Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2012 / Notices 14495 

1See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires 

From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Results of the 2009–2010 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Intent To Rescind, in 

Part, 76 FR 62356 (October 7, 2011) (‘‘Preliminary 

Results’’). 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under the APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which 

continues to govern business 

proprietary information in this segment 

of the proceeding. Timely written 

notification of the return/destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

Disclosure 

We intend to disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

We are issuing and publishing the 

final results and notice in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: March 2, 2012. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Issues for the Final Results 

Surrogate Country Selection and Surrogate 

Financial Ratios 

Issue 1: Whether the Department should 

have selected India or Thailand as the 

Surrogate Country. 

Issue 2: Whether the Department should 

have selected the financial statement of JBF 

Industries Ltd. to calculate financial ratios. 

Issue 3: Whether the Department should 

have rejected financial statements submitted 

in its surrogate value rebuttal comments. 

Surrogate Values 

Issue 4: Whether the Department should 

have selected the six-digit subheading 

3907.60 to value the Respondents’ PET chips. 

Issue 5: Whether the Department should 

require company certifications for surrogate 

value submissions. 

Issue 6: Whether the Department should 

have selected HTS 3915.10 to value 

Respondents’ scrap offset. 

Respondent Selection 

Issue 7: Whether the Department 

improperly failed to select Fuwei Films and 

Green Packing as mandatory respondents, 

and improperly failed to consider the 

voluntary responses of Fuwei Films and 

Green Packing. 

Separate Rate 

Issue 8: Whether the separate rate assigned 

to Fuwei Films and Green Packing in the 

Preliminary Results inaccurately overstates 

the antidumping margin that should be 

applied to these companies. 

Reclaimed PET Chips 

Issue 9: Whether the Department should recalculate the consumption of raw material 

inputs for Wanhua and Dongfang with 

respect to reclaimed PET chips. 

Wanhua 

Issue 10: Whether the Department should 

have calculated the consumption of material 

inputs of Wanhua based on an application of 

adverse facts available. 

Dongfang 

Issue 11: Whether the Department should 

have adjusted Dongfang’s reported electricity 

and water FOPs. 

Zeroing 

Issue 12: Whether the Department should 

engage in the practice of zeroing. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5936 Filed 3–9–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–912] 

Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road 

Tires From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of the 2009–2010 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Final Rescission, in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On October 7, 2011, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published the 

preliminary results of the 2009–2010 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain new 

pneumatic off-the-road tires (‘‘OTR 

tires’’) from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’).1 The period of review 

(‘‘POR’’) is September 1, 2009, through 

August 31, 2010. This review covers one 

exporter: Tianjin United Tire & Rubber 

International Co., Ltd. (‘‘TUTRIC’’). 

We invited interested parties to 

comment on our Preliminary Results. 

Based on our analysis of the comments 

received, we made certain changes to 

our margin calculations for TUTRIC. 

The final dumping margins for this 

review are listed in the ‘‘Final Results 

Margins’’ section below. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 12, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Raquel Silva or Wendy Frankel, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–6475 and (202) 

482–5849, respectively. 

Background 

On October 7, 2011, the Department 

published its Preliminary Results of the 

antidumping duty administrative review 

of OTR tires from the PRC. On October 

21, 2011, TUTRIC submitted its 

response to the Department’s October 

17, 2011, post-preliminary 

supplemental questionnaire. 

Titan Tire Corporation (‘‘Titan’’), the 

petitioner; and TUTRIC each submitted 

publicly available information regarding 

surrogate values on October 27, 2011; 

Bridgestone Americas, Inc. and 

Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, 

LLC (collectively, ‘‘Bridgestone’’), 

domestic interested parties, did so on 

October 28, 2011. On November 7, 2011, 

TUTRIC submitted rebuttal surrogate 

value information. 

Titan and Bridgestone submitted their 

case briefs on November 17, and 

November 18, 2011, respectively. On 

November 30, 2011, TUTRIC submitted 

its rebuttal brief. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this 

review are addressed in the 

Memorandum from Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

titled, ‘‘Certain New Pneumatic Off-theRoad Tires from the People’s Republic 

of China: Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final Results of 

the 2009–2010 Second Administrative 

Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order,’’ dated February 21, 2012 

(‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’), 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

A list of the issues that parties raised 

and to which we responded in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

follows as an appendix to this notice. 

The Issues and Decision Memorandum 

is a public document and is on file 

electronically via Import 

Administration’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). 

Access to IA ACCESS is available in the 

Central Records Unit (CRU), room 7046 

of the main Department of Commerce 

building. In addition, a complete 

version of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ 

ia/. The paper copy and electronic 

version of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Period of Review 

The POR is September 1, 2009, 

through August 31, 2010. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
14496 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2012 / Notices 

2Agricultural 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. 

3Combine harvesters are used to harvest crops 

such as corn or wheat. 

4Agricultural sprayers are used to irrigate 

agricultural fields. 

5 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. 

6A 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. 

7Skid-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. 

8Haul 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. 

9Front 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. 

10A dozer is a large four-wheeled vehicle with a 

dozer blade that is used to push large quantities of 

soil, sand, rubble, etc., typically around 

construction sites. They can also be used to perform 

‘‘rough grading’’ in road construction. 

11A straddle carrier is a rigid frame, enginepowered machine that is used to load and offload 

containers from container vessels and load them 

onto (or off of) tractor trailers. 

12A 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. 

13A 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. 

14While 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). 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the order are 

new pneumatic tires designed for offthe-road 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,2 combine harvesters,3

agricultural high clearance sprayers,4

industrial tractors,5 log-skidders,6

agricultural implements, highwaytowed implements, agricultural logging, 

and agricultural, industrial, skid-steers/ 

mini-loaders; 7 (2) construction vehicles 

and equipment, including earthmover 

articulated dump products, rigid frame 

haul trucks,8 front end loaders,9

dozers,10 lift trucks, straddle carriers,11

graders,12 mobile cranes,13 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-theroad 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 

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 offroad 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-type 14 or tubeless, 

radial or non-radial, and intended for 

sale either to original equipment 

manufacturers or the replacement 

market. The subject merchandise is 

currently classifiable under Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings: 4011.20.10.25, 

4011.20.10.35, 4011.20.50.30, 

4011.20.50.50, 4011.61.00.00, 

4011.62.00.00, 4011.63.00.00, 

4011.69.00.00, 4011.92.00.00, 

4011.93.40.00, 4011.93.80.00, 

4011.94.40.00, and 4011.94.80.00. While 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope is 

dispositive. 

Specifically excluded from the scope 

are new pneumatic tires designed, 

manufactured and offered for sale 

primarily for on-highway or on-road 

use, including passenger cars, race cars, 

station wagons, sport utility vehicles, 

minivans, mobile homes, motorcycles, 

bicycles, on-road or on-highway trailers, 

light trucks, and trucks and buses. Such 

tires generally have in common that the 

symbol ‘‘DOT’’ must appear on the 

sidewall, certifying that the tire 

conforms to applicable motor vehicle 

safety standards. Such excluded tires 

may also have the following 

designations that are used by the Tire 

and Rim Association: 

Prefix letter designations: 

• P—Identifies a tire intended 

primarily for service on passenger cars; 

• LT—Identifies a tire intended 

primarily for service on light trucks; and 

• ST—Identifies a special tire for 

trailers in highway service. 

Suffix letter designations: 

• TR—Identifies a tire for service on 

trucks, buses, and other vehicles with 

rims having specified rim diameter of 

nominal plus 0.156′′ or plus 0.250′′; 

• MH—Identifies tires for Mobile 

Homes; 

• HC—Identifies a heavy duty tire 

designated for use on ‘‘HC’’ 15′′ tapered 

rims used on trucks, buses, and other 

vehicles. This suffix is intended to 

differentiate among tires for light trucks, 

and other vehicles or other services, 

which use a similar designation. 

• Example: 8R17.5 LT, 8R17.5 HC; 

• LT—Identifies light truck tires for 

service on trucks, buses, trailers, and 

multipurpose passenger vehicles used 

in nominal highway service; and 

• MC—Identifies tires and rims for 

motorcycles. 

The following types of tires are also 

excluded from the scope: pneumatic 

tires that are not new, including 

recycled or retreaded tires and used 

tires; non-pneumatic tires, including 

solid rubber tires; tires of a kind 

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 1500 

pounds). 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2012 / Notices 14497 

15See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s Republic of 

China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the People’s 

Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) and 

19 CFR 351.107(d). 

16See Memorandum titled, ‘‘Final Results of the 

2009–2010 Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain New 

Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People’s 

Republic of China: Surrogate Value Memorandum,’’ 

dated February 6, 2012 (‘‘Surrogate Value 

Memorandum’’); see also Memorandum titled, 

‘‘Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results: 

Tianjin United Tire & Rubber International Co., 

Ltd.,’’ dated February 6, 2012 (‘‘TUTRIC Final 

Analysis Memorandum’’); see also ‘‘Adverse Facts 

Available’’ section below and Comment 6 of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum. 

17See Surrogate Value Memorandum and 

TUTRIC Final Analysis Memorandum. 

18See Surrogate Value Memorandum and 

TUTRIC Final Analysis Memorandum; see also 

Comment 7 of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. 

19See Surrogate Value Memorandum and 

TUTRIC Final Analysis Memorandum; see also 

Comment 10 of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. 

20See Surrogate Value Memorandum and 

TUTRIC Final Analysis Memorandum; see also 

Comment 11 of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. 

Final Rescission, in Part, of the 

Administrative Review 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department stated its intent to rescind 

the review with respect to Weihai 

because the Department preliminarily 

determined that Weihai had no 

shipments of subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR. See 

Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 62358. 

The Department did not receive any 

comments from interested parties with 

respect to rescinding the review for 

Weihai. Thus, we continue to find that 

Weihai had no shipments of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. As such, we are rescinding this 

review with respect to Weihai in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving non-market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) countries, the 

Department begins with a rebuttable 

presumption that all companies within 

the country are subject to government 

control and, thus, should be assigned a 

single antidumping duty deposit rate. It 

is the Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to an 

investigation in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate.15

In the Preliminary Results, we found 

that TUTRIC demonstrated its eligibility 

for separate-rate status. See Preliminary 

Results, 76 FR at 62358–59. No party 

has placed any evidence on the record 

of this review to contradict that finding. 

Therefore, we continue to find that 

TUTRIC is eligible for separate-rate 

status. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on an analysis of the comments 

received, for the final results, the 

Department has made the following 

changes to TUTRIC’s Margin 

Calculation: 

• Steam: We have calculated the 

surrogate value for steam using a 

rupees-per-metric-ton unit of measure. 

Additionally, we applied partial adverse 

facts available (‘‘AFA’’) under sections 

776(a)(2)(A) and (B) and 776(b) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

‘‘Act’’), to value TUTRIC’s steam 

consumption.16

• NYCHFR and HCLOTH: We have 

changed the HTS categories used to 

value Tyre cord B fabric (‘‘NYCHFR’’) 

and harness cloth (‘‘HCLOTH’’).17

• Surrogate Financial Ratios: We 

have corrected the classification of three 

line items in the surrogate financial 

ratio calculation.18

• Domestic Brokerage and Handling: 

We have revised the calculation of 

TUTRIC’s surrogate brokerage and 

handling value using a revised container 

weight.19

• Labor: We have changed the source 

of data used to value labor costs and are 

using a source that contains data more 

specific to the product at issue here. 

Additionally, we have applied a 

monthly inflation methodology to 

inflate the value of labor.20

Adverse Facts Available 

Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act 

provide that the Department shall apply 

‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if, inter alia, 

necessary information is not on the 

record or an interested party or any 

other person: (A) withholds information 

that has been requested; (B) fails to 

provide information within the 

deadlines established, or in the form 

and manner requested by the 

Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) 

and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) 

significantly impedes a proceeding; or 

(D) provides information that cannot be 

verified as provided by section 782(i) of 

the Act. 

Where the Department determines 

that a response to a request for 

information does not comply with the 

request, section 782(d) of the Act 

provides that the Department will so 

inform the party submitting the 

response and will, to the extent 

practicable, provide that party the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If the party fails to remedy 

the deficiency within the applicable 

time limits and subject to section 782(e) 

of the Act, the Department may 

disregard all or part of the original and 

subsequent responses, as appropriate. 

Section 782(e) of the Act provides that 

the Department ‘‘shall not decline to 

consider information that is submitted 

by an interested party and is necessary 

to the determination but does not meet 

all applicable requirements established 

by the administering authority’’ if the 

information is timely, can be verified, is 

not so incomplete that it cannot be used, 

and if the interested party acted to the 

best of its ability in providing the 

information. Where all of these 

conditions are met, the statute requires 

the Department to use the information if 

it can do so without undue difficulties. 

Section 776(b) of the Act further 

provides that the Department may use 

an adverse inference in applying the 

facts otherwise available when a party 

has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information. Section 776(b) 

of the Act also authorizes the 

Department to use as AFA information 

derived from the petition, the final 

determination, a previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. 

For the reasons discussed below, we 

determine that, in accordance with 

sections 776(a)(2) and 776(b) of the Act, 

the use of partial AFA is appropriate for 

the final results with respect to 

TUTRIC’s consumption of steam. 

Pursuant to section 776(e)(2)(A) and 

(B) of the Act, we find that TUTRIC 

failed to provide requested information, 

and failed to provide information in the 

form and manner requested by the 

Department by the established deadlines 

on three separate occasions. In the 

original questionnaire issued on January 

19, 2011, the Department requested that 

TUTRIC provide a discussion of how 

the company calculated its reported 

energy (steam) usage, and to also 

provide supporting worksheets. In its 

March 11, 2011, response, TUTRIC 

attached a worksheet demonstrating its 

final allocation of steam consumption to 

production-related activities and nonproduction related activities. However, 

TUTRIC did not provide a narrative 

explanation to support its calculations 

methodology or the calculation details 

as requested. 

On June 9, 2011, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire 

requesting that TUTRIC specifically 

provide a detailed narrative explanation 

of its steam consumption calculation. In 

its July 15, 2011, response, TUTRIC 

attached a revised worksheet that 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
14498 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2012 / Notices 

provided a worksheet detailing a series 

of generic formulas. However, in its 

supplemental questionnaire response, 

TUTRIC did not provide the 

calculations demonstrating how it 

applied these formulas or a narrative 

explanation of the calculation. 

On August 16, 2011, in an additional 

supplemental questionnaire, the 

Department again specifically asked that 

TUTRIC provide a worksheet and a 

narrative explanation to demonstrate the 

calculation used to derive its allocation 

ratio. In a response dated September 2, 

2011, TUTRIC referred the Department 

to its July 15, 2011, response. The 

Department notes that while the July 15, 

2011, worksheet demonstrated 

TUTRIC’s general allocation of factors of 

production (‘‘FOP’’), TUTRIC again did 

not provide the underlying calculation 

demonstrating how it derived the 

allocations or a narrative explanation. 

Pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the 

Act, the Department finds that TUTRIC 

failed to provide essential information 

to support its reported steam 

consumption. Specifically, it failed to 

provide a narrative explanation of its 

calculation methodology and failed to 

provide the actual calculations used in 

allocating steam consumption between 

production and non-production use as 

requested by the Department. 

Additionally, pursuant to section 

776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department 

finds that TUTRIC additionally failed to 

provide clarifying information in the 

manner requested by the Department. 

Consequently, the Department finds it 

necessary to apply partial facts 

available, as the necessary information 

is not available to determine the 

propriety of TUTRIC’s derived 

allocation for steam consumption. 

Additionally, because TUTRIC had 

multiple opportunities but never 

provided the requisite information, we 

find that TUTRIC failed to cooperate by 

not acting to the best of its ability to 

comply with the Department’s requests 

for information concerning TUTRIC’s 

steam consumption. For that reason, we 

determine that the application of an 

adverse inference pursuant to section 

776(b) of the Act is warranted. 

Therefore, as partial AFA for these final 

results, the Department has applied 

TUTRIC’s total consumption of the 

steam consumed during the POR as 

TUTRIC’s production consumption 

quantity. See TUTRIC Final Analysis 

Memorandum. 

Final Results Margins 

We determine that the following 

weighted-average dumping margin 

exists for the period September 1, 2009, 

through August 31, 2010: 

OTR TIRES FROM THE PRC 

Exporter 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

Tianjin United Tire & Rubber 

International Co., Ltd ............ 11.07 

Assessment Rates 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

Department will determine, and U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries of subject 

merchandise in accordance with the 

final results of this review. For 

assessment purposes, we calculated 

importer (or customer)-specific 

assessment rates for merchandise 

subject to this review. Where 

appropriate, we calculated an ad 

valorem rate for each importer (or 

customer) by dividing the total dumping 

margins for reviewed sales to that party 

by the total entered values associated 

with those transactions. For dutyassessment rates calculated on this 

basis, we will direct CBP to assess the 

resulting ad valorem rate against the 

entered customs values for the subject 

merchandise. Where appropriate, we 

calculated a per-unit rate for each 

importer (or customer) by dividing the 

total dumping margins for reviewed 

sales to that party by the total sales 

quantity associated with those 

transactions. For duty-assessment rates 

calculated on this basis, we will direct 

CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate 

against the entered quantity of the 

subject merchandise. Where an importer 

(or customer)-specific assessment rate is 

de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent), 

the Department will instruct CBP to 

assess that importer (or customer’s) 

entries of subject merchandise without 

regard to antidumping duties, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate 

entries containing subject merchandise 

exported by the PRC-wide entity at the 

PRC-wide rate of 210.48 percent. The 

Department intends to issue assessment 

instructions to CBP 15 days after the 

date of publication of these final results 

of review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For TUTRIC, 

the cash deposit rate will be the margin 

listed above; (2) for previously 

investigated or reviewed PRC and nonPRC exporters not listed above that have 

separate rates, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the exporter-specific rate 

published for the most recent period; (3) 

for all PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not been 

found to be entitled to a separate rate, 

the cash deposit rate will be the PRCwide rate of 210.48 percent determined 

in the less-than-fair-value investigation; 

and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC exporter that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit 

requirements shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this POR. 

Failure to comply with this requirement 

could result in the Secretary’s 

presumption that reimbursement of the 

antidumping duties occurred and the 

subsequent assessment of double 

antidumping duties. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under the APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which 

continues to govern business 

proprietary information in this segment 

of the proceeding. Timely written 

notification of the return/destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

We are issuing and publishing the 

final results and notice in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2012 / Notices 14499 

1See Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables 

and Certain Parts Thereof From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 

55357 (September 7, 2011) (Preliminary Results). 

2See Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables 

and Certain Parts Thereof From the People’s 

Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for 

Final Results of Administrative Review, 77 FR 1455 

(January 10, 2012). 

Dated: March 5, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Comment 1: Valuation of Technically 

Specific Natural Rubber 

Comment 2: Whether to Use Certain 

MEP Prices 

Comment 3: Whether to Value Curing 

Bladders as FOPs or Overhead 

Comment 4: Which Coal Grades to Use 

in Valuing Steam Coal 

Comment 5: What Source to Use for 

Valuing Steam 

Comment 6: Whether to Modify 

TUTRIC’s Steam Allocation 

Methodology 

Comment 7: Corrections to the 

Calculation of the Surrogate Financial 

Ratios 

Comment 8: How to Treat TUTRIC’s 

Non-production Labor and Energy 

Costs 

Comment 9: Whether the Department 

Should Use a Different Source to 

Calculate Domestic Inland Truck 

Freight 

Comment 10: Whether to Revise the 

Calculation of Domestic Brokerage 

and Handling Expenses 

Comment 11: Whether the Department 

Should Use a Different Source and 

Inflation Period to Value Labor 

Comment 12: Whether to Deduct VAT 

from Export Price 

Comment 13: Whether to Use AFA to 

Value FOPs for ‘‘Similar’’ Models 

Comment 14: How to Treat Claims for 

Failed Tires 

Comment 15: Whether to Apply a 

‘‘Targeting’’ Analysis if the 

Department Changes Its Zeroing 

Position 

[FR Doc. 2012–5939 Filed 3–9–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE;P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–888] 

Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing 

Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On September 7, 2011, the 

U.S. Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of the 2009–2010 administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on floor-standing, metal-top ironing 

tables from the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC).1 On January 10, 2012, we 

extended the final results of this 

administrative review by 60 days.2 This 

review covers one exporter, Foshan 

Shunde Yongjian Housewares & 

Hardwares Co., Ltd. (Foshan Shunde). 

The period of review (POR) is August 1, 

2009, through July 31, 2010. We invited 

interested parties to comment on the 

Preliminary Results. 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

changes in the margin calculations. 

Therefore, the Final Results differ from 

the Preliminary Results. The weighted 

average dumping margins are listed 

below in the section entitled ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 12, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4475 or (202) 482– 

0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 7, 2011, the 

Department published the preliminary 

results of this administrative review. 

See Preliminary Results. The 

merchandise covered by the order is 

floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables 

and certain parts thereof from the PRC, 

as described in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’ 

section of this notice. The period of 

review (POR) is August 1, 2009, through 

July 31, 2010. This administrative 

review covers Foshan Shunde. 

In the Preliminary Results, we invited 

parties to comment. October 7, 2011, the 

Department received a timely case brief 

from Foshan Shunde. On October 12, 

2011, Home Products International (the 

Petitioner in this case) submitted a 

rebuttal brief. 

Scope of the Order 

For purposes of the order, the product 

covered consists of floor-standing, 

metal-top ironing tables, assembled or 

unassembled, complete or incomplete, 

and certain parts thereof. The subject 

tables are designed and used principally 

for the hand ironing or pressing of 

garments or other articles of fabric. The 

subject tables have full-height leg 

assemblies that support the ironing 

surface at an appropriate (often 

adjustable) height above the floor. The 

subject tables are produced in a variety 

of leg finishes, such as painted, plated, 

or matte, and they are available with 

various features, including iron rests, 

linen racks, and others. The subject 

ironing tables may be sold with or 

without a pad and/or cover. All types 

and configurations of floor-standing, 

metal-top ironing tables are covered by 

this review. 

Furthermore, the order specifically 

covers imports of ironing tables, 

assembled or unassembled, complete or 

incomplete, and certain parts thereof. 

For purposes of the order, the term 

‘‘unassembled’’ ironing table means a 

product requiring the attachment of the 

leg assembly to the top or the 

attachment of an included feature such 

as an iron rest or linen rack. The term 

‘‘complete’’ ironing table means product 

sold as a ready-to-use ensemble 

consisting of the metal-top table and a 

pad and cover, with or without 

additional features, e.g., iron rest or 

linen rack. The term ‘‘incomplete’’ 

ironing table means product shipped or 

sold as a ‘‘bare board’’—i.e., a metal-top 

table only, without the pad and cover— 

with or without additional features, e.g. 

iron rest or linen rack. The major parts 

or components of ironing tables that are 

intended to be covered by the order 

under the term ‘‘certain parts thereof’’ 

consist of the metal top component 

(with or without assembled supports 

and slides) and/or the leg components, 

whether or not attached together as a leg 

assembly. The order covers separately 

shipped metal top components and leg 

components, without regard to whether 

the respective quantities would yield an 

exact quantity of assembled ironing 

tables. 

Ironing tables without legs (such as 

models that mount on walls or over 

doors) are not floor-standing and are 

specifically excluded. Additionally, 

tabletop or countertop models with 

short legs that do not exceed 12 inches 

in length (and which may or may not 

collapse or retract) are specifically 

excluded. 

The subject ironing tables were 

previously classified under Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) subheading 9403.20.0010. 

Effective July 1, 2003, the subject 

ironing tables are classified under new 

HTSUS subheading 9403.20.0011. The 

subject metal top and leg components 

are classified under HTSUS subheading 

9403.90.8040. Although the HTSUS 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES