U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4448 January 2014

Washington, DC 20436

Certain Off-The-Road Tires from China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-448 and 731-TA-1117 (Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Irving A. Williamson, Chairman 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Dean A. Pinkert 

David S. Johanson 

Meredith M. Broadbent 

F. Scott Kieff

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Director of Operations

Amy Sherman, Investigator 

Raymond Cantrell, Industry Analyst 

Mary Jane Alves, Attorney 

James McClure, Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4448 January 2014

Certain Off-The-Road Tires from China

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

  

CONTENTS

Page

i

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

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

Information obtained in the review....................................................................................... I‐1

introduction............................................................................................................................... I‐1

Background............................................................................................................................ I‐1

The original investigations..................................................................................................... I‐2

Commerce’s final results of expedited first five‐year reviews.............................................. I‐4

Previous and related title VII investigations.......................................................................... I‐5

The product............................................................................................................................... I‐6

Commerce’s scope ................................................................................................................ I‐6

U.S. tariff treatment .............................................................................................................. I‐9

Domestic like product and domestic industry .................................................................... I‐10

Description and uses ........................................................................................................... I‐10

Production process.............................................................................................................. I‐13

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions............................................. I‐16

Channels of distribution ...................................................................................................... I‐17

Pricing and related information .......................................................................................... I‐17

The industry in the united states............................................................................................ I‐18

U.S. producers..................................................................................................................... I‐18

Related party issues............................................................................................................. I‐19

U.S. producers’ trade and financial data............................................................................. I‐19

U.S. imports and apparent consumption................................................................................ I‐20

U.S. importers...................................................................................................................... I‐20

U.S. imports......................................................................................................................... I‐20

Ratio of imports to U.S. production .................................................................................... I‐22

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares................................................................. I‐22
  

CONTENTS

Page

ii

The industry in China............................................................................................................... I‐25

Background.......................................................................................................................... I‐25

Capacity and production ..................................................................................................... I‐25

Exports................................................................................................................................. I‐26

Tariff or non‐tariff barriers to trade .................................................................................... I‐27

The global market ................................................................................................................... I‐27

Appendixes

A. Supplemental data............................................................................................................ A‐1

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

be published and therefore has been deleted.  Such deletions are indicated by asterisks.
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 701‐TA‐448 and 731‐TA‐1117 (Review)

CERTAIN OFF‐THE‐ROAD TIRES FROM CHINA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1 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 and

antidumping duty order on certain off‐the‐road tires from 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 August 1, 2013 (78 FR 46607) and

determined on November 20, 2013 that it would conduct expedited reviews (78 FR 73560,

December 6, 2013).   

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

CFR ' 207.2(f)).

3

Views of the Commission

Based on the record in these five‐year reviews, we determine under section 751(c) of

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Tariff Act”), that revocation of the antidumping and

countervailing duty orders on certain off‐the‐road tires (“OTR tires”) from 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.

I. Background

Original Investigations:  The original investigations of OTR tires from China were

initiated in response to antidumping and countervailing duty petitions filed on June 18, 2007,

by Titan Tire Corporation (“Titan”), a domestic producer of OTR tires, and the United Steel,

Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers

International Union, AFL‐CIO‐CLC (“USW”), a domestic union representing workers engaged in

manufacturing OTR tires.1

  On August 28, 2008, the Commission issued its final determinations

that the domestic industry was materially injured by reason of imports of OTR tires from China

that Commerce had determined were sold at less‐than‐fair value and subsidized by the

Government of China.2  On September 4, 2008, the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) published the corresponding antidumping and countervailing duty orders.3

Three interested parties (importers GPX International Tire Corp. and Super Grip Corp.

and foreign producer/exporter Hebei Starbright Tire Co., Ltd.) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) sought

review of the Commission’s final determinations by the U.S. Court of International Trade

(“CIT”).  They moved for injunctive relief to prevent the collection of full cash deposits during

the pendency of their appeals of Commerce’s final antidumping and countervailing duty and

the Commission’s final injury determinations.4  The Court denied their request.5  After the CIT

                                                       

1 Confidential Report, Memorandum INV‐LL‐115 (“CR”) at I‐3 (Dec. 18, 2013); Public Report, Certain

Off‐the‐Road Tires from China, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐448 and 731‐TA‐1117 (Review), USITC Pub. 4448 (Jan.

2014) (“PR”) at I‐2.

2 Certain Off‐the‐Road Tires from China, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐448 and 731‐TA‐1117 (Final), USITC Pub.

4031 at 3 (Aug. 2008).  The Commission based its determinations on data for the period January 2005

through March 2008 (the period of investigation or “POI”).

3 73 Fed. Reg. 51624 (Sept. 4, 2008) (antidumping duty order); 73 Fed. Reg. 51627 (Sept. 4, 2008)

(countervailing duty order).  Commerce initially found de minimis antidumping duty margins for

producer/exporter Xuzhou Xugong Tyres Co., Ltd. and excluded this firm from the antidumping duty

order.  As a result of ensuing litigation, Commerce found a non de minimis margin and subsequently

amended the order to include this firm.  75 Fed. Reg. 49459 (Aug. 13, 2010).

4 In support of their request, Plaintiffs argued that errors in the Commission’s determinations were

the “most critical” factor supporting the likelihood of their success on the merits, correction of which

would result in negative injury determinations.  Specifically, they pointed to the Commission’s decision

not to define the domestic like product broader than the scope to include tires with a rim diameter of 39

(Continued...)
4

also denied their request for rehearing, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their appeal of the

Commission’s determinations on March 25, 2009.

Current Reviews:  The Commission instituted these first five‐year reviews effective

August 1, 2013.6

  On September 3, 2013, Titan and USW submitted a joint response and on

August 29, 2013, Specialty Tires of America, Inc. (“Specialty Tires”), a domestic producer of OTR

tires, submitted a response to the notice instituting these reviews.  On November 30, 2013, the

Commission found each domestic producer’s response to be adequate.  It further determined

that the domestic interested party group response to the notice of institution was adequate

because these domestic producers accounted for a substantial portion of domestic OTR tire

production in 2012.7

The Commission did not receive a response to the notice of institution from any

respondent interested party.  Consequently, it determined that the respondent interested party

group response was inadequate.  In the absence of any circumstances warranting full reviews,

the Commission unanimously determined to conduct expedited reviews of the orders.8

II. Domestic Like Product

In making its determination under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act, the Commission

defines the “domestic like product” and the “industry.”9

  The Tariff 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 under this subtitle.”10  The Commission’s

practice in five‐year reviews is to examine the domestic like product definition from the original

investigations and consider whether the record indicates any reason to revisit the prior

findings.11  

                                                                                                                                                                               

(...Continued)

inches or greater, its reliance on importer questionnaire data to evaluate the volume of subject imports,

its finding of underselling by subject imports, and its non‐attribution analysis.

5 The CIT did not find that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits because they had “not

demonstrated any overarching legal error in the ITC’s affirmative injury determinations.  Instead,

plaintiffs contest the ITC’s factual determinations, and the court has found that to the extent the issues

have been developed here, there appears to be sufficient evidence on the record to support the ITC’s

factual conclusions.”  GPX Int’l Tire Corp. v. United States, 587 F. Supp.2d 1278 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008).

6 78 Fed. Reg. 46607 (Aug. 1, 2013).

7 CR at I‐1 to I‐2; PR at I‐1; 78 Fed. Reg. 73560 (Dec. 6, 2013).

8 CR at I‐2; PR at I‐2; 78 Fed. Reg. 73560 (Dec. 6, 2013).   9 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

10 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10); see, e.g., Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); 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); Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade

1996); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748‐49 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d

1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also S. Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90‐91 (1979).

11 See, e.g., Internal Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks from Japan, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐377 (Second

Review), USITC Pub. 3831 at 8‐9 (Dec. 2005); Crawfish Tail Meat from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐752

(Continued...)
5

Commerce has defined the imported merchandise within the scope of the orders under

review as follows:  

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, combine

harvesters, agricultural high clearance sprayers, industrial tractors, log‐skidders,

agricultural implements, highway‐towed implements, agricultural logging, and

agricultural, industrial, skid‐steers/mini‐loaders; (2) construction vehicles and

equipment, including earthmover articulated dump products, rigid frame haul

trucks, front end loaders, dozers, lift trucks, straddle carriers, graders, 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.  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.  Such vehicles and equipment, and the

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 proceeding 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.

                                                                                                                                                                              

(...Continued)

(Review), USITC Pub. 3614 at 4 (Jul. 2003); Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Turkey, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐

745 (Review), USITC Pub. 3577 at 4 (Feb. 2003).
6

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” 150 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 designed for use on

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

trailer applications.  Also excluded from the scope are radial and bias tires of a

kind designed for use in 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 1,500 pounds).12

                                                      

12 CR at I‐8 to I‐11; PR at I‐6 to I‐9 (multiple internal footnotes omitted); Issues and Decision

Memorandum for the Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing duty Order on

Certain New Pneumatic Off‐the‐Road Tires from the People’s Republic of China from Christian Marsh,

(Continued...)
7

In the original investigations, the Commission defined a single domestic like product

consisting of OTR tires made in the United States corresponding to the OTR tires in the scope of

the investigations, what the Commission referred to as “coterminous tires.”  These coterminous

tires included certain OTR tires for agricultural, construction, and industrial vehicles and

equipment.  The Commission rejected respondents’ request to define the domestic like product

more broadly than the scope to include larger construction and mining tires with a rim

diameter equal to or exceeding 39 inches, what the Commission referred to as “C&M tires of 39

inches and higher,” based on significant distinctions in physical characteristics and uses, lack of

overlap in two critical manufacturing steps that involved differences in employee specialization

and equipment, limitations in overlap of channels of distribution, and price differences.13

Domestic interested party Specialty Tires did not comment on the domestic like product

definition in its response to the notice instituting these reviews.  Domestic interested parties

Titan and USW agree with the Commission’s domestic like product definition in the original

investigations, and they argue that OTR tires serve the same end uses as in the original

investigations, no other substitutes have entered the market, and the production technology

and processes employed during the original investigations have not changed.14  The record of

                                                                                                                                                                              

(...Continued)

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations to Ronald K. Lorentzen,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance at 3‐5 (Dec. 16, 2013).

13 The Commission found significant distinctions in physical characteristics between coterminous

tires and C&M tires, including that C&M tires of 39 inches and higher have more beads and plies,

additional components and heavier materials, resulting in tires that are substantially heavier and have a

much greater load‐bearing capacity.  It found that these differences in physical characteristics affected

end uses, even for tires of the same rim diameter.  The Commission found that the two of the ten

manufacturing process steps not shared by coterminous tires and C&M tires of 39 inches and higher

(tire building and vulcanization) were “critical” and that manufacturing C&M tires of 39 inches and

higher required specially trained employees and specialized mounting equipment.  There was some

overlap in channels of distribution types (directly to wholesalers or distributors and directly to end

users) for coterminous tires and C&M tires of 39 inches and higher.  The Commission, however, found

that some firms only sold one or the other product, and those servicing the largest of Titan’s C&M

products needed additional specialized training.  In terms of customer and producer perceptions,

producers typically sold coterminous tires and C&M tires of 39 inches and higher using separate

catalogues that referenced the other product; additionally, large‐volume purchaser Caterpillar ***.  It

was undisputed that C&M tires of 39 inches and higher cost more to manufacture and were higher

priced than coterminous tires.  The record did not show interchangeability between coterminous tires

and C&M tires of 39 inches and higher, but the Commission did not weigh this factor heavily because

this industry involved thousands of products, each designed for a specific use.  Confidential Original

Views at 6‐11; USITC Pub. 4031 at 6‐10.  In the procedural posture of reviewing a request for injunctive

relief, the CIT found that the domestic like product determination “appear{ed} to be substantially

supported” and that the Commission appeared “to have evaluated all of the factors and made the kind

of like product determination that it normally makes when it faces a range of U.S. manufactured goods

potentially corresponding to the subject imported merchandise.”  GPX Int’l Tire Corp., 587 F. Supp.2d at

1286‐1287.

14 Titan/USW Response to Notice of Institution at 29‐30.
8

these reviews contains no information that would suggest any reason to revisit the

Commission’s domestic like product definition in the original investigations.15  Therefore, we

define the domestic like product as consisting of OTR tires made in the United States

corresponding to the OTR tires in the scope of the investigations, as we did in the original

investigations.

III. Domestic Industry  

Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act defines the relevant industry as the domestic  

“producers as a whole 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.”16  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.  If appropriate

circumstances exist, the statute provides the Commission with the authority to exclude from

the domestic industry producers that are related to an exporter or importer of subject

merchandise, or are themselves importers.17  Exclusion of such a producer from the domestic

industry as a related party is within the Commission’s discretion based upon the facts

presented in each investigation.18

In the original investigations, the Commission defined the domestic industry as all U.S.

producers of the domestic like product.19  Three domestic producers were related parties

because they imported subject merchandise from China.20  The Commission did not find

appropriate circumstances to exclude any of them from the domestic industry as related

parties.21

Specialty Tires did not comment on the domestic industry definition in its response to

the notice instituting these reviews.  Although Titan and USW provided information suggesting

that four domestic producers or their affiliates imported subject OTR tires from China during

the period of review,22 they nonetheless advocate that the Commission adopt the domestic

                                                       

15 CR at I‐12 to I‐24; PR at I‐10 to I‐17.

16 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).  The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 apply to the entire subtitle containing

the antidumping and countervailing duty laws, including 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675 and 1675a.  See 19 U.S.C. §

1677.

17 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B); see Torrington Co v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161, 1168 (Ct. Int’l Trade

1992), aff’d mem., 991 F.2d 809 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Sandvik AB v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 1322, 1331‐32

(Ct. Int’l Trade 1989), aff’d mem., 904 F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Empire Plow Co. v. United States, 675 F.

Supp. 1348, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1987).

18 See, e.g., Torrington, 790 F. Supp. at 1168.

19 Confidential Original Views at 11; USITC Pub. 4031 at 11.

20 Confidential Original Views at 12; USITC Pub. 4031 at 11.

21 Confidential Original Views at 12‐13; USITC Pub. 4031 at 11‐13.

22 Titan/USW Response to the Notice of Institution at 30, Exhibit 5.
9

industry definition from the original investigations.23  Because none of the four firms named by

Titan and USW submitted any information in these reviews, there are no data concerning any of

these firms to exclude, even assuming arguendo appropriate circumstances existed to exclude

one or more of them from the domestic industry as a related party.  Accordingly, for purposes

of these reviews, we define the domestic industry as all domestic producers of OTR tires.

IV. Revocation of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders Would

Likely Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury Within a

Reasonably Foreseeable Time  

A. Legal Standards

In five‐year reviews conducted under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act, Commerce will

revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order unless:  (1) it makes a determination that

dumping or subsidization is likely to continue or recur and (2) the Commission makes a

determination that revocation of the antidumping or countervailing duty order “would be likely

to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”24  

The Uruguay Round Agreements Act Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) states that

“under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in a counterfactual analysis; it must

decide the likely impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of an important change in the

status quo – the revocation or termination of a proceeding and the elimination of its restraining

effects on volumes and prices of imports.”25  Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in

nature.26  The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the five‐year

review provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in

five‐year reviews.27  

                                                       

23 Titan and Specialty Tires did not report importing any subject merchandise.

24 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

25 SAA at 883‐84.  The SAA states that “{t}he likelihood of injury standard applies regardless of the

nature of the Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of material injury, or material

retardation of an industry).  Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations that were never

completed.”  Id. at 883.

26 While the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not

necessary,” it indicates that “the Commission may consider relevant factors such as current and likely

continued depressed shipment levels and current and likely continued {sic} prices for the domestic like

product in the U.S. market in making its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of

material injury if the order is revoked.”  SAA at 884.

27 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003) (“‘likely’

means probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d mem., 140

Fed. Appx. 268 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 26 CIT 1416, 1419 (2002) (same);

Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, 26 CIT 1402, 1404 nn.3, 6 (2002) (“more likely than not” standard

is “consistent with the court’s opinion;” “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any particular

degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, 26 CIT 1059, 1070 (2002)

(Continued...)
10

The statute states that “the Commission shall consider that the effects of revocation or

termination may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of

time.”28 According to the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case‐to‐case, but

normally will exceed the ‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in

original investigations.”29

Although the standard in a five‐year review is not the same as the standard applied in an

original investigation, it contains some of the same fundamental elements.  The statute

provides that the Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of

imports of the subject merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended

investigation is terminated.”30  It directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury

determination, whether any improvement in the state of the industry is related to the orders

under review, whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked,

and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4).31  

The statute further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the Commission is

required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the

Commission’s determination.32

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the orders under

review are revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume of

imports would be significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption

in the United States.33  In doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic

factors,” including four enumerated factors:  (1) any likely increase in production capacity or

existing unused production capacity in the exporting country; (2) existing inventories of the

subject merchandise, or likely increases in inventories; (3) the existence of barriers to the

importation of the subject merchandise into countries other than the United States; and (4) 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.34

                                                                                                                                                                              

(...Continued)

(“standard is based on a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a certainty”); Usinor v.

United States, 26 CIT 767, 794 (2002) (“‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

28 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

29 SAA at 887.  Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the

fungibility or differentiation within the product in question, the level of substitutability between the

imported and domestic products, the channels of distribution used, the methods of contracting (such as

spot sales or long‐term contracts), and lead times for delivery of goods, as well as other factors that may

only manifest themselves in the longer term, such as planned investment and the shifting of production

facilities.”  Id. 30 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

31 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).  Commerce has not made any duty absorption findings regarding imports

of OTR tires from China.  CR at I‐5 to I‐6; PR at I‐4; CR/PR at Table I‐1 to I‐2.

32 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).  Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is

necessarily dispositive.  SAA at 886.

33 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

34 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A‐D).
11

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the orders under review are

revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant

underselling by subject imports as compared to the domestic like product and whether subject

imports are likely to enter the United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant

depressing or suppressing effect on the price of the domestic like product.35

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the orders under

review are revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that

are likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including but not

limited to the following:  (1) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity,

return on investments, and utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow,

inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely

negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the industry, including

efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product.36  All

relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the business cycle and the

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the industry.  As instructed by the statute, we

have considered the extent to which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is

related to the orders under review and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury

upon revocation.37

No respondent interested party participated in these expedited reviews.  The record,

therefore, contains limited new information with respect to the OTR tires industry in China.

There also is limited information on the OTR tires market in the United States during the period

of review.  Accordingly, for our determinations, we rely as appropriate on the facts available

from the original investigations and the limited new information on the record in these five‐

year reviews.

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry if an

order is revoked, the statute directs the Commission to consider all relevant economic factors

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

                                                      

35 See 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3).  The SAA states that “{c}onsistent with its practice in investigations, in

considering the likely price effects of imports in the event of revocation and termination, the

Commission may rely on circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse effects of unfairly

traded imports on domestic prices.”  SAA at 886.

36 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

37 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the order

is revoked, 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 may also demonstrate that an industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is

vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.”  SAA at 885.
12

the affected industry.”38  The following conditions of competition, several of which also existed

during the original investigations, inform our determinations.

1. Demand Conditions

As was the case in the original investigations, OTR tires are used on a wide variety of

vehicles and equipment designed for hauling, towing, lifting, and/or loading in agricultural,

forestry, construction, and industrial applications.39  Agricultural and industrial applications

accounted for the majority of the U.S. market in 2007.40  Demand for OTR tires is derived from

the sometimes cyclical demand for off‐the‐road vehicles used in these applications and includes

demand for tires sold for “original” machinery and equipment (“OEM”) and in the replacement

market.41

Between 2005 and 2007, demand for OTR tires was strong and growing, particularly in

2007, which the Commission deemed to be a “boom” year.42  Demand in the agricultural and

construction sectors was also strong during this period, although construction demand abated

somewhat in 2007.43  Demand for OTR tires in the mining, oil and gas production, and

manufacturing sectors steadily grew between 2005 and 2007.44

According to Titan and USW, current demand for OTR tires has weakened and is forecast

to stagnate or grow slowly.45  *** response to the Commission’s questionnaire corroborates

this characterization of demand stating that current OEM and end user demand in the United

States both are much lower than in previous years and its expectation of continued weak

demand in the next twelve months.46  For its part, Specialty Tires argues that the current OTR

tire business environment is recovering extremely slowly “from the deep financial recession

begun in 2008.”47

                                                      

38 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

39 Confidential Original Views at 17; USITC Pub. 4031 at 16; Titan/USW Comments on Adequacy at 6;

Titan/USW Response to Notice of Institution at 29; CR at I‐14 to I‐16; PR at I‐11.

40 Confidential Original Views at 17; USITC Pub. 4031 at 16; CR at I‐16; PR at I‐12.

41 Confidential Original Views at 17; USITC Pub. 4031 at 16, 17; Titan/USW Comments on Adequacy

at 6; Titan/USW Response to Notice of Institution at 29; CR at I‐33; PR at I‐14.

42 Apparent U.S. consumption increased from 5.8 million tires in 2005 to 6.3 million tires in 2007 and

was 1.5 million tires in the first quarter of 2007 (“interim 2007”) and 1.6 million tires in the first quarter

of 2008 (“interim 2008”).  Confidential Original Views at 17, 18; USITC Pub. 4031 at 16, 17.

43 Confidential Original Views at 17; USITC Pub. 4031 at 16.

44 Confidential Original Views at 17; USITC Pub. 4031 at 16.

45 Titan/USW Final Comments at 13‐15; Titan/USW Response to Notice of Institution at 23‐25; CR at

I‐34; PR at I‐24.

46 CR at I‐34; PR at I‐24 to I‐25.

47 Specialty Tires Response to Notice of Institution at 2.
13

2. Supply Conditions

During the original investigations, three sources supplied the U.S. market:  the domestic

industry, subject imports, and nonsubject imports.48  At the time, the Commission had to select

from three imperfect data sets (importer questionnaire data or two sets of data composites)

when assessing the volume of subject and nonsubject imports.49  Ultimately, the Commission

utilized importer questionnaire data from 34 firms that were believed to account for ***

percent, by quantity, of U.S. imports of OTR tires from China and *** percent of U.S. imports

from other countries between 2005 and 2007.50  During that period, the domestic industry held

the largest share of apparent U.S. consumption, followed by nonsubject imports and then by

subject imports from China.51  The Commission observed that China was the largest foreign

supplier of OTR tires to the U.S. market.52  Subject imports from China were present in all

segments of the U.S. market, although they were concentrated in the aftermarket.53  The

majority of nonsubject imports originated from Sri Lanka, Taiwan, and Thailand.54

In the current reviews, the domestic industry and imports of OTR tires from subject and

nonsubject sources continued to supply the U.S. market in 2012.  The limited available

information impedes our ability to assess the current level of apparent U.S. consumption, let

alone the precise share of the market currently attributable to each supplier, or to make

comparisons of apparent U.S. consumption levels between the current period and the period

                                                      

48 Confidential Original Views at 18; USITC Pub. 4031 at 18.

49 The first composite consisted of Customs Net Import File data that were adjusted to exclude out‐

of‐scope tires weighing over 1,500 pounds and tires with a landed duty value of less than $25 and that

were adjusted to avoid double‐counting using information from importers submitting questionnaire

responses.  The second composite was identical to the first except that it excluded all OTR tires with a

landed duty value of less than $35.  The Commission observed that reliance on the second composite

“would omit a significant number of subject imports, as {was} evident from an examination of the data

pertaining to pricing product 4.”  Confidential Original Views, EDIS Doc. 519193 at 14‐15 & n.91; USITC

Pub. 4031 at 14 n.91.

50 Whereas importer questionnaire data likely understated the absolute levels of subject and

nonsubject imports, the Commission found that they did “represent the trends in such imports as

experienced by the importers responding to the questionnaires.”  Confidential Original Views at 14‐15;

Certain Off‐the‐Road Tires from China, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐448 and 731‐TA‐1117 (Final), USITC Pub. 4031 at

13‐14 (Aug. 2008).

51 Confidential Original Views at 20; USITC Pub. 4031 at 19 (indicating that subject imports’ market

share increased from 14.2 percent in 2005 to 22.3 percent in 2007, while the domestic industry’s market

share decreased from 67.0 percent in 2005 to 59.2 percent in 2007, and nonsubject imports’ market

share remained relatively steady at 18.8 percent in 2005 and 18.5 percent in 2007).

52 Confidential Original Views at 18; USITC Pub. 4031 at 18.

53 Confidential Original Views at 18‐19; USITC Pub. 4031 at 18.

54 Confidential Original Views at 19; USITC Pub. 4031 at 18.
14

examined in the original determinations.55  Available data do suggest that the volume of

imports from all nonsubject sources in 2012 exceeded the volume of subject OTR tires imported

from China in that year.56

During the original investigations, seven firms reported producing OTR tires in the

United States.  Domestic producer Titan purchased the Bryan, Ohio production facilities from

Continental Tire North America in July 2006 and the Freeport, Illinois facilities from Goodyear in

December 2005.57  In 2006, Titan decided to convert one‐third of its farm tire capacity in

Freeport to non‐farm OTR tires, to expand non‐farm OTR tire output at Bryan, and to shift some

of its Freeport production to its facility in Des Moines, Iowa.58  During the current period, eight

firms reportedly produced OTR tires in the United States, including Mitas Tires North America

(“Mitas”)59 but no longer Denman Tire Corporation (“Denman”), which filed for Chapter 7

bankruptcy in March 2010, closed its Leavittsburg, Ohio manufacturing plant, and liquidated its

assets.60

GPX International Tire Corporation (“GPX”) was the *** of OTR tires from China during

the original investigations, accounting for *** percent of reported U.S. imports from China in

2007.61  As a result of the orders on OTR tire from China, GPX filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy

protection in October 2009, and under its bankruptcy restructuring plan, the firm sold most of

its U.S. operation assets to Alliance Tire Corp. and shuttered its European operations but did

not restructure its Dynamic Tire subsidiary in Canada or its Starbright Group Inc. subsidiary in

                                                      

55 The data source the Commission used in the original investigations to evaluate imports from

subject and nonsubject sources is not available for 2012, and available domestic industry data for 2012

are less inclusive than and not comparable to domestic industry data for the original investigations.  

Specifically, because no U.S. importer submitted questionnaire data in these reviews, the only available

information on the current record regarding the volume of imports from subject and nonsubject sources

for 2012 correspond to the two data composites that were presented in the original investigations but

not utilized in the Commission’s determinations.  CR at I‐27 to I‐29; PR at I‐20 to I‐21; CR/PR at Table I‐4,

Table I‐6, Appendix A‐5.  Likewise, U.S. industry data for these reviews are based on the questionnaire

responses of two of the domestic producers of OTR tires, Specialty Tires and Titan, that accounted for

*** and *** percent of U.S. production, respectively, in 2007 and collectively accounted for about ***

percent of domestic production in 2012, whereas U.S. industry data in the original investigations were

based on questionnaire responses of seven firms accounting for *** percent of U.S. production of OTR

tires in 2007.  CR at I‐24 to I‐25; PR at I‐18; CR/PR at Table I‐3 at n.2.

56 CR/PR at Table I‐4, Table I‐6, Appendix I‐5.

57 Confidential Original Views at 19; USITC Pub. 4031 at 18.

58 Confidential Original Views at 19; USITC Pub. 4031 at 18.

59 Mitas, a wholly owned subsidiary of MITAS a.s., a manufacturer of agricultural, industrial, and

motorcycle tires headquartered in the Czech Republic, commenced production of radial agricultural tires

in Charles City, Iowa in 2012.  CR at I‐26; PR at I‐18.

60 Titan reported that it purchased a number of Denman’s former assets.  CR at I‐25; PR at I‐18.

61 CR at I‐27 to I‐28; PR at I‐20.
15

China.62  The largest current suppliers of nonsubject imports of OTR tires are the industries in

India, Sri Lanka, and Thailand.63

3. Substitutability

In the original investigations, the Commission found that price was one of the three

most important factors in purchasing decisions in the OTR industry, along with availability and

quality.64  The Commission recognized that the U.S. market for OTR tires involved a three‐tier

hierarchy of brands, with the top tier consisting of large, international producers having widely

recognized brands (such as Goodyear, Bridgestone, and Michelin) that sold at a premium over

lower‐tier products due to their sophisticated technical and manufacturing characteristics.65  

The second tier consisted of the Titan brands and some brands of subject imports from China

that appealed to replacement buyers that did not require the level of quality and service

provided from premium brands.66  Subject imports from China also competed in the third tier,

which was composed of so‐called private brands or dealer house brands that appealed to

economy‐minded customers.67

In the original investigations, the Commission found subject OTR tires from China to be

highly substitutable with OTR tires manufactured in the United States.68  The majority of U.S.

producers, importers, and purchasers reported them to be “always” or “frequently”

interchangeable, and the majority or plurality of purchasers considered them to be comparable

in most categories.69  The Commission did not find that the longer lead times for subject

merchandise materially limited competition between subject imports and the domestic like

product, given the high degree of substitutability between products made in the United States

and China and the large volume of subject imports from China.70

According to Titan and USW, many of these basic conditions, including the importance

of price in purchasing decisions, remain unchanged.71  There is also nothing on the current

record indicating that the substitutability between OTR tires made in China and in the United

States has changed since the original investigations.  Accordingly, we again find a high degree of

substitutability between OTR tires made in the United States and China.  

                                                      

62 CR at I‐28; PR at I‐20.

63 CR at I‐30; PR at I‐22.

64 Confidential Original Views at 22; USITC Pub. 4031 at 21.

65 Confidential Original Views at 22; USITC Pub. 4031 at 21.

66 Confidential Original Views at 22; USITC Pub. 4031 at 21; CR at I‐23, I‐24; PR at I‐17.

67 Confidential Original Views at 22; USITC Pub. 4031 at 21; CR at I‐23, I‐24; PR at I‐17.

68 Confidential Original Views at 21; USITC Pub. 4031 at 20.

69 Confidential Original Views at 21; USITC Pub. 4031 at 20; CR at I‐22 to I‐23; PR at I‐16 to I‐17.

70 Confidential Original Views at 22; USITC Pub. 4031 at 21.

71 Titan/USW Comments on Adequacy at 6; Titan/USW Response to Notice of Institution at 29.
16

4. Other Conditions

In the original investigations, the Commission found that the major raw material input

to manufacture OTR tires was natural rubber, and other important raw materials included

synthetic rubber, carbon black, various chemicals, textiles, and steel.72  The domestic industry’s

cost of goods sold (“COGS”) increased 58.6 percent between 2005 and 2007 due to rapidly

escalating raw material costs.73

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

1. Original Investigations

During the original investigations, the volume of subject imports of OTR tires from China

increased from 825,000 tires in 2005 to 1.4 million tires in 2007.74  By value, subject imports

increased from $84.9 million in 2005 to $187.3 million in 2007.75  Commensurately, their share

of apparent U.S. consumption increased significantly as well, from 14.2 percent, by quantity, in

2005 to 22.3 percent in 2007, or from 7.0 percent, by value, in 2005 to 12.0 percent in 2007.76

The Commission found that the domestic industry faced significant competition from

subject imports in both the agricultural sector, which accounted for the largest portion of the

domestic industry’s sales, and the construction sector.77  U.S. shipments of agricultural OTR

tires from China increased 153 percent between 2005 and 2007, and U.S. shipments of

construction OTR tires imported from China increased by 34 percent during this period.78

Although the volume of subject imports in interim 2008 was lower by quantity and value

than the volume of subject imports in interim 2007, the Commission found that this was due to

the imposition on imports from China of provisional countervailing duties in December 2007

and provisional antidumping duties in February 2008.79

In its determinations in the original investigations, the Commission rejected

respondents’ argument that subject imports increased simply because the domestic industry

was unable to meet demand.80  Instead, the Commission found that any shortages primarily

involved out‐of‐scope tires such as large agricultural tires and C&M tires of 39 inches and

higher.  Moreover, it found that subject imports were not restricted to or even concentrated in

                                                      

72 Confidential Original Views at 22; USITC Pub. 4031 at 21‐22.

73 Confidential Original Views at 22; USITC Pub. 4031 at 21.

74 Confidential Original Views at 23; USITC Pub. 4031 at 22.

75 Confidential Original Views at 23; USITC Pub. 4031 at 22.

76 Confidential Original Views at 23; USITC Pub. 4031 at 22.

77 Confidential Original Views at 23; USITC Pub. 4031 at 22.

78 Confidential Original Views at 23; USITC Pub. 4031 at 22.

79 Confidential Original Views at 23 & n.164; USITC Pub. 4031 at 22 & n.164.

80 Confidential Original Views at 23; USITC Pub. 4031 at 22‐23.
17

those categories for which there were reported shortages (such as for smaller farm tires

designed for older‐model equipment and other small‐volume models).81

Accordingly, the Commission found that the volume of subject imports from China was

significant, both in absolute terms and relative to consumption and production in the United

States, and it found that the increase in subject imports between 2005 and 2007 was

significant.82

2. Current Reviews

In the current reviews, the available information indicates that the antidumping and

countervailing duty orders have had a disciplining effect on the volume of subject imports of

OTR tires from China.  Regardless of the data source, the volume of subject imports from China

in the U.S. market in 2012 is appreciably lower than the volume in 2007.83

In the original investigations, the Commission sent questionnaires to 95 possible

producers/exporters of subject merchandise in China, and 18 foreign producers accounting for

*** percent of OTR tire production in China in 2007 submitted questionnaire data.84  No foreign

producer or exporter of OTR tires participated in these expedited reviews.  Nonetheless,

available record data indicate that the industry in China continues to manufacture and export

substantial volumes of OTR tires85 and may have increased its overall capacity since the original

                                                      

81 Confidential Original Views at 20, 23‐24; USITC Pub. 4031 at 19‐20, 22‐23.  Additionally, the

Commission concluded that the shortages experienced by Caterpillar involved the three highest‐priced

premium brands, whereas subject imports predominantly supplied the two lower tiers of the U.S.

market.  Confidential Original Views at 21, 23‐24; USITC Pub. 4031 at 20, 22‐23.

82 Confidential Original Views at 23‐24; USITC Pub. 4031 at 22‐23.

83 CR/PR at Table I‐6 (indicating that the volume of subject imports from China was 2.1 million tires in

2007 and 1.3 million tires in 2012, or $275.9 million by value in 2007 and $216.5 million by value in

2012), Table A‐5 (indicating that the volume of subject imports from China was 2.3 million tires in 2007

and 1.4 million tires in 2012, or $282.3 million by value in 2007 and $217.7 million by value in 2012);

Titan/USW Final Comments at 3; Titan/USW Response to the Notice of Institution at 11‐13.

84 CR at I‐34 to I‐37; PR at I‐25.

85 Total exports of OTR tires from China increased by 61.0 percent between 2008 and 2012.  CR at I‐

35; PR at I‐26; CR/PR at Table I‐8, Table I‐9; Titan/USW Final Comments at 9‐10; Titan/USW Response to

Notice of Institution at 18‐19.  Available data from Global Trade Atlas may overstate exports of OTR tires

because they have not been adjusted to account for out‐of‐scope OTR tires over 1,500 pounds or lower‐

value OTR tires.  CR/PR at Table I‐8, Table I‐9.
18

investigations.86  The industry in China also continued to export a range of OTR tire products to

the United States in 2012, as it had during the original investigation period.87

The United States remains an attractive market to the industry in China.  Subject

imports of OTR tires from China, while lower than during the original investigations, have

remained in the U.S. market in substantial volumes.88  Titan and USW report that some

producers in China have added U.S. subsidiary distribution centers, and many producers in

China have existing relationships with U.S. importers and distributors.89  Available data suggest

that the United States is the largest global importer of OTR tires.90  Between 2008 and 2012,

exports of OTR tires from China to the United States, its largest export market, increased by

74.4 percent.91  Additionally, ***.92

Thus, OTR tires from China have remained in the U.S. market at substantial levels, and

that industry has the ability to increase exports of subject merchandise to the United States

upon revocation as it did during the original investigations and has the incentive to do so given

the attractiveness of the U.S. market.93  In light of these considerations, we find that subject

producers in China are likely, absent the restraining effects of the orders, to direct substantial

and increasing volumes of OTR tires to the U.S. market, as they did during the original

investigations.  We find that the likely volume of subject imports both in absolute terms and

relative to production and consumption in the United States would be significant if the orders

were revoked.

                                                      

86 CR/PR at Table I‐10.  According to Titan and USW, 21 firms have participated in Commerce’s

administrative reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on OTR tire imports from

China, and 71 firms were listed on the exhibitor’s list as manufacturers and exporters of OTR tires at the

2013 China International Tire Expo.  CR at I‐34; PR at I‐25; Titan/USW Final Comments at 8; Titan/USW

Response to Notice of Institution at 17‐18; Specialty Tires Response to Notice of Institution at 2.

87 CR/PR at Table I‐9.

88  Titan and USW identified over 400 importers that they believed may have imported OTR tires

during the last five years.  Specialty Tires submitted a list of 24 such firms.  CR at I‐28; PR at I‐20.

89 Titan/USW Final Comments at 10; Titan/USW Response to Notice of Institution at 21‐22.

90 CR/PR at Table I‐10.

91 CR at I‐35; PR at I‐26; CR/PR at Table I‐8, Table I‐9; Titan/USW Final Comments at 9‐10; Titan/USW

Response to Notice of Institution at 18‐19.

92 Titan/USW Final Comments at 9‐10; Titan/USW Response to Notice of Institution at 20‐21.

93 Due to the failure of any foreign producer, exporter, or importer of subject merchandise from

China to participate in these reviews, the record does not contain current information regarding any

existing inventories of subject merchandise, any likely increase in such inventories, or the potential for

product shifting if production facilities in China which can be used to produce OTR tires are currently

being used to manufacture other products.  The record does not indicate the existence of tariff or non‐

tariff barriers on OTR tires from China in any third‐country markets.  CR at I‐37; PR at I‐27.
19

D. Likely Price Effects

1. Original Investigations

In the original investigations, the Commission found that price was important but that

purchasers had not routinely listed price as the single most important factor.94  It did not find

OTR tires were commodity products but instead found that OTR tires were sold under brand

names in three tiers.95  It found that OTR tires from China competed in two of the three tiers

and generally were highly substitutable for products manufactured in the United States.96

The Commission collected pricing data for nine OTR tire products imported from China

and produced in the United States.97  These data showed widespread and significant

underselling of the domestic like product by subject imports from China in 147 of 157 possible

comparisons and at margins of 1.5 to 57.0 percent.98  The Commission did not find that the

existence of brand premiums explained the underselling, because most questionnaire

respondents reported that brand premiums commonly ranged between 10 and 15 percent and

in the clear majority of instances, margins of underselling exceeded 15 percent.99  Additionally,

a substantial share of domestic pricing products did not correspond to the premium‐priced tier‐

one products.100

The Commission found that subject imports of OTR tires from China increased their

share of apparent U.S. consumption at the domestic industry’s expense by underselling the

domestic like product at widespread and significant margins.101  Rather than reduce prices to

meet low‐priced subject imports, the Commission found that the domestic industry held its

prices firm to meet rising production costs at the expense of lost sales volume.102  The

Commission found that confirmed lost sales and lost revenue allegations illustrated this point,

and that purchasers reported buying subject imports due to lower prices.103  For these reasons,

                                                      

94 Confidential Original Views at 25; USITC Pub. 4031 at 24.

95 Confidential Original Views at 25; USITC Pub. 4031 at 24.

96 Confidential Original Views at 25; USITC Pub. 4031 at 24.

97 Confidential Original Views at 25; USITC Pub. 4031 at 24.

98 Confidential Original Views at 25; USITC Pub. 4031 at 24‐25.

99 Confidential Original Views at 25‐26; USITC Pub. 4031 at 24‐25.

100 Confidential Original Views at 26; USITC Pub. 4031 at 25.

101 Confidential Original Views at 26; USITC Pub. 4031 at 25.

102 Confidential Original Views at 26; USITC Pub. 4031 at 25.

103 Confidential Original Views at 26; USITC Pub. 4031 at 25.  Domestic prices for all nine pricing

products generally trended upward between 2005 and 2007, so the Commission did not find significant

price depression.  Moreover, the domestic industry was able to meet rising raw material costs by raising

its prices for the domestic like product, because the ratio of its COGS to net sales declined from 89.7

percent in 2005 to 88.7 percent in 2007.  Thus, the Commission did not find that subject imports

prevented price increases that otherwise would have occurred to a significant degree.  Confidential

Original Views at 25; USITC Pub. 4031 at 24.
20

the Commission concluded that there had been significant underselling of the domestic like

product by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports of OTR tires from China.104

2. Current Reviews

As indicated above, in these reviews, we continue to find that subject imports from

China are highly substitutable for OTR tires manufactured in the United States and that price is

an important factor in purchasing decisions.  The record does not contain current pricing

comparisons due to the failure of respondent interested parties to participate and the

expedited nature of these reviews.  We find that the significant underselling observed during

the original investigations would likely recur if the antidumping and countervailing duty orders

were revoked.  This in turn would likely cause the domestic industry to lower prices, or, as was

the case in the original investigations, maintain prices to cover rising costs but lose sales to

subject imports from China.105  Given subject imports’ already substantial U.S. market presence

and our finding that they would likely increase in the event of revocation, we conclude that the

likely significant volume of subject imports of OTR tires from China would again undersell the

domestic like product to a significant degree to gain market share, and as discussed below,

would likely significantly impact the domestic industry’s condition if the orders were revoked.

                                                      

104 Confidential Original Views at 25‐26; USITC Pub. 4031 at 24‐25.

105 We note that domestic producer Titan reported that its raw material costs *** while the orders

were in place.  CR at I‐24; PR at I‐17.  Domestic interested parties Titan and USW argue that Commerce’s

imposition of provisional relief caused the price of several OTR tire products made in the United States

and imported from China to rise sharply and that the orders have had some disciplining effect on the

price of subject imports from China.  Titan/USW Final Comments at 3; Titan/USW Response to Notice of

Institution at 14‐15.
21

E. Likely Impact106

1. Original Investigations

In the original investigations, the Commission found that the domestic industry’s

performance indicators showed mixed results despite strong demand conditions.107  It

concluded that the overall weight of the factors supported a finding of material injury by reason

of subject imports, because several of the domestic industry’s indicators that improved were

affected either by the domestic industry’s movement toward larger‐sized tires due to

competition from smaller‐sized OTR tires from China or by the effects of Commerce’s

imposition of provisional antidumping and countervailing duties.108

The domestic industry’s production, U.S. shipments, and net sales of OTR tires, by units,

decreased between 2005 and 2007, but were higher in interim 2008 than in interim 2007.  Its

capacity utilization followed the same trends.  Its production, U.S. shipments, and net sales, by

weight, increased overall, but only because the domestic industry produced and shipped

relatively more larger‐sized tires later in the period.109  Employment‐related indicators such as

the number of production and related workers, hours worked, and wages paid all declined.110

The Commission also found that the domestic industry’s financial indicators were mixed

during the original investigations.111  Its operating income increased throughout, and the

domestic industry was able to increase prices to meet rising raw material costs, as shown by a

                                                      

106 Under the statute, “the Commission may consider the magnitude of the margin of dumping” in

making its determination in a five‐year review.  19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6).  The statute defines the

“magnitude of the margin of dumping” to be used by the Commission in five‐year reviews as “the

dumping margin or margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this

title.”  19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv); see also SAA at 887.  After conducting an expedited review of the

antidumping duty order on OTR tires from China, Commerce determined that revocation of the order

would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at weighted‐average margins of 5.10 to

29.93 percent for individually listed exporters/producers and 210.48 percent for the PRC entity.  In its

expedited review of the countervailing duty order, Commerce determined that revocation of the order

would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies of 2.52 to 35.13 percent for

individually listed exporters/producers and 5.65 percent for all others.  CR at I‐5; PR at I‐4; 78 Fed. Reg.

77101, 77102 (Dec. 20, 2013); 79 Fed. Reg. 2415, 2416 (Jan. 14, 2014).

107 Confidential Original Views at 27, 29; USITC Pub. 4031 at 26, 28.

108 Confidential Original Views at 27; USITC Pub. 4031 at 26.

109 Confidential Original Views at 27‐28; USITC Pub. 4031 at 26‐27.  The domestic industry’s average

production capacity increased between 2005 and 2007, and it reconfigured its production facilities to

produce greater volumes of heavier‐weight tires at the end of the POI than at the beginning.  

Confidential Original Views at 19, 21; USITC Pub. 4031 at 18, 20.  The Commission observed that the

utility of the domestic industry’s capacity data was limited due to the wide variety of OTR tires being

manufactured.  Confidential Original Views at 19 at n.130; USITC Pub. 4031 at 19 at n.130.

110 Confidential Original Views at 28; USITC Pub. 4031 at 27.

111 Confidential Original Views at 29; USITC Pub. 4031 at 28.
22

decline in its ratio of COGS to net sales.112  Nevertheless, the domestic industry’s ratio of

operating income to net sales remained “quite low,” and four of the seven domestic producers

reported operating losses, with two of them suffering losses in each year and during both

interim periods.113

Given the significant increase in the already significant volume of subject imports of OTR

tires from China at the domestic industry’s expense through widespread and significant

underselling between January 2005 and March 2008, the Commission concluded that adverse

effects by subject imports on the domestic industry’s production, capacity utilization,

shipments, net sales, employment, and revenues during a period of strong demand were

material.114

2. Current Reviews

In the current reviews, the available information concerning the domestic industry’s

condition is limited to the data that two of the domestic producers provided in response to the

notice of institution, and these producers accounted for approximately *** percent of domestic

production in 2012.115  Because these are expedited reviews, we also have only limited

information regarding the domestic industry’s financial performance.116  Available information

suggests some improvement in the domestic industry’s condition associated with the orders.117  

Other positive developments for the domestic industry include the entry into the U.S. market of

Mitas Tires, Bridgestone’s $77 million capacity investment in 2010, and Bridgestone’s June 2013

announcement of a further $74 million capacity expansion of its Des Moines, Iowa plant.118  

Nonetheless, this limited record is insufficient for us to make a finding as to whether the

                                                      

112 Confidential Original Views at 29; USITC Pub. 4031 at 28.

113 Confidential Original Views at 29; USITC Pub. 4031 at 28.

114 Confidential Original Views at 29; USITC Pub. 4031 at 28‐29.  The Commission acknowledged that

some of these trends were reversed when measuring the performance indicia by weight, but it

attributed this to the industry’s focusing of production away from the small‐tire segment where it faced

competition from subject imports from China and toward the larger sizes.  Confidential Original Views at

29‐30; USITC Pub. 4031 at 28‐29.

115 For 2012, Titan and Specialty Tires reported combined production capacity of *** tires,

production of *** tires, capacity utilization of *** percent, and U.S. shipments of *** tires, by quantity,

or $***, by value.  CR/PR at Table I‐3.

116 For 2012, Titan and Specialty Tires reported combined net sales of $***, operating income of

$***, and operating income as a share of net sales of *** percent.  CR/PR at Table I‐3.

117 Titan and USW argue that Commerce’s imposition of provisional relief and then antidumping and

countervailing duty orders led to improvements in the domestic industry’s condition, although they

argue that the full benefit was not immediately apparent due to the general economic downturn that

began in 2008.  They point to improvements in Titan’s ***, and they report that the domestic industry

***.  Titan/USW Final Comments at 4‐6, 12‐13; Titan/USW Response to Notice of Institution at 14‐17.

118 CR at I‐25 to I‐26; PR at I‐18; Titan/USW Final Comments at 4‐5; Titan/USW Response to Notice of

Institution at 14‐16.
23

domestic industry is vulnerable to the continuation or recurrence of material injury in the event

of revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders.

Based on the record, we find that, should the orders be revoked, the likely significant

volume and likely significant price effects of subject imports would likely have a significant

adverse impact on the domestic industry’s production, shipments, sales, market share, and

revenues, particularly because available information suggests that current and projected

demand conditions in the U.S. market are less favorable than during the original investigations.  

These declines would likely cause the domestic industry’s profitability to fall.

We also considered the role of factors other than subject imports, including the

presence of nonsubject imports, so as not to attribute injury from other factors to the subject

imports.  In the original investigations, the Commission concluded that OTR tires did not

constitute a commodity product.119  As indicated above, imports from nonsubject sources

continue to have a sizeable U.S. market presence, as they did in the original investigations.  In

2012, even though its imports were subject to antidumping and countervailing duty orders, the

industry in China continued to be the largest supplier of imported OTR tires in the U.S. market,

representing 34.9 percent of U.S. imports by quantity.  The next largest suppliers accounted for

substantially smaller shares:  India (22.3 percent), Sri Lanka (12.5 percent), and Thailand (7.5

percent).120  Moreover, during the original investigations, subject imports from China steadily

gained U.S. market share at the domestic industry’s expense while nonsubject imports

maintained a relatively stable presence in the market.  We thus find that upon revocation, the

significant volume of subject imports would again likely take market share from the domestic

industry through significant underselling.

Accordingly, we conclude that, if the antidumping and countervailing duty orders were

revoked, subject imports from China would likely have a significant impact on the domestic

industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

V. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping and

countervailing duty orders on OTR tires from China would likely lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably

foreseeable time.

                                                       

119 Confidential Original Views at 30 at n.223; USITC Pub. 4031 at 29 at n.223.

120 CR at I‐30; PR at I‐22.

I‐1

INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

Background

Effective August 1, 2013, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or

“USITC”) gave notice, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the

Act”),1 that it had instituted reviews to determine whether revocation of the antidumping and

countervailing duty orders on certain off‐the‐road (“OTR”) tires from China would be likely to

lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry.2 3 On

November 20, 2013, the Commission determined that it would conduct expedited reviews

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.4 The following tabulation presents information relating

to the background and schedule of this proceeding:

   

                                                      

1 19 U.S.C. 1675(c). 2 Certain Off‐The‐Road Tires from China Institution of Five‐Year Reviews, 78 FR 46607, August 1, 2013.

All interested parties were requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information requested

by the Commission.

3 In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”)

published a notice of initiation of five‐year reviews of the subject antidumping and countervailing duty

orders concurrently with the Commission’s notice of institution. Initiation of Five‐Year (“Sunset”)

Review, 78 FR 46575, August 1, 2013. 4 Certain Off‐The‐Road Tires From China; Scheduling of an Expedited Five‐Year Review Concerning the

Countervailing Duty Order and Antidumping Duty Order On Certain Off‐The‐Road Tires From China, 78 FR

73560, December 6, 2013. The Commission received two submissions in response to its notice of

institution in the subject reviews.  The first submission was filed on behalf of Titan Tire Corporation

(“Titan”), a U.S. producer of the domestic like product, and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry,

Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (“USW”), a

domestic union representing workers engaged in the manufacturing of OTR tires. The second submission

was filed on behalf of Specialty Tires America, Inc. (“Specialty Tires”), a U.S. producer of the domestic

like product. The two identified U.S. producers are believed to account for *** percent of production of

the domestic like product in 2012. The Commission did not receive any responses from producers in

China or importers of the subject merchandise from China. The Commission determined that the

domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution was adequate and that the

respondent interested party group response was inadequate. In the absence of respondent interested

party responses and any other circumstances that would warrant the conduct of full reviews, the

Commission determined to conduct expedited reviews.
I‐2

Effective date Action 

September 4, 2008 

Commerce’s antidumping duty order on OTR tires from China (73 FR 51624) 

https://federalregister.gov/a/E8-20569 

September 4, 2008 

Commerce’s countervailing duty order on OTR tires from China (73 FR 51627) 

https://federalregister.gov/a/E8-20568 

August 1, 2013 

Commission’s institution of first five-year reviews (78 FR 46607) 

https://federalregister.gov/a/2013-18108 

August 1, 2013 

Commerce’s initiation of first five-year reviews (78 FR 46575) 

https://federalregister.gov/a/2013-18554

November 20, 2013 

Commission’s determination to conduct expedited five-year reviews 

(78 FR 73560, December 6, 2013) 

https://federalregister.gov/a/2013-29181

The press release announcing the Commission’s determination concerning 

adequacy and the conduct of expedited reviews can be found at 

http://usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2013/er1120ll1.htm. 

A summary of the Commission’s votes concerning the adequacy and the conduct of 

expedited reviews, and the Commission’s explanation of its determination can be 

found at http://pubapps2.usitc.gov/sunset/caseProf/show/10238. 

December 20, 2013 

Commerce’s final results of expedited five-year review of the countervailing duty 

orders (78 FR 77101) 

January 14, 2014 

Commerce’s final results of expedited five-year review of the antidumping duty 

order (79 FR 2415) 

January 6, 2014 Commission’s vote 

January 15, 2014 Commission’s determinations 

The original investigations

The original investigations resulted from petitions filed on June 18, 2007, by Titan, Des

Moines, Iowa, and USW, Pittsburgh, PA, alleging that an industry in the United States was

materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized and less‐than‐

fair‐value (“LTFV”) imports of OTR tires from China. On July 7, 2008, Commerce determined

that imports of OTR tires from China were being subsidized5 and sold at LTFV.6 On August 28,

2008, the Commission issued its determinations that an industry in the United States was

materially injured by reason of subsidized and LTFV imports of OTR tires from China.7

                                                      

5 Certain New Pneumatic Off‐the‐Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative

Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR

40480, July 15, 2008.

6 Certain New Pneumatic Off‐The‐Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical

Circumstances, 73 FR 40485, July 15, 2008. 7 Certain Off‐the‐Road Tires from China; Determination, 73 FR 51842, September 5, 2008.
I‐3

Commerce issued antidumping and countervailing duty orders of OTR tires from China on

September 4, 2008.8 9

On October 1, 2010, the CIT sustained the remand redetermination made by Commerce

pursuant to the CIT’s remand of the final determination in the antidumping duty investigation

on OTR tires from China.10 The weighted‐average dumping margin calculated for subject

merchandise produced by Starbright and exported by Starbright/GPX changed from 29.93

percent to 31.79 percent, the weighted‐average dumping margin calculated for subject

merchandise produced and exported by TUTRIC changed from 8.44 percent to 10.08 percent,

and the weighted‐average dumping margin calculated for separate rate companies changed

from 12.19 percent to 13.92 percent. In addition, Commerce had initially excluded foreign

producer/exporter Xuzhou Xugong Tyres Co., Ltd. from the order but as a result of ensuing

litigation, amended the order after finding a non‐de minimis margin of 10.01 percent for this

firm.11

On October 30, 2013, the CIT affirmed a remand redetermination relating to

Commerce’s original CVD investigation on OTR tires from China.12 In the remand determination,

Commerce amended its final determination and determined that the revised total net

countervailable subsidy rate calculated for Tianjin United Tire & Rubber International Co., Ltd.

(TUTRIC) is 3.93 percent.13 The deadline to appeal this decision has not yet expired.

The Government of China also disputed the antidumping and countervailing duty

measures before the World Trade Organization.14

                                                      

8 Certain New Pneumatic Off‐the‐Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Amended

Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 73 FR

51624, September 4, 2008; and Certain New Pneumatic Off‐the‐Road Tires From the People's Republic of

China: Countervailing Duty Order, 73 FR 51627, September 4, 2008.

9 Foreign producer/exporter Hebei Starbright Tire Co., Ltd. and importers GPX International Tire

Corp. and Super Grip Corp. sought review of the Commission’s final injury determinations but voluntarily

dismissed their appeal after the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) denied their requests for a

temporary restraining order and injunctive relief and denied their requests for reconsideration or

rehearing. GPX Int’l Tire Corp. v. United States, 587 F. supp. 2d 1278 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008), reh’g denied,

593 F.supp.2d 1389 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008).

10 GPX Int’l Tire Corp. v. United States, 715 F. supp. 2d 1337 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008). 11 Certain New Pneumatic Off‐The‐Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Amended

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Amended Antidumping Duty Order in

Accordance With Final Court Decision, 75 FR 49459 (August 13, 2010). 12 GPX Int’l Tire Corp. v. United States, slip op. 13‐132 (CIT Ct. No. 08‐285) (Oct. 30, 2013), see

generally GPX Int’l Tire Corp. v. United States, 666 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2011); 19 U.S.C. § 1671(f); GPX Int’l

Tire Corp. v. United States, 678 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

13 Certain New Pneumatic Off‐the‐Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Decision

of the Court of International Trade Not in Harmony and Notice of Amended Final Determination, 78 FR

70917, November 27, 2013. 14 See Panel Report, United States – Definitive Anti‐Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain

Products from China, WT/DS379R (Oct. 22, 2010), adopted on March 25, 2011, as modified by Appellate

(continued...)
I‐4

Commerce’s final results of expedited first five‐year reviews

Commerce’s results of its expedited sunset reviews of the subject antidumping and

countervailing duty orders were issued on December 16, 2013. Commerce determined that

revocation of the antidumping duty order on OTR tires from China would likely lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping at weighted‐average margins of 5.10 to 29.93 percent

for individually listed exporters/producers and 210.48 percent for the PRC‐Entity rate. 15

Commerce determined that revocation of the countervailing duty order on OTR tires from

China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at rates

between 2.52 and 35.13 for individually listed exporters/producers, and 5.65 for all others.16   

Commerce’s administrative reviews

Commerce has completed three administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order

on OTR tires from China.17  The results of the administrative reviews are shown in table I‐1.  

Commerce conducted one new shipper review for the period September 1, 2011 through

February 29, 2012, in which it found that Trelleborg Wheel Systems China did not make a sale

of subject merchandise at less than normal value.18  Commerce conducted one changed

circumstances administrative review19 in which it determined that Mai Shandong Radial Tyre

Co., Ltd. (“Mai Shandong”) is not the successor‐in‐interest to Shandong Jinyu Tyre Co., Ltd.

(“Shandong Jinyu”) for the purposes of determining the antidumping duty cash deposit rate for

Mai Shandong.20

                                                      

(...continued)

Body Report WT/DS379/AB/R (Mar. 11, 2011); 77 Fed. Reg. 52683 (Aug. 30, 2012); United States –

Countervailing and Anti‐Dumping Measures on Certain Products from China, WT/DS449/1.

15 Certain New Pneumatic Off‐The‐Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the

Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, December 16, 2013, to be published in the

Federal Register. 16 Certain New Pneumatic Off‐The‐Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the

Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order, December 16, 2013, to be published in the

Federal Register. 17 Commerce rescinded the administrative review for the period September 1, 2011 through August

31, 2012. 78 FR 33059 (June 3, 2013).  Commerce has initiated an administrative review for the period

September 1, 2012 through August 31, 2013. 78 FR 67104 (November 8, 2013).

18 Certain New Pneumatic Off‐the‐Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review; 2011‐2012, 78 FR 33341, June 4, 2013.

19 Commerce also initiated one changed circumstances administrative review on October 30, 2013 to

determine whether Shandong Linglong is the successor‐in‐interest to Zhaoyuan Leo Rubber Co., Ltd.

(“Leo Rubber”), a separate‐rate respondent in the original investigation. 78 FR 64913.

20 Certain New Pneumatic Off‐the‐Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of

Changed Circumstances Review, 75 FR 46914, August 4, 2010.
I‐5

Commerce has completed one administrative review of the countervailing duty order on

OTR tires from China.21  The result of the administrative review is shown in table I‐2.

Table I-1 

OTR Tires: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order 

Date results 

published Period of review Producer or exporter 

Weightedaverage margin 

(percent) 

April 25, 2011 

(76 FR 22871) 02/20/08 – 08/31/09 

Hebei Starbright Tire Co., Ltd.; 

Hangzhou Zhongce Rubber Co., 

Ltd.; KS Holding Limited/KS 

Resources Limited; Laizhou 

Xiongying Rubber Industry Co., Ltd.; 

Qingdao Taifa Group Co., Ltd.; and 

Weihai Zhongwei Rubber Co., Ltd. 28.97

March 12, 2012 

(77 FR 14495) 09/01/09 – 08/31/10 

Tianjin United Tire & Rubber 

International Co., Ltd. 11.07

April 16, 2013 

(78 FR 22513) 09/01/10 – 08/31/11 Hangzhou Zhongce Rubber Co., Ltd. 112.41

Source: Cited Federal Register notices. 

Table I-2 

OTR Tires: Administrative reviews of the countervailing duty order 

Date results 

published Period of review Producer or exporter 

Weightedaverage margin 

(percent) 

April 26, 2011 

(76 FR 23286) 12/17/07 – 12/31/08 Hebei Starbright Tire Co., Ltd. 30.87

Source: Cited Federal Register notice. 

Previous and related title VII investigations

The Commission has not previously conducted import injury investigations on OTR tires.

In 2009, however, the Commission determined, pursuant to section 421(b)(1) of the Trade Act

of 1974, that certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires22 from the People’s Republic of

China were being imported into the United States in such increased quantities or under such

conditions as to cause or threaten to cause market disruption to the domestic producers of like

or directly competitive products. USITC commissioners voting in the affirmative recommended

                                                      

21 Commerce rescinded the administrative review for the period January 1, 2009 through December

31, 2009. 76 FR 7816 (February 11, 2011).  Commerce rescinded the administrative review for the period

January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010. 77 FR 4996 (February 1, 2012). Commerce has initiated an

administrative review for the period January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012. 78 FR 67104

(November 8, 2013). 22 For purposes of this safeguard investigation, certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires were

defined as new pneumatic tires, of rubber, from the People’s Republic of China, of a kind used on motor

cars (except racing cars) and on‐the‐highway light trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles, provided for in

subheadings 4011.10.10, 4011.10.50, 4011.20.10, and 4011.20.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States (“HTS”).
I‐6

that the President, for a three year period, impose a duty, in addition to the current rate of

duty, on imports of certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China as follows: 55

percent ad valorem in the first year, 45 percent ad valorem in the second year, and 35 percent

ad valorem in the third year.23 The President proclaimed that in the first year (effective

September 26, 2009) the additional duty shall be in the amount of 35 percent ad valorem above

the column 1 general rate of duty. For the second year, the additional duty shall be in the

amount of 30 percent ad valorem above the column 1 general rate of duty, and in the third

year, the additional duty shall be in the amount of 25 percent ad valorem above the column 1

general rate of duty.24 The Government of China disputed this determination but a World Trade

Organization dispute settlement panel and the Appellate Body both rejected China’s claims that

the United States had acted inconsistently with its obligations.25

THE PRODUCT

Commerce’s scope

In its final results of the expedited first five year reviews of the antidumping and

countervailing duty orders, Commerce defined the subject merchandise as: 26

The products covered by the scope are 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

                                                      

23 Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People’s Republic of China, 74 FR 34363,

July 15, 2009; Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from China, Inv. TA‐421‐7, USITC Pub. 4085

(July 2009).   24 Proclamation 8414—To Address Market Disruption From Imports of Certain Passenger Vehicle and

Light Truck Tires From the People’s Republic of China, 74 FR 47861, September 17, 2009.

25 United States – Measures Affecting Imports of Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tyres from

China, Panel Report WT/DS399R (Dec. 13, 2010), Appellate Body Report (Sept. 5, 2011), adopted

October 5, 2011.

26 Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Expedited First Sunset Review of the

Antidumping Duty Order on New Pneumatic Off‐The‐Road Tires from the People’s Republic of China,

from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations,

to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, December 16, 2013.
I‐7

and equipment, including agricultural tractors,27 combine harvesters,28

agricultural high clearance sprayers,29 industrial tractors,30 log‐skidders,31

agricultural implements, highway‐towed implements, agricultural

logging, and agricultural, industrial, skid‐steers/miniloaders; 32 (2)

construction vehicles and equipment, including earthmover articulated

dump products, rigid frame haul trucks,33 front end loaders,34 dozers,35

lift trucks, straddle carriers,36  graders,37 mobile cranes,38  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.39

The foregoing list of vehicles and equipment generally have in common

that they are used for hauling, towing, lifting, and/or loading a wide

                                                      

27 Agricultural tractors are dual‐axle vehicles that typically are designed to pull farming equipment in

the field and that may have front tires of a different size than the rear tires.

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

29 Agricultural sprayers are used to irrigate agricultural fields.

30 Industrial tractors are dual‐axle vehicles that typically are designed to pull industrial equipment

and that may have front tires of a different size than the rear tires.

31 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.

32 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.

33 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.

34 Front loaders have lift arms in front of the vehicle. They can scrape material from one location to

another, carry material in their buckets, or load material into a truck or trailer.

35 A dozer is a large four‐wheeled vehicle with a dozer blade that is used to push large quantities of

soil, sand, nibble, etc., typically around construction sites. They can also be used to perform “rough

grading” in road construction.

36 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.

37 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 on to which asphalt or other paving material will be laid.

38 i.e., “on‐site” mobile cranes designed for off‐highway use.

39 A counterbalanced lift truck is a rigid framed, 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.
I‐8

variety of equipment and materials in agricultural, construction and

industrial settings. Such vehicles and equipment, and the descriptions

contained in the footnotes 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 order

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

54 inches. The tires may be either tube‐type40 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 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.   

                                                      

40 While tube‐type tires are subject to the scope of this proceeding, tubes and flaps are not subject

merchandise and therefore are not covered by the scope of this proceeding, regardless of the manner in

which they are sold (e.g., sold with or separately from subject merchandise).
I‐9

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

designed for use on aircraft, all‐terrain vehicles, and vehicles for turf,

lawn and garden, golf and trailer applications. Also excluded from the

scope are radial and bias tires of a kind designed for use in 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

1,500 pounds).

U.S. tariff treatment

Imports of OTR tires subject to these reviews are currently imported under the following

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) statistical reporting numbers:

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. The column 1‐general (normal trade relations) rate of duty for subheadings

4011.20.10, 4011.93.40, and 4011.94.40 is 4 percent ad valorem; the general rate for

subheadings 4011.20.50 and 4011.93.80 is 3.4 percent ad valorem; and the general rate for all

other subheadings is “free”.
I‐10

Domestic like product and domestic industry

In the final phase of the original investigations, the Commission found a single domestic

like product comprised of certain OTR tires for agricultural, construction and industrial vehicles

and equipment that corresponded to the scope of the investigations. The Commission rejected

respondents’ request to include larger construction and mining tires with a rim diameter equal

to or exceeding 39 inches that were excluded from scope in the definition of the domestic like

product. The Commission found that these tires differ greatly from the coterminous tires in

terms of physical characteristics and uses, common manufacturing facilities and employees,

channels of distribution, and price.41  The Commission defined a single domestic industry

producing the domestic like product.42

In its notice of institution for these reviews, the Commission solicited comments from

interested parties regarding the appropriate domestic like product and domestic industry. In

Titan’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution, it indicated that it agrees with the

Commission’s definition of the domestic like product and domestic industry as defined by the

Commission in the original investigations.43 Specialty Tires did not comment on the definition of

the domestic like product or domestic industry in its response to the notice of institution.

Description and uses44

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 rim with a given metal wheel. The outer components of a tire that can be seen 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 that forms the rim of the tire.

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

                                                      

41 Certain Off‐The‐Road Tires from China, Investigation Nos. 701‐TA‐448 and 731‐TA‐1117 (Final),

USITC Publication 4031, August 2008, p. 10.. Ibid., pp. 6‐10.

42 Certain Off‐The‐Road Tires from China, Investigation Nos. 701‐TA‐448 and 731‐TA‐1117 (Final),

USITC Publication 4031, August 2008, p. 11.

43 Titan’s Response to the Commission’s Notice of Institution, September 3, 2013, p. 30. 44 Unless otherwise noted this information is based on the following publication: Certain Off‐The‐

Road Tires from China, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐448 and 731‐TA‐1117 (Final), USITC Publication 4031, August

2008. Titan reported that the end uses of OTR tires have remained the same since the original

investigations and no other substitutes have entered the market. Titan’s Response to the Notice of

Institution, September 3, 2013, p. 29.
I‐11

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 durable

natural rubber is used in certain OTR tires, whereas the more supple synthetic rubbers are used

in higher proportions in on‐the‐road tires. Also, more substantial internal reinforcement is

required for OTR tires, including rubberized textile and steel tire cord plies and belts, heavy

duty steel bead bundles for rim construction, and carbon black pigment reinforcement.

Certain OTR tires are produced in a wide variety of types and sizes depending upon end‐

use. They range from relatively small agricultural implement and industrial forklift tires, to

larger tires found on the more familiar farm tractors and harvesting equipment. OTR tires are

produced for earthmover/construction equipment used in mining and construction, such as

haulage and dump trucks, front end loaders, dozers, graders, lift trucks, and mobile cranes, for

example. The rim diameter (inside diameter) of certain OTR tires may range from 8 to 72

inches, and the weight of a large agricultural tire may be up to 1,200 pounds.45 46 Subject OTR

mining and construction tires less than 39 inches in rim diameter are typically much heavier in

weight, some more than 3,000 pounds. 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.47 48 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.

In the United States, OTR producers have generally adopted The Tire and Rim

Association (“TRA”) standards, which define off‐the‐road tires as those used principally on

                                                      

45 Titan prehearing brief, p. 3.

46 Titan’s agricultural tire rims range in diameter from 9 to 54 inches, with the 54‐inch diameter being

the largest agricultural wheel manufactured in North America; Titan’s agricultural tires range from about

1 foot to 7 feet in outside diameter height, and from 5 to 49 inches in width.  Earthmoving/construction

tires range from 20 to 63 inches in rim diameter, with the 63‐inch rim diameter being the largest in

North America. The outside diameter of these tires range from 3 feet to 13 feet in height, and in weight

from 50 pounds to 12,500 pounds. Titan Form 10‐K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012,

Securities and Exchange Commission.    47 Bias ply construction is one in which the reinforcing rubber‐coated 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 rubber‐coated tire cord ply runs parallel from bead to bead, or

perpendicular to the direction of travel. Bias ply tires are typically used in lower‐speed applications

where sidewall strength, stiffness, and heavy load and lifting applications are important. Radial tires

typically have a longer tire life and speed rating (up to 40 mph) than bias ply tires; a wider footprint

affording excellent traction and superior performance in the field, including reduced soil compaction

and improved handling, a smoother ride and improved fuel economy; higher resistance to cuts,

punctures, and tears.  Both bias and radial tires are used on agricultural, mining and construction, and

industrial equipment.     48 During the final investigations, bias‐type tires were estimated to account for 65 to 70 percent of

the U.S. market for certain OTR tires. Hearing transcript, p. 62 (Vasichek).
I‐12

earthmover and other construction vehicles; agricultural tires on farm tractors, farm

implements, and other agricultural machinery; and industrial tires on counterbalanced lift

trucks for mining and industrial applications. TRA standards identify the type of equipment on

which the tire is used, the tire type and size, the speed and load carrying ply ratings,

designations which typically are molded into the sidewall. Foreign tires may not conform to TRA

standards, but usually carry a tire size and country‐of‐origin markings. Examples of TRA tire

standards described in the following tabulation compare the physical properties of a radial OTR

construction and mining tire to smaller bias ply agricultural and industrial tires.  

OTR tire: 

45/65R45 NHS 16PR 

Agricultural tire: 

14.5/75-16.1 SL 10PR 121 

Industrial tire: 

23x10.50-12 NHS 

45 Width of tire cross section 

(inches) 

14.5 Width of tire cross 

section (inches) 

23 Overall diameter (inches)

65 Aspect ratio (ratio of 

sidewall height to section 

width) 

75 Aspect ratio 10.50 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) 

121 Load index (max. load) 

A8 Speed symbol (25 mph) 

Source: 2007 Year Book, Tire and Rim Association, pp. 4-02, 5-02, 6-03.

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 the final phase original investigations regarding end uses in

terms of the agricultural/forestry, construction/industrial, and other off‐the‐highway

applications. The data indicated that the domestic industry and imports from China were

present in all applications during the period of investigation. During 2007, the majority of U.S.

producers’ shipments (72.8 percent by quantity and 61.4 percent by value) were for

agricultural/forestry applications, and the majority of shipments of imports from China were for

construction/industrial applications (58.3 percent by quantity and 54.7 percent by value).  
I‐13

Production process49

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 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.

Several stages are required for the production of certain OTR tires, including rubber

batch formulation and mixing, tire component processing, tire assembly, tire curing, and final

inspection. The initial stage is the receiving and testing of various raw materials. These include

natural and synthetic rubbers, textile and steel 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.

During the mixing process, heat and friction soften the rubber for several applications.

Applications requiring softened rubber include:  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 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

                                                      

49 Unless otherwise noted this information is based on the following publication: Certain Off‐The‐

Road Tires From China, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐448 and 731‐TA‐1117 (Final), USITC Publication 4031, August

2008. Titan reported that no major changes in production technology or production methods have

occurred since the original investigations. Titan’s Response to the Notice of Institution, September 3,

2013, p. 29.
I‐14

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.

Figure 1-1 

OTR tires: Rubber mixing process 

 Source: Certain Off-The-Road Tires From China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-448 and 731-TA-1117 (Final), USITC 

Publication 4031, August 2008, figure I-1; staff field trip, BFNA, July 19, 2007. 

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. Certain OTR tire assemblies also typically contain steel wire or textile belt

material situated directly between the tire body (casing) and the tread area for added stability

and impact resistance.
Figure I-2

OTR tires

Source: C

Publicatio

In

around t

tire will r

angles to

fabric pil

The gree

others fo

T

about a b

shown in

expande

on the co

and tread

temperat

may vary

mold. Du

(thermos

the rubb

2

s: Tire assem

Certain Off-Th

on 4031, Augu

n bias ply tire

he drum circ

result in a cr

o the directio

es that run “

n (uncured)

or transfer to

he final mol

bladder slee

n figure I‐3. A

d to force th

onfiguration

d type. Vulca

ture and pre

y nominally f

uring vulcani

set), and wil

er with the s

mbly compon

he-Road Tires

ust 2008, figu

e building, th

cumference

isscross herr

on of travel;

“radially” fro

tire assemb

o the final m

ding and cur

ve in a circu

After the cur

he green tire

of the tire m

anization or

essure. Curin

from a few m

zation, the o

l not again s

sulfur chemi

nents 

s From China,

re I-2; staff fie

he tire cord

as the assem

ringbone rei

otherwise,

om bead to b

bly is remove

molding and c

ring process

lar curing pr

ring press is

e assembly o

mold, includ

curing of th

ng times vary

minutes to se

original wea

soften with h

ical additive

I‐15

, Inv. Nos. 70

eld trip, BFNA

reinforceme

mbly procee

inforcement

radial constr

bead at righ

ed from the

curing proce

involves the

ress tire mol

closed, the b

out against th

ing that of t

e green tire

y widely dep

everal hours

k green tire

heat due to m

s.  

01-TA-448 an

A, July 19, 20

ent plies are

eds so its con

t pattern run

ruction invo

t angles to t

drum and p

ess.

e placement

ld of the app

bladder is in

he mold wal

he sidewall,

takes place

pending upo

s; each tire m

rubber beco

molecular cr

d 731-TA-111

007. 

e placed at a

nfiguration i

nning from b

olves placing

the direction

ositioned w

t of the gree

propriate co

njected with

lls. The gree

sidewall siz

e in the mold

on the size o

model requi

omes strong

ross‐linking

17 (Final), US

lternating an

n the finishe

bead to bead

parallel stee

n of tire trav

ith several

en tire assem

nfiguration

steam and

en tire thus t

ze designatio

d at elevated

f the tire, an

res its own

g and rigid

or bonding o

SITC 

ngles

ed

d at

el or

el.

mbly

as

akes

ons,

d

nd

of
I‐16

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.

Figure I-3 

OTR tires: Tire curing process 

Source: Certain Off-The-Road Tires From China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-448 and 731-TA-1117 (Final), USITC 

Publication 4031, August 2008, figure I-2; staff field trip, BFNA, July 19, 2007. 

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions

In its original investigations, both petitioners and respondents believed that OTR tires

were not a commodity product. A strong majority of questionnaire respondents (6 of 6

domestic producers, 15 of 23 importers, and 30 of 43 purchasers) stated that domestically

produced tires and subject imports from China were either “always” or “frequently”

interchangeable. While domestically produced OTR tires and subject Chinese imports were

reported to be “comparable” across a wide range of characteristics by a majority of purchasers

(including “packaging,” “extension of credit,” “product consistency,” “discounts offered,” “U.S.

transportation costs,” “quality exceeds industry standards,” “able to source multiple products

from supplier,” “product range,” and “warranty service”), the domestic product was reported

to be “superior” by a majority of purchasers with regard to “delivery terms” and “delivery time”
I‐17

and the subject imports were found to be “superior” by a majority of purchasers only with

regard to “price.”50

Channels of distribution

OTR tires greater or equal to 39 inches in rim diameter are sold directly to original

equipment manufacturers (“OEM”s) and tire distributors for the aftermarket. During 2005‐07,

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments tended to be about equally divided between OEMs and

distributors, ranging from 47.6 to 48.6 percent of shipments to distributors and from 51.4 to

52.4 percent of shipments to end users.   U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments from China were more

focused on distributors, ranging from 79.0 to 80.8 percent to distributors and from 19.2 to 21.0

to end users.51  

Pricing and related information

In the original investigations, the Commission collected price data for nine products. In

the 157 quarterly price comparisons between U.S.‐produced and imported Chinese products,

prices for the Chinese OTR tires were lower than those for U.S. OTR tires in 147 quarters and

higher in 10 quarters. The margins of underselling ranged from 1.5 to 57.0 percent and the

margins of overselling ranged from 2.1 to 92.6 percent.52  The Commission noted that OTR tires

are not commodity products and while price was listed by purchasers as one of the most

important factors in making purchasing decisions, it was not the single most important factor.  

Brand names command a premium and the hierarchy of brands comprises three tiers. The

Chinese product is found in two of the three tiers and generally is highly substitutable for

domestic OTR tires.53

Raw materials accounted for approximately 58.6 percent of the cost of subject OTR tires

during 2005‐07.  The primary raw material used in the production of OTR tires in the United

States is natural rubber; other materials include synthetic rubber, carbon black, various

chemicals, textiles, and steel.54  Titan indicated that its raw materials costs as a percentage of

net sales have ***.55  

                                                      

50 Certain Off‐The‐Road Tires from China, Investigation Nos. 701‐TA‐448 and 731‐TA‐1117 (Final),

USITC Publication 4031, August 2008, p. 37.

51 Certain Off‐The‐Road Tires from China, Investigation Nos. 701‐TA‐448 and 731‐TA‐1117 (Final),

USITC Publication 4031, August 2008, table I‐4.

52 Certain Off‐The‐Road Tires from China, Investigation Nos. 701‐TA‐448 and 731‐TA‐1117 (Final),

USITC Publication 4031, August 2008, pp. V‐4‐6.    53 Certain Off‐The‐Road Tires from China, Investigation Nos. 701‐TA‐448 and 731‐TA‐1117 (Final),

USITC Publication 4031, August 2008, p. 24.

54 Certain Off‐The‐Road Tires from China, Investigation Nos. 701‐TA‐448 and 731‐TA‐1117 (Final),

USITC Publication 4031, August 2008, p. V‐1.    55 Titan's Response to the Commission's Notice of Institution, September 3, 2013, p. 15.

(continued...)
I‐18

THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. producers

In the original investigations, the Commission issued questionnaires to seven producers

cited in the petition, and received questionnaire responses with usable data from all seven

firms accounting for *** percent of U.S. production of the domestic like product in 2007. The

producers’ share of 2007 U.S. production for each firm were as follows: (1) Bridgestone

(*** percent), (2) Carlisle (*** percent), (3) Denman (*** percent), (4) Goodyear (*** percent),

(5) Michelin (*** percent) (6) Specialty Tires (*** percent), and (7) Titan (*** percent).56

In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution, Titan identified the following

seven known and currently operating OTR tire producers: Bridgestone, Carlisle, Goodyear,

Michelin, Mitas Tires North America (“Mitas”), Specialty Tires, and Titan.57 Specialty Tires also

named Maine Industrial Tire Co. as a current producer of OTR tires in the United States.58 Titan

estimates that its share of domestic production in 2012 is *** percent59 and Specialty Tires

estimates that its share is ***.60

The U.S. OTR tire industry has experienced a mix of expansion, plant closure, and plant

opening over the past several years. In March 2010, Denman filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy,

closed its Leavittsburg, Ohio manufacturing plant, and liquidated its assets. Titan reported that

it purchased a number of these assets in the form of machinery, manufacturing equipment,

specifications, molds, and patents.61

Mitas Tires North America, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of MITAS a.s., a

manufacturer of agricultural, industrial and motorcycle tires headquartered in the Czech

Republic, commenced production of radial agricultural tires in Charles City, Iowa in 2012.62

In June 2013, Bridgestone announced that it would be investing $74 million to expand

the capacity of its Des Moines, Iowa manufacturing facility, following a $77 million dollar

investment in 2010.63

                                                      

(...continued)

56 Certain Off‐The‐Road Tires from China, Investigation Nos. 701‐TA‐448 and 731‐TA‐1117 (Final),

Staff Report, INV‐FF‐094, August 4, 2008, p. III‐2,  table III‐1. 57 Titan’s Response to the Notice of Institution, September 3, 2013, exh. 4.

58 Specialty Tires Response to the Notice of Institution, August 29, 2013, p. 2.

59 Titan’s Response to the Notice of Institution, September 3, 2013, exh. 2.

60 Specialty Tires Response to the Notice of Institution, August 29, 2013, exh. C.

61 Titan's Response to the Commission's Notice of Institution, September 3, 2013, pp. 16‐17;

“Titan Tire Announces Purchase of Denman Tire Assets,” Reuters, May 20, 2010.

62 www.mitas‐tires.com/index.php, retrieved on October 31, 2013; Titan's Response to

the Commission's Notice of Institution, September 3, 2013, p. 16.

63 Titan’s Response to the Notice of Institution, September 3, 2013, p. 16 and exh. 3b.
I‐19

Related party issues

During the original period of investigation, *** imported subject merchandise and

qualified as “related parties” under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). However, the Commission found

that “appropriate circumstances” did not exist to exclude these firms from the domestic

industry mostly because of the ***.64 Therefore, all seven firms were considered members of

the U.S. industry.  

U.S. producers’ trade and financial data

The Commission requested domestic interested parties to provide trade and financial

data in their response to the notice of institution of the five‐year reviews of the subject orders.

Table I‐3 presents the data reported by responding seven U.S. producers from the original

investigation (2005‐07) and the responses to the notice of institution (2012) from Titan and

Specialty Tires.  

Table I-3 

OTR Tires: U.S. producers’ trade and financial data, 2005-07 and 2012 

Item 20051

 20061 20071 20122

Capacity (1,000 tires) 9,996 10,049 10,202 ***

Production (1,000 tires) 4,676 3,818 4,009 ***

Capacity utilization (percent) 46.8 38.0 39.3 ***

U.S. shipments 

 Quantity (1,000 tires) 3,881 3,383 3,720 ***

 Value ($1,000) 861,224 835,550 1,006,044 ***

 Unit value (dollars per tire) 221.90 246.97 270.45 ***

Net sales value ($1,000) 1,010,778 980,611 1,184,627 ***

Cost of goods sold (COGS) ($1,000) 906,946 878,158 1,050,576 ***

Gross profit or (loss) ($1,000) 103,832 102,453 134,051 ***

SG&A ($1,000) 102,358 96,213 106,011 ***

Operating income or (loss) ($1,000) 1,474 6,240 28,040 ***

COGS/sales (percent) 89.7 89.6 88.7 ***

Operating income or (loss)/sales 

(percent) 0.1 0.6 2.4 ***

1

 Data for seven producers. 

2

 Data for Titan and Specialty Tires, collectively representing *** of the domestic industry in 2012. 

Source: Certain Off-The-Road Tires from China, Inv. No. 701-TA-448 and 731-TA-1117 (Final), USITC 

Publication 4031, August 2008, Tables III-2, III-6 and VI-1. Titan’s Response to the Notice of Institution, 

September 3, 2013, exh. 2. Specialty Tire’s Response to the Notice of Institution, August 29, 2013, 

exh. C. 

                                                      

64 Certain Off‐The‐Road Tires from China, Investigation Nos. 701‐TA‐448 and 731‐TA‐1117

(Final), USITC Publication 4031(August2008), pp. 11‐13.
I‐20

U.S. IMPORTS AND APPARENT CONSUMPTION

U.S. importers

In the original investigations, the Commission received U.S. importer questionnaires

from 34 firms that were believed to account for *** percent of the quantity of U.S. imports

from China, and *** percent of U.S. imports from other countries during the period for which

data were collected. GPX International Tire Corporation (“GPX”) was the *** of OTR tires from

China during the period, accounting for *** percent of reported U.S imports from China in

2007.65  As a result of the antidumping duty order on OTR tires, GPX filed for Chapter 11

bankruptcy protection in October 2009. Under its bankruptcy restructuring plan, GPX sold most

of the assets of its U.S. operations to Alliance Tire Corp. GPX shuttered its European operations.

The bankruptcy filing did not restructure GPX’s other foreign subsidiaries including Dynamic

Tire in Canada and Starbright Group, Inc. in China.66  

In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in these reviews, Titan

identified over 400 importers which it believes imported OTR tires during the last five years.67

Specialty Tires provided a list of 24 such firms.68

U.S. imports

In its original investigations, the Commission presented import data based on

questionnaire data modified to exclude (1) the 34 firms that returned usable importer

questionnaires, (2) the nine firms that reported they did not import subject merchandise or

mining/construction tires during the period of investigation, (3) out‐of‐scope imports of OTR

tires that weigh more than 1,500 pounds per tire,69 and (4) out‐of‐scope imports of OTR tires

less than $25 per unit.  In their posthearing brief, Petitioners proposed raising the per‐unit

cutoff to $35.  Thus, the Commission presented three sets of import data:  (1) adjusted official

import data as presented above with a $25 per‐unit cutoff; (2) adjusted official import data as

presented above with a $35 per‐unit cutoff; and (3) questionnaire data. In its final

determinations, The Commission decided to rely on data obtained from the importer

questionnaire responses in reaching its injury and critical circumstances determinations,

acknowledging that while the data only represented an estimated *** percent of subject

imports, they did represent the trends in such imports as experienced by the importers

                                                      

65 Certain Off‐The‐Road Tires from China, Inv. No. 701‐TA‐448 and 731‐TA‐1117 (Final), USITC

Publication 4031, August 2008, p. IV‐1 and Table IV‐1.

66 “GPX Intl Tire U.S. Operations File for Bankruptcy,” Reuters, October 27, 2009.

67 Titan’s Response to the Notice of Institution, September 3, 2013, exh 4.

68 Specialty's Response to the Commission's Notice of Institution, August 29, 2013, exh. A.

69 The petitions (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.
I‐21

responding to questionnaires.70 Appendix A presents questionnaire import data from 2005

through 2007, as presented in the final original investigations.

In response to the notice of institution in these five‐year reviews, Titan presented

import data based on adjusted Department of Commerce data on imports of OTR tires to

remove shipments of tires with an import value under $35 or a tire weight over 1,500 pounds.  

Data regarding U.S. imports of OTR tires, as reported in the final original investigations (using

adjusted official import statistics with a $35 per‐unit cutoff), as well as data from 2012, are

presented in table I‐4. Appendix A presents import and apparent consumption data from the

final original investigations and from 2012 using adjusted official import statistics with a $25

per‐unit cutoff.

Table I-4 

OTR tires: U.S. import data, by source, 2005-07 and 2012 

Item 

Calendar year 

2005 2006 2007 2012 

 Quantity (1,000 tires) 

China 1,768 2,086 2,116 1,323 

All other sources 1,699 1,796 1,709 2,465 

 Total imports 3,467 3,882 3,825 3,788 

 Value ($1,000) 

China 173,903 274,410 275,907 216,548 

All other sources 366,909 434,630 505,282 1,268,657 

 Total imports 540,812 709,040 781,189 1,485,205 

 Unit value (dollars per tire) 

China 98.35 131.53 130.41 163.69 

All other sources 215.97 241.96 295.68 514.60 

 Total imports 155.98 182.63 204.26 392.06 

 Share of quantity (percent) 

China 51.0 53.7 55.3 34.9 

All other sources 49.0 46.3 44.7 65.1 

 Total imports 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

 Share of value (percent)

China 32.2 38.7 35.3 14.6 

All other sources 67.8 61.3 64.7 85.4 

 Total imports 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Source: Certain Off-The-Road Tires from China, Inv. No. 701-TA-448 and 731-TA-1117 (Final), USITC 

Publication 4031, August 2008, app. E, and compiled from official Commerce statistics, HTS numbers 

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, adjusted to exclude merchandise that had a less than $35 unit value or greater than 1,500 

lb. shipping weight per unit except when antidumping or countervailing duties were applied. 

   

                                                      

70 Certain Off‐The‐Road Tires from China, Inv. No. 701‐TA‐448 and 731‐TA‐1117 (Final), USITC

Publication 4031, August 2008, p. 14.
I‐22

According to official Commerce import data, China was the largest importer of OTR tires

in 2012, representing 34.9 percent of U.S. imports, by quantity.  The next largest importers

were India, representing 22.3 percent, Sri Lanka representing 12.5 and Thailand representing

7.5 percent.

Ratio of imports to U.S. production

According to Titan’s methodology (adjusting official import data using a $35 per‐unit

value cutoff), imports of OTR tires from China ranged from 37.8 percent to 54.6 percent of

reported U.S. production during 2005‐07. Imports from nonsubject sources ranged from 36.3

percent to 47.0 percent of reported U.S. production. Total imports ranged from 74.1 percent to

101.7 percent of total reported U.S. production during 2005‐07. The ratios of imports from

China and nonsubject countries during 2005‐07 and 2012 are shown in table I‐5 below.

Table I-5 

OTR tires: Ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production, 2005-07 and 2012 

Item Calendar year 

20051 20061 20071 20122

 Ratio of imports to U.S. production (percent) 

China 37.8 54.6 52.8 ***

All other sources 36.3 47.0 42.6 *** 

All countries 74.1 101.7 95.4 *** 

1

 Data for seven producers. 

2

 Data for Titan and Specialty Tires, representing *** percent of the domestic industry in 2012. 

Source: Certain Off-The-Road Tires from China, Inv. No. 701-TA-448 and 731-TA-1117 (Final), USITC 

Publication 4031, August 2008, app. E, and compiled from official Commerce statistics, HTS numbers 

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, adjusted to exclude merchandise that had a less than $35 unit value or greater than 1,500 

lb. shipping weight per unit except when antidumping or countervailing duties were applied. 

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares

Table I‐6 shows U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports and apparent U.S.

consumption in 2005‐07 and 2012 (applying Titan’s methodology of adjusting official import

data using a $35 per‐unit value cutoff). Table I‐7 shows U.S. market shares during 2005‐07 and

2012. Apparent U.S. consumption increased from 7.3 million tires in 2005 to approximately 7.5

million tires in 2007.  
I‐23

Table I-6 

OTR tires: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption, 

2005-07 and 2012 

Item 20051

 20061 20071 20122

Quantity (1,000 tires) 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 3,881 3,383 3,720 ***

U.S. imports from-- 

 China 1,768 2,086 2,116 1,323 

 All other sources 1,699 1,796 1,709 2,465 

 Total imports 3,467 3,882 3,825 3,788 

Apparent U.S. consumption 7,348 7,266 7,544 ***

 Value (1,000 dollars) 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 861,224 835,550 1,006,044 ***

U.S. imports from-- 

 China 173,903 274,410 275,907 216,548 

 All other sources 366,909 434,630 505,282 1,268,657 

 Total imports 540,812 709,040 781,189 1,485,205 

Apparent U.S. consumption 1,402,035 1,544,590 1,787,233 ***

1

 Data for seven producers. 

2

 Data for Titan and Specialty Tires, representing *** percent of the domestic industry in 2012. 

Source: Certain Off-The-Road Tires from China, Inv. No. 701-TA-448 and 731-TA-1117 (Final), USITC 

Publication 4031, August 2008, app. E, and compiled from official Commerce statistics, HTS numbers 

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, adjusted to exclude merchandise that had a less than $35 unit value or greater than 1,500 

lb. shipping weight per unit except when antidumping or countervailing duties were applied. 
I‐24

Table I-7 

OTR tires: U.S. market shares, 2005-07 and 2012 

Item 20051

 20061 20071 20122

Quantity (1,000 tires) 

Apparent U.S. consumption 7,348 7,266 7,544 ***

 Value (1,000 dollars) 

Apparent U.S. consumption 1,402,035 1,544,590 1,787,233 ***

 Share of quantity (percent) 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 52.8 46.6 49.3 ***

U.S. imports from-- 

 China 24.1 28.7 28.0 ***

 All other sources 23.1 24.7 22.7 ***

 Total imports 47.2 53.4 50.7 ***

 Share of value (percent) 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 61.4 54.1 56.3 ***

U.S. imports from— 

 China 12.4 17.8 15.4 ***

 All other sources 26.2 28.1 28.3 ***

 Total imports 38.6 45.9 43.7 ***

1

 Data for seven producers. 

2

 Data for Titan and Specialty Tires, representing *** percent of the domestic industry in 2012. 

Source: Certain Off-The-Road Tires from China, Inv. No. 701-TA-448 and 731-TA-1117 (Final), USITC 

Publication 4031, August 2008, app. E, and compiled from official Commerce statistics, HTS numbers 

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, adjusted to exclude merchandise that had a less than $35 unit value or greater than 1,500 

lb. shipping weight per unit except when antidumping or countervailing duties were applied. 

Since certain OTR tires are used principally in vehicles in agricultural, construction, and

industrial applications, the overall demand in the United States for certain OTR tires depends

upon demand in those industries.71 In its original determinations, the Commission found that

OTR tire demand had increased in light of rising farm income, rising export demand for U.S.‐

manufactured machines that use certain OTR tires and high prices for oil, corn and mining

commodities (such as copper, gold and silver). Demand had increased globally as well as

domestically.72 In the reasonably foreseeable future, Titan projected that demand will either

stagnate or achieve only slow growth because of the slow recovery of the economy.73 In its

response to the Commission’s purchaser questionnaire, *** stated that both OEM and end user

                                                      

71 Certain Off‐The‐Road Tires from China, Inv. No. 701‐TA‐448 and 731‐TA‐1117 (Final), USITC

Publication 4031, August 2008, p. II‐3.

72 Certain Off‐The‐Road Tires from China, Inv. No. 701‐TA‐448 and 731‐TA‐1117 (Final), USITC

Publication 4031, August 2008, p. 17.

73 Titan's Response to the Commission's Notice of Institution, September 3, 2013, pp. 23‐25.
I‐25

demand in the United States are much lower than in previous years.  It also expects a continued

period of weak demand and available supply globally for the next 12 months.

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

Background

During the original investigations, the petitions identified approximately 100 producers

and/or exporters of OTR tires in China. The Commission sent questionnaires to 95 firms and

received 18 usable foreign producer questionnaire responses, accounting for *** percent74 of

total OTR tire production in China during 2007.75  

Titan indicated in its response to the Commission's notice of institution that the Chinese

industry may have since expanded. It listed 21 firms in China that have participated in  

administrative reviews at Commerce and an additional 71 Chinese firms that were listed on the

exhibitors list as manufacturers and exporters of OTR tires at the 2013 China International Tire

Expo.76 Titan cited export statistics that show that the value of total global exports from China

have increased from $502.7 million in 2009 to $1.055 billion in 2012, an increase of 109

percent.77

Capacity and production

During the original investigations, the industry in China consisted of multiple

manufacturers, none of which estimated that they produced more than *** percent of total

Chinese production. *** was the largest reporting producer, estimated to account for ***

percent of total Chinese production in 2007, followed by ***, which accounted for

approximately∙ *** percent and *** percent of total Chinese production of OTR tires in 2007,

respectively. In 2007, total reported capacity in China was *** tires, with *** tires exported to

the United States valued at ($149 million].78

                                                      

74 As estimated by reporting firms. Certain Off‐The‐Road Tires from China, Investigation Nos. 701‐TA‐

448 and 731‐TA‐1117 (Final), Staff Report, INV‐FF‐094, August 4, 2008, pp. Vll‐1 and Vll‐4. 75 Certain Off‐The‐Road Tires from China, Inv. No. 701‐TA‐448 and 731‐TA‐1117 (Final), USITC

Publication 4031, August 2008, p. VII‐2.

76 Titan's Response to the Commission's Notice of Institution, September 3, 2013, exh. 6. 77 Titan relies on Chinese Customs data at the six‐digit product level. A level of specificity it concedes

contains some merchandise outside the definition of OTR tires. Titan's Response to the Commission's

Notice of Institution, September 3, 2013, p. 18 & exh. 7.

78 Certain Off‐The‐Road Tires from China, Investigation Nos. 701‐TA‐448 and 731‐TA‐1117 (Final),

Staff Report, INV‐FF‐094, August 4, 2008, pp. Vll‐2‐Vll ‐4 & table Vll‐3.
I‐26

Exports

Table I‐8 presents data for the top ten markets for Chinese exports of OTR tires. The

United States is the largest market for Chinese product. Total Chinese exports increased from

2008 to 2012, by 61.0 percent, while Chinese exports to the United States increased by 74.4

percent. Table I‐9 presents a summary of Chinese exports to the world and United States, by

tire type, in 2012.

Table I-8

OTR tires: Chinese exports, by country, 2008-12 

Country 

Value ($1,000) 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

United States 135,602 131,009 199,228 270,552 236,502 

Australia 40,762 21,873 20,194 43,207 107,317 

Canada 19,681 17,415 26,545 41,744 48,095 

Brazil 13,773 10,848 25,510 36,233 47,794 

Saudi Arabia 24,995 21,837 27,024 40,909 45,679 

Mexico 17,063 19,922 22,454 34,020 40,134 

Indonesia 14,514 10,011 12,509 22,091 38,368 

South Africa 33,964 15,252 23,143 42,098 34,787 

Russia 8,545 5,406 14,482 36,751 33,853 

United Arab Emirates 23,293 23,655 20,721 30,201 30,773 

All others 346,043 250,184 284,082 387,662 428,902 

World 678,236 527,412 675,893 985,469 1,092,202 

Source: Global Trade Information Service (“Global Trade Atlas”), HS codes 4011.61, 4011.62, 4011.63, 

4011.69, 4011.92, 4011.93, and 4011.94. These HS codes may be over inclusive of subject OTR tires 

since they include OTR tires with no value cutoff and OTR tires over 1,500 pounds. Data exported under 

HS code 4011.20 is not included because it primarily contains nonsubject bus and truck tires; however, 

some subject product may be included in this HS number. 
I‐27

Table I-9 

OTR tires: Chinese exports to world and United States, by tire type, 2012 

HTS Tire Type Tread Type 

Tire Rim 

Size 

World U.S. U.S. 

Value ($1,000) Percent 

4011.61 AG & Forestry Herringbone NA 251,741 92,958 36.9

4011.92 AG & Forestry Other NA 43,950 22,697 51.6

4011.69 

Other 

(end use unknown) 

Herringbone 

NES NA 36,555 28,610 78.3

 Subtotal AG & Other 332,246 144,265 43.4

4011.94 Construction/Industrial Radial & Other Above 24" 399,427 25,596 6.4

4011.63 Construction/Industrial Herringbone Above 24" 173,498 19,273 11.1

4011.93 Construction/Industrial Radial & Other 

24" and 

Less 116,359 27,195 23.4

4011.62 Construction/Industrial Herringbone 

24" and 

Less 70,672 20,173 28.5

 Subtotal Construction/Industrial 759,956 92,237 12.1

Total 1,092,202 236,502 21.7

Source: Global Trade Information Service (“Global Trade Atlas”), HS codes 4011.61, 4011.62, 4011.63, 

4011.69, 4011.92, 4011.93, and 4011.94. These HS codes may be over inclusive of subject OTR tires 

since they include OTR tires with no value cutoff and OTR tires over 1,500 pounds. Data exported under 

HS code 4011.20 is not included because it primarily contains nonsubject bus and truck tires; however, 

some subject product may be included in this HS number. 

Tariff or non‐tariff barriers to trade

During the original investigations, no producer, importer, or foreign producer reported

any countervailing or antidumping duty orders on OTR tires from China in third‐country

markets. 79

THE GLOBAL MARKET

Table I‐10 shows the ten largest exporting countries of OTR tires. Total world exports

increased by 52.9 percent from 2008 to 2012.

                                                      

79 Certain Off‐The‐Road Tires from China, Inv. No. 701‐TA‐448 and 731‐TA‐1117 (Final), USITC

Publication 4031, August 2008, p. VII‐6.
I‐28

Table I-10 

OTR tires: Exports by reporting country, 2008-12 

Country 

Value ($1,000) 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Japan 1,299,602 1,192,359 1,542,345 2,151,729 2,575,966 

China 678,236 527,412 675,893 985,469 1,092,202 

United States 520,727 531,393 605,558 809,692 933,040 

France 597,005 382,636 468,289 709,670 758,045 

Spain 531,807 392,161 463,444 710,782 704,079 

Belarus 362,750 186,051 257,526 412,759 473,772 

Czech Republic 335,469 249,141 303,962 436,672 410,405 

Brazil 121,301 118,887 197,575 285,232 332,682 

Poland 160,464 120,211 157,086 204,371 218,983 

Turkey 159,632 133,407 163,701 224,706 214,373 

All others 1,564,272 971,724 1,232,035 1,865,568 1,964,885 

World 6,331,265 4,805,382 6,067,415 8,796,650 9,678,432 

Source: Global Trade Information Service (“Global Trade Atlas”), HS codes 4011.61, 4011.62, 4011.63, 

4011.69, 4011.92, 4011.93, and 4011.94. These HS codes may be over inclusive of subject OTR tires 

since they include OTR tires with no value cutoff and OTR tires over 1,500 pounds. Data exported under 

HS code 4011.20 is not included because it primarily contains nonsubject bus and truck tires; however, 

some subject product may be included in this HS number. 

Table I‐11 shows the ten largest importers of OTR tires. Total world imports increased

by 52.9 percent from 2008 to 2012.
I‐29

Table I-10 

OTR tires: Imports by reporting country, 2008-12 

Country 

Value ($1,000) 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

United States 766,909 480,262 586,232 1,058,233 1,386,319 

Australia 541,708 471,798 576,212 950,751 1,190,940 

Germany 663,093 443,904 496,206 747,653 720,423 

Canada 383,650 372,574 434,756 572,397 653,858 

Chile 235,401 220,366 223,755 316,111 438,771 

Sweden 413,745 106,543 255,522 413,935 419,593 

Mexico 237,069 221,940 208,680 305,317 387,393 

France 393,873 234,186 269,059 393,419 386,542 

Indonesia - 94,305 132,339 207,097 380,285 

Russia 151,868 67,272 128,850 254,643 367,515 

All others 2,907,280 2,078,818 2,633,065 3,736,686 3,990,010 

World 6,694,598 4,791,968 5,944,677 8,956,243 10,321,649 

Source: Global Trade Information Service (“Global Trade Atlas”), HS codes 4011.61, 4011.62, 4011.63, 

4011.69, 4011.92, 4011.93, and 4011.94. These HS codes may be over inclusive of subject OTR tires 

since they include OTR tires with no value cutoff and OTR tires over 1,500 pounds. Data exported under 

HS code 4011.20 is not included because it primarily contains nonsubject bus and truck tires; however, 

some subject product may be included in this HS number. 

A‐1

APPENDIX A

SUPPLEMENTAL DATA  

Table A-1

Certain OTR tires: U.S. imports, by sources, 2005-07, January-March 2007, and January-March 200

January-March 

Item 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 tires)

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825 1,079 1,403 325 237

All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,087 1,183 1,163 308 357

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,912 2,262 2,567 632 593

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74,503 124,587 130,418 29,806 21,670

All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . 194,807 197,418 228,429 53,404 70,035

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269,310 322,005 358,847 83,210 91,705

Value ($1,000)

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84,907 175,618 187,347 45,216 32,505

All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . 265,426 294,816 362,099 81,983 106,441

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350,333 470,435 549,446 127,199 138,946

Unit value (dollars per tire)

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.89 162.78 133.52 139.30 137.28

All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . 244.15 249.28 311.25 266.51 298.56

 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183.20 208.02 214.08 201.20 234.19

Share of quantity [based on tires] (percent)

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.2 47.7 54.7 51.3 39.9

All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . 56.8 52.3 45.3 48.7 60.1

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.2 37.3 34.1 35.5 23.4

All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.8 62.7 65.9 64.5 76.6

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Ratio of imports to U.S. production quantity (percent)

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.6 28.3 35.0 35.2 21.9

All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.2 31.0 29.0 33.3 32.9

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.9 59.2 64.0 68.5 54.8

Note.--Firms not providing data on weight include Allied Wheel, Super Grip, Goodyear, China Manufacture

and Sutong China Tire.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

A-3
Table A-2

Certain OTR tires: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, by sources, apparent U.S. consumptio

and market shares, 2005-07, January-March 2007, and January-March 2008

January-March 

Item 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 tires)

U.S. producers' shipments . . . . . . . 3,881 3,383 3,720 910 995

U.S. imports from--

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825 1,079 1,403 325 237

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,087 1,183 1,163 308 357

 Total U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . 1,912 2,262 2,567 632 593

Apparent consumption . . . . . . . . . . 5,793 5,645 6,286 1,543 1,588

Value ($1,000)

U.S. producers' shipments . . . . . . . 861,224 835,550 1,006,044 252,393 286,384

U.S. imports from--

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84,907 175,618 187,347 45,216 32,505

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265,426 294,816 362,099 81,983 106,441

 Total U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . 350,333 470,435 549,446 127,199 138,946

Apparent consumption . . . . . . . . . . 1,211,557 1,305,985 1,555,490 379,592 425,329

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers' shipments . . . . . . . 67.0 59.9 59.2 59.0 62.7

U.S. imports from--

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.2 19.1 22.3 21.0 14.9

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.8 21.0 18.5 19.9 22.4

 Total U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . 33.0 40.1 40.8 41.0 37.3

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers' shipments . . . . . . . 71.1 64.0 64.7 66.5 67.3

U.S. imports from--

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0 13.4 12.0 11.9 7.6

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.9 22.6 23.3 21.6 25.0

 Total U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . 28.9 36.0 35.3 33.5 32.7

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

A-4
A‐5

Table A-3 

OTR tires: U.S. import data, by source, 2005-07 and 2012 

Item 

Calendar year 

2005 2006 2007 2012 

 Quantity (1,000 tires) 

China 2,333 2,521 2,337 1,360 

All other sources 1,760 1,831 2,337 2,534 

 Total imports 4,093 4,352 4,070 3,894 

 Value ($1,000) 

China 190,444 287,316 282,390 217,704 

All other sources 368,629 435,633 505,975 1,270,757 

 Total imports 559,073 722,949 788,365 1,488,460 

 Unit value (dollars per tire) 

China 81.63 113.97 120.84 160.04 

All other sources 209.41 237.89 292.00 501.45 

 Total imports 136.59 166.11 193.72 382.20 

 Share of quantity (percent) 

China 57.0 57.9 57.4 34.9 

All other sources 43.0 42.1 42.6 65.1 

 Total imports 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

 Share of value (percent)

China 34.1 39.7 35.8 14.6 

All other sources 65.9 60.3 64.2 85.4 

 Total imports 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Source: Certain Off-The-Road Tires from China, Inv. No. 701-TA-448 and 731-TA-1117 (Final), USITC 

Publication 4031, August 2008, Table IV-2, and compiled from official Commerce statistics, HTS numbers 

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, adjusted to exclude merchandise that had a less than $25 unit value or greater than 1,500 

lb. shipping weight per unit except when antidumping or countervailing duties were applied. 

Table A-4 

OTR tires: Ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production, 2005-07 and 2012 

Item Calendar year 

20051 20061 20071 20122

 Ratio of imports to U.S. production (percent) 

China 49.9 66.0 58.3 ***

All other sources 37.6 48.0 43.2 ***

All countries 87.5 114.0 101.5 ***

1

 Data for seven producers. 

2

 Data for Titan and Specialty Tires, representing *** percent of the domestic industry in 2012. 

Source: Certain Off-The-Road Tires from China, Inv. No. 701-TA-448 and 731-TA-1117 (Final), USITC 

Publication 4031, August 2008, Table IV-7, and compiled from official Commerce statistics, HTS numbers 

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, adjusted to exclude merchandise that had a less than $25 unit value or greater than 1,500 

lb. shipping weight per unit except when antidumping or countervailing duties were applied. 
A‐6

Table A-5 

OTR tires: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption, 

2005-07 and 2012 

Item 20051

 20061 20071 20122

Quantity (1,000 tires) 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 3,881 3,383 3,720 ***

U.S. imports from-- 

 China 2,333 2,521 2,337 1,360 

 All other sources 1,760 1,831 2,337 2,534 

 Total imports 4,093 4,352 4,070 3,894 

Apparent U.S. consumption 7,974 7,735 7,790 ***

 Value (1,000 dollars) 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 861,224 835,550 1,006,044 ***

U.S. imports from-- 

 China 190,444 287,316 282,390 217,704 

 All other sources 368,629 435,633 505,975 1,270,757 

 Total imports 559,073 722,949 788,365 1,488,460 

Apparent U.S. consumption 1,420,296 1,558,498 1,794,409 ***

1

 Data for seven producers. 

2

 Data for Titan and Specialty Tires, representing *** percent of the domestic industry in 2012. 

Source: Certain Off-The-Road Tires from China, Inv. No. 701-TA-448 and 731-TA-1117 (Final), USITC 

Publication 4031, August 2008, Table IV-5, and compiled from official Commerce statistics, HTS numbers 

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, adjusted to exclude merchandise that had a less than $25 unit value or greater than 1,500 

lb. shipping weight per unit except when antidumping or countervailing duties were applied. 
A‐7

Table A-6 

OTR tires: U.S. market shares, 2005-07 and 2012 

Item 20051

 20061 20071 20122

Quantity (1,000 tires) 

Apparent U.S. consumption 7,974 7,735 7,790 ***

 Value (1,000 dollars) 

Apparent U.S. consumption 1,420,296 1,558,498 1,794,409 ***

 Share of quantity (percent) 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 48.7 43.7 47.8 ***

U.S. imports from-- 

 China 29.3 32.6 30.0 ***

 All other sources 22.1 23.7 22.2 ***

 Total imports 51.3 56.3 52.2 ***

 Share of value (percent) 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 60.6 53.6 56.1 ***

U.S. imports from— 

 China 13.4 18.4 15.7 ***

 All other sources 26.0 28.0 28.2 ***

 Total imports 39.4 46.4 43.9 *** 1

 Data for seven producers. 

2

 Data for Titan and Specialty Tires, representing *** percent of the domestic industry in 2012. 

Source: Certain Off-The-Road Tires from China, Inv. No. 701-TA-448 and 731-TA-1117 (Final), USITC 

Publication 4031, August 2008, Table IV-6, and compiled from official Commerce statistics, HTS numbers 

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, adjusted to exclude merchandise that had a less than $25 unit value or greater than 1,500 

lb. shipping weight per unit except when antidumping or countervailing duties were applied.