 0.4 -6.1 -6.1

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . . . . 246,516 250,072 231,252 58,784 56,533 -6.2 1.4 -7.5 -3.8

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $28.98 $29.28 $28.84 $27.94 $28.63 -0.5 1.0 -1.5 2.5

 Productivity (tires per hour) . . . . . . . 0.55 0.61 0.47 0.50 0.49 -14.7 10.2 -22.6 -3.7

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $52.54 $48.18 $61.29 $55.44 $58.96 16.7 -8.3 27.2 6.4

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,851 4,983 3,808 1,109 1,089 -21.5 2.7 -23.6 -1.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 995,663 1,083,867 1,020,377 289,236 308,421 2.5 8.9 -5.9 6.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $205.24 $217.52 $267.96 $260.86 $283.11 30.6 6.0 23.2 8.5

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . . . . 902,109 958,760 896,691 236,855 258,403 -0.6 6.3 -6.5 9.1

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93,554 125,107 123,686 52,382 50,019 32.2 33.7 -1.1 -4.5

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94,453 106,241 103,554 28,250 25,351 9.6 12.5 -2.5 -10.3

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . . . . . (899) 18,866 20,133 24,132 24,667 (2) (2) 6.7 2.2

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,393 25,176 27,241 2,523 4,014 16.4 7.6 8.2 59.1

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $185.96 $192.41 $235.48 $213.61 $237.20 26.6 3.5 22.4 11.0

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . $19.47 $21.32 $27.19 $25.48 $23.27 39.7 9.5 27.5 -8.7

 Unit operating income or (loss) . . . . ($0.19) $3.79 $5.29 $21.76 $22.64 (2) (2) 39.6 4.0

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.6 88.5 87.9 81.9 83.8 -2.7 -2.1 -0.6 1.9

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (0.1) 1.7 2.0 8.3 8.0 2.1 1.8 0.2 -0.3

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not meaningful for the negative-to-positive comparisons.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis.

Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from adjusted statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce..

C-4
D-1

APPENDIX D

IMPORT STATISTICS AND ADJUSTMENTS
 
Table D-1

OTR tires: U.S. imports, 2004-06, January-March, 2006, and January-March 2007

(Quantity in number of tires, value in actual dollars, and unit values per tire)

ADJUSTED STATISTICS

2004 2005 2006 Jan-Mar 2006 Jan-Mar 2007

China

 Quantity 1,796,174 3,129,170 3,424,042 813,103 748,510

 Value 114,064,793 210,199,577 305,704,559 67,222,499 78,977,039

 AUV $63.50 $67.17 $89.28 $82.67 $105.51

Nonsubject:

 Canada

 Quantity 173,847 68,535 89,598 18,078 15,057

 Value 27,758,639 25,605,535 29,081,314 8,071,236 7,856,954

 AUV $159.67 $373.61 $324.58 $446.47 $521.81

 France

 Quantity 81,140 79,852 86,914 28,017 17,872

 Value 48,055,886 51,700,208 59,867,899 17,822,354 15,381,417

 AUV $592.26 $647.45 $688.82 $636.13 $860.64

 India

 Quantity 199,835 223,380 128,615 50,509 36,754

 Value 16,089,234 20,388,945 15,427,396 5,969,742 4,090,869

 AUV $80.51 $91.27 $119.95 $118.19 $111.30

 Japan

 Quantity 103,970 126,371 122,878 28,144 24,035

 Value 98,517,409 140,094,105 171,430,779 33,146,173 41,168,875

 AUV $947.56 $1,108.59 $1,395.13 $1,177.73 $1,712.87

 Mexico

 Quantity 163,444 131,882 89,843 23,056 30,164

 Value 7,020,995 6,993,316 3,961,053 928,124 1,563,520

 AUV $42.96 $53.03 $44.09 $40.26 $51.83

 Sri Lanka

 Quantity 108,917 187,382 197,346 45,355 59,905

 Value 10,542,133 17,947,034 22,324,245 5,030,002 6,816,961

 AUV $96.79 $95.78 $113.12 $110.90 $113.80

 Taiwan

 Quantity 401,646 343,865 291,535 80,690 70,000

 Value 22,230,591 20,955,270 17,536,857 4,779,947 4,192,929

 AUV $55.35 $60.94 $60.15 $59.24 $59.90

 Thailand

 Quantity 268,622 336,918 318,369 88,876 45,475

 Value 12,804,079 16,583,368 13,226,435 3,687,606 2,256,215

 AUV $47.67 $49.22 $41.54 $41.49 $49.61

 All others

 Quantity 496,329 530,602 425,718 142,047 94,192

 Value 110,071,272 139,837,690 174,672,659 44,301,096 45,381,504

 AUV $221.77 $263.55 $410.30 $311.88 $481.80

Subtotal nonsubject :

 Quantity 1,997,750 2,028,787 1,750,816 504,772 393,454

 Value 353,090,238 440,105,471 507,528,637 123,736,280 128,709,244

 AUV $176.74 $216.93 $289.88 $245.13 $327.13

Total

 Quantity 3,793,924 5,157,957 5,174,858 1,317,875 1,141,964

 Value 467,155,031 650,305,048 813,233,196 190,958,779 207,686,283

 AUV $123.13 $126.08 $157.15 $144.90 $181.87

Shares of total official 

statistics (percent):

 Quantity 25.4 33.5 28.9 25.8 23.1

 Value 78.1 83.9 83.8 80.9 83.1

--Table continued on next page.

D-3
Table D-1--Continued

OTR tires: U.S. imports, 2004-06, January-March, 2006, and January-March 2007

(Quantity in number of tires, value in actual dollars, and unit values per tire)

TOTAL EXCLUSIONS

2004 2005 2006 Jan-Mar 2006 Jan-Mar 2007

China

 Quantity 9,430,146 9,227,328 11,526,124 3,502,661 3,451,860

 Value 52,374,822 58,080,968 72,634,252 21,504,406 23,650,879

 AUV $5.55 $6.29 $6.30 $6.14 $6.85

Nonsubject:

 Canada

 Quantity 3,972 100 2,506 0 0

 Value 59,475 1,838 24,519 0 0

 AUV $14.97 $18.38 $9.78

 France

 Quantity 80,993 21,483 9,471 5,990 1,576

 Value 9,711,117 7,891,493 6,282,019 1,685,404 2,919,098

 AUV $119.90 $367.34 $663.29 $281.37 $1,852.22

 India

 Quantity 22,665 35,818 5,240 1,862 3,925

 Value 276,817 80,301 146,525 31,429 23,388

 AUV $12.21 $2.24 $27.96 $16.88 $5.96

 Japan

 Quantity 33,870 38,847 9,751 2,320 1,013

 Value 37,415,746 13,782,405 23,075,988 5,184,787 2,931,450

 AUV $1,104.69 $354.79 $2,366.53 $2,234.82 $2,893.83

 Mexico

 Quantity 9,070 864 11,070 8,118 555

 Value 64,347 14,057 173,534 128,693 8,784

 AUV $7.09 $16.27 $15.68 $15.85 $15.83

 Sri Lanka

 Quantity 208 401 0 0 2,904

 Value 3,173 6,149 0 0 46,075

 AUV $15.25 $15.33 $15.87

 Taiwan

 Quantity 854,743 446,934 581,165 103,061 210,729

 Value 8,170,142 4,604,172 6,439,658 1,325,456 2,597,482

 AUV $9.56 $10.30 $11.08 $12.86 $12.33

 Thailand

 Quantity 451,084 351,539 444,241 149,716 107,741

 Value 2,927,933 2,544,424 4,163,177 1,191,538 967,459

 AUV $6.49 $7.24 $9.37 $7.96 $8.98

 All others

 Quantity 276,950 106,531 112,662 12,297 29,712

 Value 20,341,891 37,422,735 44,514,481 14,170,440 9,082,848

 AUV $73.45 $351.28 $395.12 $1,152.35 $305.70

Subtotal nonsubject :

 Quantity 1,733,555 1,002,517 1,176,106 283,364 358,155

 Value 78,970,641 66,347,574 84,819,901 23,717,747 18,576,584

 AUV $45.55 $66.18 $72.12 $83.70 $51.87

Total

 Quantity 11,163,701 10,229,845 12,702,230 3,786,025 3,810,015

 Value 131,345,463 124,428,542 157,454,153 45,222,153 42,227,463

 AUV $11.77 $12.16 $12.40 $11.94 $11.08

Shares of total official

statistics (percent):

 Quantity 74.6 66.5 71.1 74.2 76.9

 Value 21.9 16.1 16.2 19.1 16.9

--Table continued on next page.

D-4
Table D-1--Continued

OTR tires: U.S. imports, 2004-06, January-March, 2006, and January-March 2007

(Quantity in number of tires, value in actual dollars, and unit values per tire)

Large tires (> 1,500 pounds)

2004 2005 2006 Jan-Mar 2006 Jan-Mar 2007

China

 Quantity 63 89 518 0 292

 Value 127,143 270,065 3,054,644 0 1,797,881

 AUV $2,018.14 $3,034.44 $5,897.00 ERR $6,157.13

Nonsubject:

 Canada

 Quantity 0 0 0 0 0

 Value 0 0 0 0 0

 AUV

 France

 Quantity 4,435 4,126 3,550 921 1,576

 Value 8,954,386 7,810,756 6,254,174 1,663,718 2,919,098

 AUV $2,019.03 $1,893.06 $1,761.74 $1,806.43 $1,852.22

 India

 Quantity 0 0 29 0 0

 Value 0 0 60,296 0 0

 AUV $2,079.17

 Japan

 Quantity 9,009 5,512 8,657 2,070 1,013

 Value 37,274,054 13,531,801 23,058,198 5,180,576 2,931,450

 AUV $4,137.42 $2,454.97 $2,663.53 $2,502.69 $2,893.83

 Mexico

 Quantity 0 0 0 0 0

 Value 0 0 0 0 0

 AUV

 Sri Lanka

 Quantity 0 0 0 0 0

 Value 0 0 0 0 0

 AUV

 Taiwan

 Quantity 0 2 0 0 0

 Value 0 6,960 0 0 0

 AUV $3,480.00

 Thailand

 Quantity 0 24 0 0 0

 Value 0 34,652 0 0 0

 AUV $1,443.83

 All others

 Quantity 7,481 11,758 11,254 3,440 1,696

 Value 18,497,731 36,742,392 43,804,177 14,070,714 8,860,989

 AUV $2,472.63 $3,124.88 $3,892.32 $4,090.32 $5,224.64

Subtotal nonsubject :

 Quantity 20,925 21,422 23,490 6,431 4,285

 Value 64,726,171 58,126,561 73,176,845 20,915,008 14,711,537

 AUV $3,093.25 $2,713.40 $3,115.23 $3,252.22 $3,433.26

Total

 Quantity 20,988 21,511 24,008 6,431 4,577

 Value 64,853,314 58,396,626 76,231,489 20,915,008 16,509,418

 AUV $3,090.02 $2,714.73 $3,175.25 $3,252.22 $3,607.04

Shares of total official

statistics (percent):

 Quantity 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

 Value 10.8 7.5 7.9 8.9 6.6

--Table continued on next page.

D-5
Table D-1--Continued

OTR tires: U.S. imports, 2004-06, January-March, 2006, and January-March 2007

(Quantity in number of tires, value in actual dollars, and unit values per tire)

Small tires (< $20 per tire w/out 7 firms)

2004 2005 2006 Jan-Mar 2006 Jan-Mar 2007

China

 Quantity 9,430,083 9,227,239 11,525,606 3,502,661 3,451,568

 Value 52,247,679 57,810,903 69,579,608 21,504,406 21,852,998

 AUV $5.54 $6.27 $6.04 $6.14 $6.33

Nonsubject:

 Canada

 Quantity 3,972 100 2,506 0 0

 Value 59,475 1,838 24,519 0 0

 AUV $14.97 $18.38 $9.78

 France

 Quantity 76,558 17,357 5,921 5,069 0

 Value 756,731 80,737 27,845 21,686 0

 AUV $9.88 $4.65 $4.70 $4.28

 India

 Quantity 22,665 35,818 5,211 1,862 3,925

 Value 276,817 80,301 86,229 31,429 23,388

 AUV $12.21 $2.24 $16.55 $16.88 $5.96

 Japan

 Quantity 24,861 33,335 1,094 250 0

 Value 141,692 250,604 17,790 4,211 0

 AUV $5.70 $7.52 $16.26 $16.84

 Mexico

 Quantity 9,070 864 11,070 8,118 555

 Value 64,347 14,057 173,534 128,693 8,784

 AUV $7.09 $16.27 $15.68 $15.85 $15.83

 Sri Lanka

 Quantity 208 401 0 0 2,904

 Value 3,173 6,149 0 0 46,075

 AUV $15.25 $15.33 $15.87

 Taiwan

 Quantity 854,743 446,932 581,165 103,061 210,729

 Value 8,170,142 4,597,212 6,439,658 1,325,456 2,597,482

 AUV $9.56 $10.29 $11.08 $12.86 $12.33

 Thailand

 Quantity 451,084 351,515 444,241 149,716 107,741

 Value 2,927,933 2,509,772 4,163,177 1,191,538 967,459

 AUV $6.49 $7.14 $9.37 $7.96 $8.98

 All others

 Quantity 269,469 94,773 101,408 8,857 28,016

 Value 1,844,160 680,343 710,304 99,726 221,859

 AUV $6.84 $7.18 $7.00 $11.26 $7.92

Subtotal nonsubject :

 Quantity 1,712,630 981,095 1,152,616 276,933 353,870

 Value 14,244,470 8,221,013 11,643,056 2,802,739 3,865,047

 AUV $8.32 $8.38 $10.10 $10.12 $10.92

Total

 Quantity 11,142,713 10,208,334 12,678,222 3,779,594 3,805,438

 Value 66,492,149 66,031,916 81,222,664 24,307,145 25,718,045

 AUV $5.97 $6.47 $6.41 $6.43 $6.76

Shares of total official

statistics (percent):

 Quantity 74.5 66.3 70.9 74.1 76.8

 Value 11.1 8.5 8.4 10.3 10.3

--Table continued on next page.

D-6
Table D-1--Continued

OTR tires: U.S. imports, 2004-06, January-March, 2006, and January-March 2007

(Quantity in number of tires, value in actual dollars, and unit values per tire)

> = $10 and <$20 (w/out 7 firms)

2004 2005 2006 Jan-Mar 2006 Jan-Mar 2007

China

 Quantity 246,528 208,399 157,936 37,961 30,226

 Value 4,158,297 3,491,734 2,455,930 626,095 468,337

 AUV $16.87 $16.76 $15.55 $16.49 $15.49

Nonsubject:

 Canada

 Quantity 3,972 100 0 0 0

 Value 59,475 1,838 0 0 0

 AUV $14.97 $18.38

 France

 Quantity 44,609 0 0 0 0

 Value 657,903 0 0 0 0

 AUV $14.75

 India

 Quantity 14,398 733 4,736 1,862 675

 Value 234,997 12,143 82,691 31,429 10,028

 AUV $16.32 $16.57 $17.46 $16.88 $14.86

 Japan

 Quantity 4,211 12,698 1,094 250 0

 Value 73,392 194,231 17,790 4,211 0

 AUV $17.43 $15.30 $16.26 $16.84 ERR

 Mexico

 Quantity 2,682 864 11,070 8,118 555

 Value 47,290 14,057 173,534 128,693 8,784

 AUV $17.63 $16.27 $15.68 $15.85 $15.83

 Sri Lanka

 Quantity 144 401 0 0 2,160

 Value 2,603 6,149 0 0 42,488

 AUV $18.08 $15.33 $19.67

 Taiwan

 Quantity 388,268 188,550 388,023 91,792 162,166

 Value 5,450,696 2,640,360 5,423,084 1,251,179 2,199,039

 AUV $14.04 $14.00 $13.98 $13.63 $13.56

 Thailand

 Quantity 86,841 83,650 149,225 43,322 32,263

 Value 1,309,825 1,279,375 2,233,810 643,139 461,451

 AUV $15.08 $15.29 $14.97 $14.85 $14.30

 All others

 Quantity 21,192 12,958 5,843 4,981 4,854

 Value 300,751 166,065 68,015 55,246 55,916

 AUV $14.19 $12.82 $11.64 $11.09 $11.52

Subtotal nonsubject :

 Quantity 566,317 299,954 559,991 150,325 202,673

 Value 8,136,932 4,314,218 7,998,924 2,113,897 2,777,706

 AUV $14.37 $14.38 $14.28 $14.06 $13.71

Total

 Quantity 812,845 508,353 717,927 188,286 232,899

 Value 12,295,229 7,805,952 10,454,854 2,739,992 3,246,043

 AUV $15.13 $15.36 $14.56 $14.55 $13.94

Shares of total official

statistics (percent):

 Quantity 5.4 3.3 4.0 3.7 4.7

 Value 2.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

--Table continued on next page.

D-7
Table D-1--Continued

OTR tires: U.S. imports, 2004-06, January-March, 2006, and January-March 2007

(Quantity in number of tires, value in actual dollars, and unit values per tire)

<$10 (w/out 7 firms)

2004 2005 2006 Jan-Mar 2006 Jan-Mar 2007

China

 Quantity 1,748,973 2,096,344 2,686,705 835,558 631,498

 Value 7,582,134 9,537,375 10,756,949 3,300,081 3,081,326

 AUV $4.34 $4.55 $4.00 $4.88

Nonsubject:

 Canada

 Quantity 0 0 2,506 0 0

 Value 0 0 24,519 0 0

 AUV $9.78

 France

 Quantity 31,949 17,357 5,921 5,069 0

 Value 98,828 80,737 27,845 21,686 0

 AUV $3.09 $4.65 $4.70 $4.28

 India

 Quantity 8,267 35085 475 0 3,250

 Value 41,820 68,158 3,538 0 13,360

 AUV $5.06 $1.94 $7.45 $4.11

 Japan

 Quantity 20,650 20,637 0 0 0

 Value 68,300 56,373 0 0 0

 AUV $3.31 $2.73

 Mexico

 Quantity 6,388 0 0 0 0

 Value 17,057 0 0 0 0

 AUV $2.67

 Sri Lanka

 Quantity 64 0 0 0 744

 Value 570 0 0 0 3,587

 AUV $8.91 $4.82

 Taiwan

 Quantity 288,699 168,488 170,018 8,454 46,919

 Value 1,765,056 1,376,949 929,495 60,460 386,251

 AUV $6.11 $8.17 $5.47 $7.15 $8.23

 Thailand

 Quantity 364,243 267,865 295,016 106,394 75,478

 Value 1,618,108 1,230,397 1,929,367 548,399 506,008

 AUV $4.44 $4.59 $6.54 $5.15 $6.70

 All others

 Quantity 155,288 61,914 92,294 1,850 23,022

 Value 522,268 239,508 472,417 15,773 131,543

 AUV $3.36 $3.87 $5.12 $8.53 $5.71

Subtotal nonsubject :

 Quantity 875,548 571,346 566,230 121,767 149,413

 Value 4,132,007 3,052,122 3,387,181 646,318 1,040,749

 AUV $4.72 $5.34 $5.98 $5.31 $6.97

Total

 Quantity 2,624,521 2,667,690 3,252,935 957,325 780,911

 Value 11,714,141 12,589,497 14,144,130 3,946,399 4,122,075

 AUV $4.46 $4.72 $4.35 $4.12 $5.28

Shares of total official

statistics (percent):

 Quantity 17.5 17.3 18.2 18.8 15.8

 Value 2.0 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.6

--Table continued on next page.

D-8
Table D-1--Continued

OTR tires: U.S. imports, 2004-06, January-March, 2006, and January-March 2007

(Quantity in number of tires, value in actual dollars, and unit values per tire)

Excluded firms (1)

2004 2005 2006 Jan-Mar 2006 Jan-Mar 2007

China

 Quantity 7,434,582 6,922,496 8,680,965 2,629,142 2,789,844

 Value 40,507,248 44,781,794 56,366,729 17,578,230 18,303,335

 AUV $5.45 $6.47 $6.49 $6.69 $6.56

Nonsubject:

 Canada

 Quantity 0 0 0 0 0

 Value 0 0 0 0 0

 AUV

 France

 Quantity 0 0 0 0 0

 Value 0 0 0 0 0

 AUV

 India

 Quantity 0 0 0 0 0

 Value 0 0 0 0 0

 AUV

 Japan

 Quantity 0 0 0 0 0

 Value 0 0 0 0 0

 AUV

 Mexico

 Quantity 0 0 0 0 0

 Value 0 0 0 0 0

 AUV

 Sri Lanka

 Quantity 0 0 0 0 0

 Value 0 0 0 0 0

 AUV

 Taiwan

 Quantity 177,776 89,894 23,124 2,815 1,644

 Value 954,390 579,903 87,079 13,817 12,192

 AUV $5.37 $6.45 $3.77 $4.91 $7.42

 Thailand

 Quantity 0 0 0 0 0

 Value 0 0 0 0 0

 AUV

 All others

 Quantity 92,989 19,901 3,271 2,026 140

 Value 1,021,141 274,770 169,872 28,707 34,400

 AUV $10.98 $13.81 $51.93 $14.17 $245.71

Subtotal nonsubject :

 Quantity 270,765 109,795 26,395 4,841 1,784

 Value 1,975,531 854,673 256,951 42,524 46,592

 AUV $7.30 $7.78 $9.73 $8.78 $26.12

Total

 Quantity 7,705,347 7,032,291 8,707,360 2,633,983 2,791,628

 Value 42,482,779 45,636,467 56,623,680 17,620,754 18,349,927

 AUV $5.51 $6.49 $6.50 $6.69 $6.57

Shares of total official

statistics (percent):

 Quantity 51.5 45.7 48.7 51.6 56.4

 Value 7.1 5.9 5.8 7.5 7.3

 (1) Exlcuded firms include ***.

--Table continued on next page.

D-9
Table D-1--Continued

OTR tires: U.S. imports, 2004-06, January-March, 2006, and January-March 2007

(Quantity in number of tires, value in actual dollars, and unit values per tire)

OFFICIAL STATISTICS (2)

2004 2005 2006 Jan-Mar 2006 Jan-Mar 2007

China

 Quantity 11,226,320 12,356,498 14,950,166 4,315,764 4,200,370

 Value 166,439,615 268,280,545 378,338,811 88,726,905 102,627,918

 AUV $14.83 $21.71 $25.31 $20.56 $24.43

Nonsubject:

 Canada

 Quantity 177,819 68,635 92,104 18,078 15,057

 Value 27,818,114 25,607,373 29,105,833 8,071,236 7,856,954

 AUV $156.44 $373.09 $316.01 $446.47 $521.81

 France

 Quantity 162,133 101,335 96,385 34,007 19,448

 Value 57,767,003 59,591,701 66,149,918 19,507,758 18,300,515

 AUV $356.29 $588.07 $686.31 $573.64 $941.00

 India

 Quantity 222,500 259,198 133,855 52,371 40,679

 Value 16,366,051 20,469,246 15,573,921 6,001,171 4,114,257

 AUV $73.56 $78.97 $116.35 $114.59 $101.14

 Japan

 Quantity 137,840 165,218 132,629 30,464 25,048

 Value 135,933,155 153,876,510 194,506,767 38,330,960 44,100,325

 AUV $986.17 $931.35 $1,466.55 $1,258.24 $1,760.63

 Mexico

 Quantity 172,514 132,746 100,913 31,174 30,719

 Value 7,085,342 7,007,373 4,134,587 1,056,817 1,572,304

 AUV $41.07 $52.79 $40.97 $33.90 $51.18

 Sri Lanka

 Quantity 109,125 187,783 197,346 45,355 62,809

 Value 10,545,306 17,953,183 22,324,245 5,030,002 6,863,036

 AUV $96.64 $95.61 $113.12 $110.90 $109.27

 Taiwan

 Quantity 1,256,389 790,799 872,700 183,751 280,729

 Value 30,400,733 25,559,442 23,976,515 6,105,403 6,790,411

 AUV $24.20 $32.32 $27.47 $33.23 $24.19

 Thailand

 Quantity 719,706 688,457 762,610 238,592 153,216

 Value 15,732,012 19,127,792 17,389,612 4,879,144 3,223,674

 AUV $21.86 $27.78 $22.80 $20.45 $21.04

 All others

 Quantity 773,279 637,133 538,380 154,344 123,904

 Value 130,413,163 177,260,425 219,187,140 58,471,536 54,464,352

 AUV $168.65 $278.22 $407.12 $378.84 $439.57

Subtotal nonsubject :

 Quantity 3,731,305 3,031,304 2,926,922 788,136 751,609

 Value 432,060,879 506,453,045 592,348,538 147,454,027 147,285,828

 AUV $115.79 $167.07 $202.38 $187.09 $195.96

Total

 Quantity 14,957,625 15,387,802 17,877,088 5,103,900 4,951,979

 Value 598,500,494 774,733,590 970,687,349 236,180,932 249,913,746

 AUV $40.01 $50.35 $54.30 $46.27 $50.47

Shares of total official

statistics (percent):

 Quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 Value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 (2) Data for the January-March 2006 and 2007 periods are derived from proprietary Customs data.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics and proprietary Customs data.

D-10
E-1

APPENDIX E

U.S. PRODUCERS’ U.S. SHIPMENTS AND 

U.S. IMPORTS BY TYPES
 
Table E-1

Certain OTR tires: U.S. producers' U.S. shipments and U.S. imports, by types, 2004-06

U.S. producers Imports from China Imports from all other sources TOTAL

Item 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005

Quantity (1,000 tires)

Agricultural/forestry:

 Herringbone or similar tread 1,819 1,814 1,639 96 143 221 364 448 282 2,279 2,405

 Not herringbone >= 40.6 cm (16") 362 322 248 293 407 583 511 310 296 1,166 1,039

 Not herringbone < 40.6 cm (16") 626 534 470 0 0 0 0 0 0 626 534

 Subtotal 2,807 2,671 2,356 390 550 805 875 757 578 4,071 3,978

Construction/Industrial:

 Herringbone < 61 cm (24") 368 444 270 293 455 521 91 117 126 752 1,016

 Herringbone >= 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39 573 592 274 59 129 159 302 260 228 933 980

 Radial less than 61 cm (24") 68 62 18 106 414 335 66 68 71 240 544

 Radial >= to 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") 67 63 51 1 1 12 46 81 91 114 146

 Other < 61 cm (24") 209 200 146 164 292 354 168 324 381 541 817

 Other >= 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") 99 107 92 27 49 76 31 47 66 158 203

 Subtotal 1,384 1,468 851 650 1,341 1,458 704 897 962 2,739 3,706

Off-the-highway:

 Radial >= 40.6 cm (16") 10 12 5 2 10 4 101 73 45 113 96

 Radial < 40.6 cm (16") 1 1 1 14 3 2 27 17 16 42 22

 Other >= 40.6 cm (16") 135 151 64 270 312 518 80 69 29 485 532

 Other < 40.6 cm (16") 22 25 13 310 662 413 49 19 11 380 705

 Subtotal 167 189 83 595 987 937 258 179 101 1,020 1,354

Other 0 0 0 161 253 224 164 208 121 325 460

 Total 4,358 4,327 3,291 1,796 3,131 3,424 2,000 2,040 1,763 8,155 9,498

Value ($1,000)

Agricultural/forestry:

 Herringbone or similar tread 408,950 438,877 457,740 16,511 21,378 35,062 64,885 83,705 66,998 490,347 543,960

 Not herringbone >= 40.6 cm (16") 41,142 41,582 39,714 13,115 20,607 33,793 28,223 22,923 26,853 82,480 85,111

 Not herringbone < 40.6 cm (16") 50,715 50,729 57,093 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,715 50,729

 Subtotal 500,808 531,188 554,546 29,626 41,985 68,856 93,109 106,628 93,851 623,543 679,800

Construction/Industrial:

 Herringbone < 61 cm (24") 55,488 66,553 39,063 16,770 29,028 39,619 18,646 22,579 22,343 90,905 118,160

 Herringbone >= 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39 157,560 166,518 133,338 10,546 30,473 61,082 56,631 51,349 78,375 224,737 248,339

 Radial less than 61 cm (24") 20,879 18,870 7,786 2,751 12,199 12,519 14,308 18,276 23,287 37,938 49,345

 Radial >= to 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") 62,840 64,279 73,332 883 1,073 13,029 71,081 127,660 177,338 134,805 193,012

 Other < 61 cm (24") 24,796 26,687 20,502 7,585 13,324 22,181 11,000 21,165 23,685 43,381 61,176

 Other >= 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") 21,469 25,702 25,780 5,260 13,028 29,405 14,872 23,133 34,240 41,601 61,863

 Subtotal 343,032 368,608 299,801 43,795 99,124 177,835 186,539 264,163 359,269 573,366 731,895

Off-the-highway:

 Radial >= 40.6 cm (16") 1,698 2,163 1,187 300 1,563 684 37,961 38,567 41,399 39,959 42,293

 Radial < 40.6 cm (16") 170 180 237 1,210 285 240 3,381 3,095 4,356 4,761 3,561

 Other >= 40.6 cm (16") 23,238 28,087 16,929 12,637 15,915 21,596 16,830 10,059 11,726 52,705 54,062

 Other < 40.6 cm (16") 4,342 5,323 3,857 12,800 22,614 16,472 2,385 2,365 1,462 19,527 30,302

 Subtotal 29,448 35,753 22,210 26,947 40,378 38,993 60,557 54,086 58,943 116,952 130,218

Other 0 0 0 13,697 28,871 20,124 12,915 15,287 8,758 26,612 44,158

 Total 873,288 935,549 876,558 114,065 210,358 305,808 353,120 440,164 520,821 1,340,473 1,586,071

Unit value (per tire)

Agricultural/forestry:

 Herringbone or similar tread $224.86 $241.90 $279.30 $171.79 $149.54 $158.35 $178.15 $187.00 $237.38 $215.16 $226.19

 Not herringbone >= 40.6 cm (16") 113.64 129.07 160.34 44.70 50.63 57.94 55.27 74.02 90.82 70.73 81.93

 Not herringbone < 40.6 cm (16") 80.97 94.99 121.52 -- -- -- -- -- -- 80.97 94.99

 Average 178.41 198.91 235.34 76.06 76.34 85.57 106.42 140.80 162.40 153.15 170.90

Construction/Industrial:

 Herringbone < 61 cm (24") 150.79 149.87 144.79 57.19 63.76 75.98 204.67 192.86 177.79 120.83 116.25

 Herringbone >= 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39 275.02 281.45 487.07 179.13 236.83 384.06 187.78 197.84 344.08 240.78 253.44

 Radial less than 61 cm (24") 307.04 306.33 432.56 25.91 29.47 37.32 215.73 268.86 328.06 157.75 90.78

 Radial >= to 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") 944.96 1020.30 1437.88 847.55 757.80 1121.72 1542.20 1570.80 1946.46 1186.32 1324.84

 Other < 61 cm (24") 118.54 133.15 140.18 46.15 45.57 62.59 65.57 65.34 62.15 80.15 74.90

 Other >= 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") 216.23 240.31 278.96 196.20 263.87 384.97 472.20 491.12 522.49 263.98 304.10

 Average 247.88 251.15 352.21 67.33 73.91 121.95 264.84 294.53 373.40 209.36 197.51

Off-the-highway:

 Radial >= 40.6 cm (16") 169.80 180.25 237.40 158.49 151.81 156.11 375.31 525.53 928.06 353.50 442.01

 Radial < 40.6 cm (16") 170.00 180.00 237.00 88.04 81.66 103.10 125.22 177.23 268.61 114.05 162.16

 Other >= 40.6 cm (16") 172.70 186.02 263.65 46.78 51.08 41.70 209.07 145.70 399.51 108.63 101.69

 Other < 40.6 cm (16") 201.00 216.71 297.87 41.35 34.16 39.92 48.70 127.06 131.70 51.37 42.97

 Average 176.17 189.62 267.08 45.27 40.89 41.60 235.07 303.00 582.01 114.65 96.14

Other -- -- -- 85.10 114.21 89.93 78.97 73.62 72.26 82.01 95.91

 Average 200.38 216.22 266.37 63.50 67.18 89.31 176.52 215.73 295.50 164.38 166.98

--Table continued on next page.

E-3
Table E-1--Continued

Certain OTR tires: U.S. producers' U.S. shipments and U.S. imports, by types, 2004-06

U.S. producers Imports from China Imports from all other sources TOTAL

Item 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005

Share of quantity (percent)

Agricultural/forestry:

 Herringbone or similar tread 41.7 41.9 49.8 5.4 4.6 6.5 18.2 21.9 16.0 27.9 25.3

 Not herringbone >= 40.6 cm (16") 8.3 7.4 7.5 16.3 13.0 17.0 25.5 15.2 16.8 14.3 10.9

 Not herringbone < 40.6 cm (16") 14.4 12.3 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 5.6

 Subtotal 64.4 61.7 71.6 21.7 17.6 23.5 43.7 37.1 32.8 49.9 41.9

Construction/Industrial:

 Herringbone < 61 cm (24") 8.4 10.3 8.2 16.3 14.5 15.2 4.6 5.7 7.1 9.2 10.7

 Herringbone >= 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39 13.1 13.7 8.3 3.3 4.1 4.6 15.1 12.7 12.9 11.4 10.3

 Radial less than 61 cm (24") 1.6 1.4 0.5 5.9 13.2 9.8 3.3 3.3 4.0 2.9 5.7

 Radial >= to 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.3 2.3 4.0 5.2 1.4 1.5

 Other < 61 cm (24") 4.8 4.6 4.4 9.1 9.3 10.4 8.4 15.9 21.6 6.6 8.6

 Other >= 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") 2.3 2.5 2.8 1.5 1.6 2.2 1.6 2.3 3.7 1.9 2.1

 Subtotal 31.8 33.9 25.9 36.2 42.8 42.6 35.2 44.0 54.6 33.6 39.0

Off-the-highway:

 Radial >= 40.6 cm (16") 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 5.1 3.6 2.5 1.4 1.0

 Radial < 40.6 cm (16") 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.1 1.3 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.2

 Other >= 40.6 cm (16") 3.1 3.5 2.0 15.0 10.0 15.1 4.0 3.4 1.7 5.9 5.6

 Other < 40.6 cm (16") 0.5 0.6 0.4 17.2 21.1 12.1 2.4 0.9 0.6 4.7 7.4

 Subtotal 3.8 4.4 2.5 33.1 31.5 27.4 12.9 8.7 5.7 12.5 14.3

Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 8.1 6.5 8.2 10.2 6.9 4.0 4.8

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

Agricultural/forestry:

 Herringbone or similar tread 46.8 46.9 52.2 14.5 10.2 11.5 18.4 19.0 12.9 36.6 34.3

 Not herringbone >= 40.6 cm (16") 4.7 4.4 4.5 11.5 9.8 11.1 8.0 5.2 5.2 6.2 5.4

 Not herringbone < 40.6 cm (16") 5.8 5.4 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 3.2

 Subtotal 57.3 56.8 63.3 26.0 20.0 22.5 26.4 24.2 18.0 46.5 42.9

Construction/Industrial:

 Herringbone < 61 cm (24") 6.4 7.1 4.5 14.7 13.8 13.0 5.3 5.1 4.3 6.8 7.4

 Herringbone >= 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39 18.0 17.8 15.2 9.2 14.5 20.0 16.0 11.7 15.0 16.8 15.7

 Radial less than 61 cm (24") 2.4 2.0 0.9 2.4 5.8 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.5 2.8 3.1

 Radial >= to 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") 7.2 6.9 8.4 0.8 0.5 4.3 20.1 29.0 34.0 10.1 12.2

 Other < 61 cm (24") 2.8 2.9 2.3 6.6 6.3 7.3 3.1 4.8 4.5 3.2 3.9

 Other >= 61 cm (24") < 99.06 cm (39") 2.5 2.7 2.9 4.6 6.2 9.6 4.2 5.3 6.6 3.1 3.9

 Subtotal 39.3 39.4 34.2 38.4 47.1 58.2 52.8 60.0 69.0 42.8 46.1

Off-the-highway:

 Radial >= 40.6 cm (16") 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.2 10.8 8.8 7.9 3.0 2.7

 Radial < 40.6 cm (16") 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.2

 Other >= 40.6 cm (16") 2.7 3.0 1.9 11.1 7.6 7.1 4.8 2.3 2.3 3.9 3.4

 Other < 40.6 cm (16") 0.5 0.6 0.4 11.2 10.8 5.4 0.7 0.5 0.3 1.5 1.9

 Subtotal 3.4 3.8 2.5 23.6 19.2 12.8 17.1 12.3 11.3 8.7 8.2

Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 13.7 6.6 3.7 3.5 1.7 2.0 2.8

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Compiled from responses to the Commission's questionnaires and official Commerce statistics, adjusted.

E-4
F-1

APPENDIX F

ADDITIONAL PRICE DATA

F-3

Table F-1

Off-the-road tires: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of products 1-5 for imports

from nonsubject countries, January 2004-March 2007

* * * * * * *

Table F-2

Off-the-road tires: Reported f.o.b. selling prices for products not meeting the defined

specifications for products 1 and 5, by company

* * * * * * *