9278 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2008 / Notices 

1See Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road 

Tires From the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 

43591 (August 6, 2007) (‘‘Notice of Initiation’’). 

2See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice 

and Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigations involving Non-market 

Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (Policy Bulletin 

05.1), available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/ 

bull05-1.pdf. 

3Aeolus Tyre Co., Ltd (‘‘Aeolus’’), Double Coin 

Holding Ltd. (‘‘Double Coin’’), Double Happiness 

Tyre Industries Corp., Ltd. (‘‘Double Happiness’’), 

Full-World International Trading Co., Ltd. (‘‘FullWorld’’), GITI Tire (China) Investment Company 

Ltd. (‘‘GITI’’), Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd. (‘‘Guizhou 

Tyre’’), Hebei Starbright Co., Ltd. (‘‘Starbright’’), 

Jiangsu Feichi Co., Ltd. (‘‘Feichi’’), KS Holding 

Company Limited (‘‘KS Holding’’), Laizhou 

Xiongying Rubber Industry Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xiongying’’), 

Oriental Tyre Technology Limited (‘‘Oriental’’), 

Qingdao Etyre International Trade Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Etyre’’), Qingdao Hengda Tyres Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Hengda’’), Qingdao Milestone Tyre Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Milestone’’), Qingdao Qihang Tyre Co., Ltd. 

gas–fired power generation turbine 

components (combustor baskets and 

transition pieces; up to 1,800 total units 

annually) at the MPSA plant (306 

employees/15 acres/80,000 sq.ft. of 

production area) in Orlando, Florida 

(Board Order 1234, 67 FR 45456, 7–9–

2002). The applicant currently requests 

that the scope of FTZ manufacturing 

authority be extended to include an 

additional 81,500 square feet of 

production area to accommodate 

additional production capacity (new 

total would be 161,500 sq.ft.), which 

will be added with a new facility within 

the existing boundaries of Subzone 42A. 

The new capacity would be used to 

manufacture and repair additional 

steam and gas turbine components. 

MPSA’s existing FTZ authority for the 

manufacture of combustor baskets and 

transition pieces would remain 

unchanged. 

Under the proposal, MPSA would 

manufacture stainless steel steam 

turbine blades and vanes (up to 2,200 

total units per year) for the U.S. market 

and export. Activity would involve 

receiving foreign–origin semi–finished 

forgings (classified under HTSUS 

8406.81, 8406.90) that would be 

machined, finished, and coated to 

produce finished steam turbine blades 

and vanes. Some 70 percent of the 

finished blades and vanes will be 

exported. 

Expanded FTZ procedures would 

continue to exempt MPSA from customs 

duty payments on the foreign–origin 

inputs used in production for export. 

On domestic shipments, the company 

would be able to defer duty payments 

on the foreign inputs until they would 

be entered for U.S. consumption. FTZ 

procedures may also result in increased 

logistical/supply chain efficiencies for 

MPSA’s distribution operations. 

Public comment is invited from 

interested parties. Submissions (original 

and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the 

Board’s Executive Secretary at the 

following address: Office of the 

Executive Secretary, Room 2111, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, NW,Washington, 

DC 20230–0002. The closing period for 

receipt of comments is April 21, 2008. 

Rebuttal comments in response to 

material submitted during the foregoing 

period may be submitted during the 

subsequent 15-day period to May 5, 

2008. 

A copy of the application will be 

available for public inspection at each of 

the following locations: U.S. 

Department of Commerce Export 

Assistance Center, Suite 100, 315 East 

Robinson Street, Orlando, FL 32801; 

and, at the Office of the Foreign–Trade 

Zones Board’s Executive Secretary at the 

address listed above. For further 

information, contact Pierre Duy, 

examiner, at: pierrelduy@ita.doc.gov, 

or (202) 482–1378. 

Dated: February 6, 2008. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–3152 Filed 2–19–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–912] 

Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road 

Tires From the People’s Republic of 

China; Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 20, 2008. 

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine 

that certain new pneumatic off-the-road 

tires (‘‘OTR tires’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) are being, or 

are likely to be, sold in the United States 

at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as 

provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The 

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 

shown in the ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’ section of this notice. 

Pursuant to requests from interested 

parties, we are postponing the final 

determination and extending the 

provisional measures from a four-month 

period to not more than six months. 

Accordingly, we will make our final 

determination not later than 135 days 

after publication of the preliminary 

determination. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurel LaCivita or Charles Riggle, 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) 482–4243 or 482–0650, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

On June 18, 2007, Titan Tire 

Corporation, a subsidiary of Titan 

International, Inc. (‘‘Titan’’), and the 

United Steel, Paper and Forestry, 

Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied 

Industrial and Service Workers 

International Union, AFL–CIO–CLC 

(‘‘USW’’) (collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’), 

filed a petition in proper form on behalf 

of the domestic industry and workers 

producing OTR tires, concerning 

imports of OTR tires from the PRC 

(‘‘Petition’’). 

The Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated this investigation 

on July 30, 2007.1 In the Notice of 

Initiation, the Department applied a 

process by which exporters and 

producers may obtain separate-rates in 

non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

investigations. The process requires 

exporters and producers to submit a 

separate-rate status application 

(‘‘SRA’’).2 However, the standard for 

eligibility for a separate rate (which is 

whether a firm can demonstrate an 

absence of both de jure and de facto 

government control over its export 

activities) has not changed. The SRA for 

this investigation was posted on the 

Department’s Web site http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-andnews.html on August 10, 2007. The due 

date for filing an SRA was September 

28, 2007. 

On July 30, 2007, the Department 

issued quantity and value (‘‘Q&V’’) 

questionnaires to 94 companies. In 

addition, on July 30, 2007, the 

Department requested the assistance of 

the Government of the PRC (through the 

Ministry of Commerce) in transmitting 

the Department’s Q&V questionnaire to 

all companies that manufacture and 

export subject merchandise to the 

Untied States, as well as to 

manufacturers that produce the subject 

merchandise for companies that were 

engaged in exporting subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’). 

From August 8 to August 20, 2007, 30 

exporters of the subject merchandise 

filed timely responses to the 

Department’s Q&V questionnaire.3 One 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2008 / Notices 9279 

(‘‘Qihang’’), Qingdao Qizhou Rubber Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Qizhou’’), Qingdao Sinorient International Ltd. 

(‘‘Sinorent’’), Rodeo International Trading Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Rodeo’’), Shandong Huitong Tyre Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Huitong’’), Shandong Jinyu Tyre Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Jinyu’’) Shandong Taishan Tyre Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Taishan’’), Shandong Wanda Boto Tyre Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Wanda Boto’’), Shandong Xingyuan International 

Trading Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xingyuan’’), Shifeng DoubleStar Tire Co., Ltd. (‘‘Double-Star’’), Techking Tires 

Limited (Techking Enterprise (H.K.) Co., Ltd.) 

(‘‘Techking’’), Tianjin United Tire & Rubber 

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

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Triangle Tyre’’), Wendeng City Sanfeng 

Tyre Co., Ltd. (‘‘Sanfeng’’), Xuzhou Xugong Tyre 

Company Limited (‘‘Xugong’’) and Zhaoyuan Leo 

Rubber Co., Ltd. (‘‘Leo’’). 

4See Investigation Nos. 701–TA–448 and 731–

TA–1117 (Preliminary): Certain Off-the-Road Tires 

From China, 72 FR 50699 (September 4, 2007). 

5Aeolus, Double Coin, Double Happiness, FullWorld, Guizhou Tyre, Starbright, Feichi, KS 

Holding, Xiongying, Oriental, Etyre, Hengda, 

Milestone, Qihang, Qizhou, Sinorent, Huitong, 

Jinyu, Taishan, Wanda Boto, Xingyuan, DoubleStar, Techking, TUTRIC, Triangle Tyre, Sanfeng, 

Xugong, and Leo. 

6See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Selection of 

Respondents for the Antidumping Investigation of 

Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from 

the People’s Republic of China’’ (October 1, 2007) 

(‘‘Respondent Selection Memorandum’’). See also 

‘‘Selection of Respondents’’ section below. 

7See Memorandum to Ron Lorentzen, Director, 

Office of Policy, ‘‘Less-Than-Fair-Value 

Investigation of Certain New Pneumatic Off-TheRoad Tires (‘OTR tires’) from the People’s Republic 

of China (‘PRC’), Surrogate Country Selection List,’’

(October 25, 2007). 

8See Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Director, 

Office of Policy, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation 

of Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires 

(‘OTR tires’) from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘PRC’): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries,’’

(October 26, 2007) (‘‘Office of Policy Surrogate 

Countries Memorandum’’). 

of these companies, GITI, reported that 

it made no sales to the United States 

during the POI. The Government of the 

PRC did not respond to the 

Department’s letter requesting 

assistance in transmitting the Q&V 

questionnaire to procedures and 

exporters of the subject merchandise in 

the PRC. 

On August 20, 2007, Petitioners; 

Valmont Industries, Inc. (‘‘Valmont’’), 

Carlisle Tire & Wheel (‘‘Carlisle’’), 

Bridgestone Holding, Inc. and its 

subsidiary, Bridgestone Firestone North 

American Tire, LLC (‘‘Bridgestone’’), 

and Agri-Fab, Inc. (‘‘Agri-Fab’’) 

(collectively ‘‘domestic interested 

parties’’); and Guizhou Tyre submitted 

comments on the scope of the 

investigation. In addition, Aeolus 

requested to be a mandatory respondent 

in this investigation. Alternatively, 

Aeolus requested that if it were not 

selected as a mandatory respondent, 

that it be accepted as a voluntary 

respondent pursuant to section 782(a) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.204(d). On 

August 27, 2007, Petitioners, 

Bridgestone, and Guizhou Tyre filed 

scope rebuttal comments. In addition, 

the Department returned Qingdao 

Aonuo Tyre Co. Ltd.’s (‘‘Aonuo’s’’) 

August 8, 2007, Q&V submission 

because Aonuo did not submit the final 

proprietary and public versions the 

following business day as required by 

the Department’s regulations. See 19 

CFR 351.303(c)(2). 

On August 27, 2007, the United States 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

issued its affirmative preliminary 

determination that there is a reasonable 

indication that an industry in the 

United States is materially injured by 

reason of imports of OTR tires from the 

PRC. 4 Additionally, on August 31, 

2007, the Department provided 

interested parties to this proceeding the 

opportunity to comment on the 

Department’s proposed product 

characteristic reporting criteria and 

matching hierarchy. 

On September 4, 2007, Aonuo 

attempted to file its Q&V information for 

the second time. On September 5, 2007, 

the Department returned the August 27, 

2007, Q&V submission of Landmax 

International Co., Ltd. because it was 

not timely filed. In addition, per the 

Department’s instructions, Starbright 

and TUTRIC filed amended Q&V 

responses, disaggregating their Q&V 

information, but continuing to argue 

that they should be treated as a single 

entity for the purposes of this 

investigation. On September 10, 2007, 

the Department returned Aonuo’s 

September 4, 2007, Q&V submission 

because it was not timely filed. On 

September 14, 2007, Petitioners, 

Bridgestone, Guizhou Tyre, GPX 

International Tire Corporation (‘‘GPX’’), 

a U.S. Importer of subject merchandise, 

Starbright and TUTRIC filed comments 

on the proposed product characteristics 

criteria. In addition, Petitioners and 

Guizhou Tyre filed rebuttal comments 

on the scope of the investigation. On 

September 17, 2007, GPX provided 

comments on the affiliation and 

collapsing of Starbright and TUTRIC. 

On September 21, 2007, GPX requested 

that the Department select Starbright 

and TUTRIC as mandatory respondents. 

Bridgestone also provided comments on 

respondent selection. From September 

24 through 27, 2007, Petitioners, 

Bridgestone, Guizhou Tyre, GPX, 

Starbright ad TUTRIC filed rebuttal 

comments concerning product 

characteristics. 

From September 25 to 28, 2007, 28 

producers and/or exporters of OTR tires 

from the PRC5 filed timely SRAs. 

On October 1, 2007, the Department 

issued its respondent selection 

memorandum, selecting Guizhou Tyre, 

Starbright, TUTRIC and Xugong as 

mandatory respondents in this 

investigation. 6 On October 2, 2007, the 

Department issued an antidumping duty 

questionnaire to the four above-named 

mandatory respondents. On October 3, 

2007, Aeolus withdrew its August 20, 

2007, request to be a voluntary 

respondent in this investigation. On 

October 5, 2007, Double Happiness 

amended its SRA. 

On October 9, 2007, Petitioners filed 

comments on Guizhou Tyre’s SRA and 

a document containing supplementary 

information entitled ‘‘First Submission 

of Facts for the Record.’’ On October 11, 

2007, Petitioners and Bridgestone filed 

comments on the SRAs of the 

mandatory respondents and the other 

separate-rate applicants. In addition, on 

that date, Xiongying waived its rights to 

future service of all public and 

proprietary submissions in this 

investigation, with the exception of case 

briefs and rebuttal briefs. On October 

12, 2007, the Government of the PRC 

(‘‘GOC’’) entered an appearance in this 

investigation. On October 15, 2007, 

Petitioners filed comments on TUTRIC’s 

SRA. 

On October 25, 2007, the Department 

requested that the Office of Policy 

provide a list of surrogate countries for 

this investigation.7 On October 26, 2007, 

the Office of Policy issued its list of 

surrogate countries 8 and Guizhou Tyre, 

Starbright, TUTRIC and Xugong 

submitted section A responses (‘‘AQR’’). 

Additionally, on October 26, 2007, the 

Department issued letters requesting 

comments on the appropriate surrogate 

country to use in this investigation and 

for publicly available information to 

value factors of production (‘‘FOP’’). 

On November 5, 2007, Petitioners 

submitted comments objecting to the 

consolidated response filed by 

Starbright and TUTRIC. On November 6, 

2007, Petitioners and Bridgestone 

separately filed comments on Guizhou 

Tyre’s SRA and Bridgestone filed 

comments on Xugong’s SRA. On 

November 8 and 9, 2007, Petitioners 

filed comments on Xugong’s and 

TUTRIC’s AQR respectively. 

On November 9, 2007, Petitioners, 

Bridgestone, Starbright and TUTRIC 

filed comments on the selection of a 

surrogate country. Petitioners and 

Bridgestone specified India as the most 

appropriate surrogate country, whereas 

Starbright and TUTRIC identified Sri 

Lanka as the most appropriate surrogate 

country. 

On November 13 and 14, 2007, 

Bridgestone provided comments on the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
9280 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2008 / Notices 

9See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires 

From the People’s Republic of China: Postponement 

of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation, 72 FR 72988 (December 26, 2007). 

10See Memorandum from Charles Riggle, 

Program Manager, to the File ‘‘Less-than-Fair-Value 

Investigation of Certain New Pneumatic Off-theRoad Tires (‘‘OTR tires’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’): Telephone Call with 

Counsel for Hebei Starbright Tire Co. (‘‘Starbright’’), 

and Tianjin United Tire & Rubber International Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘TUTRIC’’) Regarding Supplemental 

Questionnaire Responses’’ (January 17, 2008). 

11See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the 

People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 60632 (October 

25, 2007) (‘‘CFS’’), and accompanying Issue and 

Decision Memorandum (‘‘I&D Memo’’) at Comment 

1. 

12See OOC submission of January 28, 2008, at 

pages 9–12. 

13See CFS, I&D Memo at Comment 1. 

combined AQR for Starbright and 

TUTRIC. Petitioners provided 

comments on Starbright’s and TUTRIC’s 

combined AQR on November 13, 2007. 

On November 15, 2007, Petitioners 

requested that the Department extend 

the deadline for the preliminary 

determination by 50 days until February 

5, 2008. In that same letter, Petitioners 

also requested that the Department 

similarly extend the deadline for filing 

critical circumstances and targeted 

dumping allegations. 

On November 19, 2007, Petitioners 

and Bridgestone filed rebuttal comments 

on Starbright’s and TUTRIC’s surrogatecountry-selection submission. Guizhou 

filed its sections C and D responses 

(‘‘CQR’’ and ‘‘DQR,’’ respectively) on 

November 21, 2007. Starbright, TUTRIC 

and Xugong also filed their CQRs and 

DQRs on November 23, 2007. 

On November 30, 2007, as instructed 

by the Department, Starbright submitted 

a revised section C database containing 

only Starbright’s constructed export 

price (‘‘CEP’’) sales to the United States. 

In addition, Starbright explained why 

the narrative section C response 

originally submitted on behalf of both 

Starbright and TUTRIC is equally valid 

and complete for Starbright alone, 

without further explanation, allocations 

or exhibits. On December 10, 2007, 

Guizhou Tyre amended its surrogate 

value information. 

On December 13, 2007, Petitioners 

requested that the Department direct 

Starbright and TUTRIC to submit the 

business-proprietary versions of the 

responses concerning affiliation filed in 

the companion countervailing duty 

(‘‘CVD’’) investigation of OTR tires. On 

December 17, 2007, Petitioners, 

Bridgestone, Starbright and TUTRIC 

filed rebuttal comments on the surrogate 

value submissions. 

The Department issued a 

supplemental questionnaire covering 

Xugong’s AQR, CQR and DQR on 

December 18, 2007. The next day, 

Bridgestone filed an explanation of the 

methodology that it used to prepare 

Exhibit 2 of its December 4, 2007, 

comments on the Section C and D 

responses of Guizhou Tyre, Starbright 

and TUTRIC. 

On December 26, 2007, the 

Department postponed the deadline for 

the preliminary determination for 50 

days until February 5, 2008.9

On January 4, 2008, Guizhou Tyre 

submitted certain information contained 

in its SRA response and AQR on the 

public record of this investigation. On 

January 9, 2008, Xugong filed its first 

supplemental questionnaire response 

(‘‘SQR’’). 

On January 10, 2008, Starbright and 

TUTRIC filed factual information and 

legal analysis in support of their 

affiliation claims. Additionally, on 

January 10 and 11, 2008, the 

Department issued supplemental 

questionnaires to certain SRA 

applicants. 

On January 14, 2008, Guizhou Tyre 

and TUTRIC filed their respective SQRs. 

The Department issued a second 

supplemental questionnaire to Xugong 

on January 15, 2008. On January 16, 

2008, TUTRIC requested an extension of 

the deadline for filing a corrected 

version of its January 14, 2008, 

submission, and Starbright filed its 

SQR. The Department granted TUTRIC’s 

extension request on the same day. 

However, on January 17, 2008, the 

Department also rejected Exhibit 1 of 

Starbright’s January 16, 2008, SQR 

(which had been submitted pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.303(c)(2)) and Exhibit 1 of 

TUTRIC’s January 14, 2008, SQR, 

granting each company a one-day 

extension to file a revised version of 

Exhibit 1 which conformed to the 

request for information in the 

Department’s December 21, 2007, 

supplemental questionnaire. The 

Department explained that Starbright 

and TUTRIC could include any 

additional information from Exhibit 1 

that they deemed directly relevant to the 

issue of affiliation.10

On January 17, 2008, Starbright 

submitted its SQR, and the Department 

issued a third supplemental 

questionnaire to Xugong. On January 18, 

2008, Starbright and TUTRIC filed a 

second copy of their January 10, 2008, 

affiliation comments, which contained 

the pages that Starbright and TUTRIC 

requested that the Department insert in 

their January 11, 2008, letter. In 

addition, Starbright and TUTRIC each 

submitted revised copies of Exhibit 1 of 

their respective SQRs in accordance 

with the instructions in the 

Department’s January 17, 2008, 

memorandum to the file. 

On January 18, 2008, Xugong notified 

the Department by phone that it had 

inadvertently served Petitioners with all 

the copies of its SQR that were due to 

the Department that day, and requested 

an extension of the deadline to file its 

SQR for the SRA. The Department 

agreed and instructed Xugong to file a 

letter explaining this and requesting the 

extension on the next business day, 

which Xugong did. On January 23, 2008, 

Xugong submitted a second request for 

an extension along with a more detailed 

explanation of the January 18, 2008, 

filing error. At that time, Xugong also 

filed a corrected version of its section C 

database and corrected information 

provided in its SQR. In addition, 

Starbright and TUTRIC filed comments 

on Bridgestone’s targeted dumping 

allegation. 

On January 24, 2008, Full-World, 

Huitong, KS Holding, Qizhou, Triangle 

and Wanda Boto submitted timely 

responses to the Department’s 

supplemental SRA questionnaires. On 

January 25, 2008, Guizhou Tyre 

submitted its second supplemental 

response. On January 28, 2008, 

Techking, Hengda, Sinorient and Etyre 

responded to the Department’s 

supplemental SRA questionnaire. On 

January 28, 2008, (six days prior to the 

statutory deadline for issuing the 

preliminary LTFV determination) the 

GOC filed pre-preliminary 

determination comments arguing that 

the Department should adjust the U.S. 

prices calculated in the antidumping 

duty case for both export and domestic 

subsidies found to be countervailable in 

the companion CVD investigation. In 

that same submission, the GOC also 

requested that the Department revisit its 

determination from the AD proceeding 

on Chinese CFS 11 not to modify the 

existing NME AD methodology and 

made a general assertion that the 

Department should ‘‘reevaluate it {sic} 

current AD methodology as applied to 

China so that it fairly and accurately 

reflects the realities of the Chinese 

economy.’’12 However, the GOC did not 

ask that we formally reevaluate the 

PRC’s status as a non-market economy. 

Therefore, based on our decision in 

CFS,13 we have not reevaluated our AD 

methodologies with respect to this 

proceeding. 

On January 29, 2008, Guizhou Tyre 

filed its pre-preliminary determination 

comments. We received Guizhou Tyre’s 

January 29 comments too late to 

consider for the preliminary 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2008 / Notices 9281 

14See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 

15An agricultural tractor is a four-wheeled 

vehicle usually with large rear tires and small front 

tires that is used to tow farming equipment. 

16A combine harvester is used to harvest crops 

such as corn or wheat. 

17An agricultural sprayer is used to irrigate 

agricultural fields. 

18An industrial tractor is a four-wheeled vehicle 

usually with large rear tires and small front tires 

that is used to tow industrial equipment. 

19A 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. 

20A skid-steer loader is a four-wheel drive 

vehicle 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. 

21A haul truck, which may be either rigid frame 

or articulated (i.e., able to bend in the middle) is 

typically used in mines, quarries and construction 

sites to haul soil, aggregate, mined ore, or debris. 

22A front loader has lift arms in front of the 

vehicle. It can scrape material from one location to 

another, carry material in its bucket or load material 

into a truck or trailer. 

23A 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. 

24A 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. 

25A grader is a vehicle with a large blade used 

to create a flat surface. Graders are typically used 

to perform ‘‘finish grading.’’ Graders are commonly 

used in maintenance of unpaved roads and road 

construction to prepare the base course onto which 

asphalt or other paving material will be laid. 

26A counterbalanced lift truck is a rigid frame, 

engine-powered machine with lift arms that has 

additional weight incorporated into the back of the 

machine to offset or counterbalance the weight of 

loads that it lifts so as to prevent the vehicle from 

overturning. An example of a counterbalanced lift 

truck is a counterbalanced fork lift truck. 

Counterbalanced lift trucks may be designed for use 

on smooth floor surfaces, such as a factory or 

warehouse, or other surfaces, such as construction 

sites, mines, etc. 

determination, but will consider them 

for the final determination. 

Targeted Dumping Allegation 

On January 2, 2008, Bridgestone filed 

an allegation of targeted dumping based 

on a pattern of export prices for 

comparable merchandise that differ 

among regions for Guizhou Tyre, 

Starbright and TUTRIC, and an 

allegation of targeted dumping based on 

a pattern of export prices for comparable 

merchandise that differ among 

customers for Guizhou Tyre, Starbright, 

TUTRIC and Xugong. In addition, 

Bridgestone filed allegations of targeted 

dumping based on a pattern of export 

prices for comparable merchandise that 

differ significantly among customers 

and regions for Starbright—TUTRIC 

combined. On January 3, 2008, 

Petitioners filed a letter supporting 

Bridgestone’s allegation of targeted 

dumping. On January 9, 2008, Xugong 

submitted comments on Bridgestone’s 

targeted dumping allegation. On January 

10, 2008, Bridgestone amended its 

January 2, 2008, targeted dumping 

allegation to include two computer files 

that were omitted from its initial 

allegation. 

On January 10, 2008, Xugong 

submitted comments regarding the 

targeted dumping allegation. On January 

22, 2008, the Department requested that 

Bridgestone revise its targeted dumping 

allegation to include customer-specific 

targeted dumping allegations and to 

revise its methodology for calculating 

the ‘‘mean’’ prices for alleged ‘‘targeted 

and ‘‘non-targeted’’ sales, and to 

eliminate the bracketing of any words 

that effectively constitute the statutory 

requirements of the allegations, or the 

methodology used to make the 

allegations. On January 23, 2008, 

Starbright and TUTRIC provided 

comments on Bridgestone’s targeted 

dumping allegations. Bridgestone filed a 

supplement to its targeted dumping 

allegation on January 25, 2008. 

Given the timing of the allegation, the 

respondent parties’ comments thereon, 

as well as the extensive nature of these 

comments, the Department was unable 

to address the targeted dumping 

allegation for this preliminary 

determination. We intend to issue a 

preliminary finding regarding these 

allegations after the preliminary LTFV 

determination, but within sufficient 

time to allow all parties time to 

comment for the final LTFV 

determination. 

Postponement of Final Determination 

Section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act 

provides that a final determination may 

be postponed until not later than 135 

days after the date of the publication of 

the preliminary determination if, in the 

event of an affirmative preliminary 

determination, a request for such 

postponement is made by exporters who 

account for a significant proportion of 

exports of the subject merchandise. 

Section 351.210(e)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations requires that 

exporters requesting postponement of 

the final determination must also 

request an extension of the provisional 

measures referred to in section 733( d) 

of the Act from a four-month period 

until not more than six months. We 

received requests to postpone the final 

determination from Petitioners and 

Xugong on January 23, 2008, from 

Starbright and TUTRIC on January 28, 

2008, and from Bridgestone on January 

29, 2008. In addition, Xugong, 

Starbright and TUTRIC consented to the 

extension of provisional measures from 

a four-month period to not longer than 

six months. Because this preliminary 

determination is affirmative, the 

requests for postponement were made 

by exporters who account for a 

significant proportion of exports of the 

subject merchandise, and there is no 

compelling reason to deny the 

respondents’ requests, we have 

extended the deadline for issuance of 

the final determination until the 135th 

day after the date of publication of this 

preliminary determination in the 

Federal Register and have extended 

provisional measures to not longer than 

six months. 

Period of Investigation 

The POI is October 1, 2006, through 

March 31, 2007. This period 

corresponds to the two most recent 

fiscal quarters prior to the month of the 

filing of the petition, which was June 

2007.14

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by the scope of 

the investigation are new pneumatic 

tires designed for off-the-road and offhighway use, subject to exceptions 

identified below. Certain OTR tires are 

generally designed, manufactured and 

offered for sale for use on off-road or offhighway 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,15 combine harvesters,16

agricultural high clearance sprayers,17

industrial tractors,18 log-skidders,19

agricultural implements, highwaytowed implements, agricultural logging, 

and agricultural, industrial, skid-steers/ 

mini-loaders; 20 (2) construction 

vehicles and equipment, including 

earthmover articulated dump products, 

rigid frame haul trucks,21 front end 

loaders,22 dozers,23 lift trucks, straddle 

carriers,24 graders,25 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-theroad counterbalanced lift trucks.26 The 

foregoing list of vehicles and equipment 

generally have in common that they are 

used for hauling, towing, lifting, and/or 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
9282 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2008 / Notices 

27See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 

28 See Notice of Initiation, 72 FR at 43592. 

loading a wide variety of equipment and 

materials in agricultural, construction 

and industrial settings. The foregoing 

descriptions are illustrative of the types 

of vehicles and equipment that use 

certain OTR tires, but are not 

necessarily all-inclusive. While the 

physical characteristics of certain OTR 

tires will vary depending on the specific 

applications and conditions for which 

the tires are designed (e.g., tread pattern 

and depth), all of the tires within the 

scope have in common that they are 

designed for off-road and off-highway 

use. Except as discussed below, OTR 

tires included in the scope of the 

petitions range in size (rim diameter) 

generally but not exclusively from 8 

inches to 54 inches. The tires may be 

either tube-type or tubeless, radial or 

non-radial, and intended for sale either 

to original equipment manufacturers or 

the replacement market. The subject 

merchandise is currently classifiable 

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States (’’HTSUS’’) 

subheadings: 4011.20.10.25, 

4011.20.10.35, 4011.20.50.30, 

4011.20.50.50, 4011.61.00.00, 

4011.62.00.00, 4011.63.00.00, 

4011.69.00.00, 4011.92.00.00, 

4011.93.40.00, 4011.93.80.00, 

4011.94.40.00, and 4011.94.80.00. While 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope is 

dispositive. 

Specifically excluded from the scope 

are new pneumatic tires designed, 

manufactured and offered for sale 

primarily for on-highway or on-road 

use, including passenger cars, race cars, 

station wagons, sport utility vehicles, 

minivans, mobile homes, motorcycles, 

bicycles, on-road or on-highway trailers, 

light trucks, and trucks and buses. Such 

tires generally have in common that the 

symbol ‘‘DOT’’ must appear on the 

sidewall, certifying that the tire 

conforms to applicable motor vehicle 

safety standards. Such excluded tires 

may also have the following 

designations that are used by the Tire 

and Rim Association: 

Prefix letter designations: 

• P—Identifies a tire intended 

primarily for service on passenger cars; 

• LT—Identifies a tire intended 

primarily for service on light trucks; 

and, 

• ST—Identifies a special tire for 

trailers in highway service. 

Suffix letter designations: 

• TR—Identifies a tire for service on 

trucks, buses, and other vehicles with 

rims having specified rim diameter of 

nominal plus 0.156′′ or plus 0.250′′; 

• MH—Identifies a tire for Mobile 

Homes; 

• HC—Identifies a heavy duty tire 

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

rims used on trucks, buses, and other 

vehicles. This suffix is intended to 

differentiate among tires for light trucks, 

and other vehicles or other services, 

which use a similar designation. 

• Example: 8R17.5 LT, 8R17.5 HC; 

• LT—Identifies light truck tires for 

service on trucks, buses, trailers, and 

multipurpose passenger vehicles used 

in nominal highway service; and 

• MC—Identifies tires and rims for 

motorcycles. 

The following types of tires are also 

excluded from the scope: pneumatic 

tires that are not new, including 

recycled or retreaded tires and used 

tires; non-pneumatic tires, including 

solid rubber tires; tires of a kind used on 

aircraft, all-terrain vehicles, and 

vehicles for turf, lawn and garden, golf 

and trailer applications; and tires of a 

kind used for mining and construction 

vehicles and equipment that have a rim 

diameter equal to or exceeding 39 

inches. Such tires may be distinguished 

from other tires of similar size by the 

number of plies that the construction 

and mining tires contain (minimum of 

16) and the weight of such tires 

(minimum 1500 pounds). 

Scope Comments 

In accordance with the preamble to 

our regulations,27 in our initiation 

notice, we set aside a period of time for 

parties to raise issues regarding product 

coverage and encouraged all parties to 

submit comments within 14 calendar 

days of publication of the initiation 

notice.28

On August 20, 2007, Petitioners, 

several domestic interested parties, and 

Guizhou Tyre filed scope comments. 

Petitioners submitted comments arguing 

that the existing scope description, 

which focused on end-use applications, 

best described the subject goods and 

that no further HTSUS item-numbers 

should be added. Guizhou Tyre 

submitted comments proposing criteria 

for model matching. Bridgestone 

submitted comments requesting certain 

revisions and clarifications to the scope 

language. Carlisle requested 

confirmation that lawn and garden tires 

are excluded from the scope of the 

investigation. Valmont requested 

confirmation that mounted OTR tiresand-wheels are excluded from the scope 

of the investigation. On August 21, 

2007, Agri-Fab submitted comments in 

support of defining the scope based on 

the end-use application of the subject 

merchandise. 

On August 27, 2007, Petitioners, 

Guizhou Tyre and Bridgestone 

submitted rebuttal scope comments. 

Petitioners argued that the Department 

should reject Guizhou Tyre’s modelmatch criteria, and that the Department 

should adopt Bridgestone’s proposals 

for the revision and clarification of the 

scope language. They also endorsed the 

comments submitted by Carlisle, 

Valmont and Agri-Fab. Guizhou Tyre 

requested that the Department reject 

Petitioners’ interpretation of the scope 

language to cover agricultural tires with 

rim diameters of 72 inches and 

Petitioners’ claim that tires used for 

‘‘highway-towed implements’’ are 

within the scope of this investigation. 

Bridgestone argued that the Department 

should reject Guizhou Tyre’s modelmatch criteria and that the Department 

should confirm that tires are within the 

scope whether entered into the United 

States unmounted or mounted on rims. 

The Department will review all scope 

comments submitted in both the 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

investigations and will issue a 

preliminary scope subsequent to the 

issuance of the preliminary LTFV 

determination but in time to allow all 

parties to the proceedings an 

opportunity to comment for the final 

determinations. 

Selection of Respondents 

Section 777 A(c)(1) of the Act directs 

the Department to calculate individual 

weighted-average dumping margins for 

each known exporter and producer of 

the subject merchandise. Section 777 

A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department 

discretion, when faced with a large 

number of exporters/producers, to limit 

its examination to a reasonable number 

of such companies if it is not practicable 

to examine all companies. Where it is 

not practicable to examine all known 

producers/exporters of subject 

merchandise, this provision permits the 

Department to investigate either (1) a 

sample of exporters, producers, or types 

of products that is statistically valid 

based on the information available to 

the Department at the time of selection 

or (2) exporters/producers accounting 

for the largest volume of the 

merchandise under investigation that 

can reasonably be examined. After 

consideration of the complexities 

expected to arise in this proceeding and 

the resources available to it, the 

Department determined that it was not 

practicable in this investigation to 

examine all known producers/exporters 

of subject merchandise. We determined 

we had the resources to examine four 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2008 / Notices 9283 

29See Respondent Selection Memorandum. 

30See Notice of Initiation, 72 FR at 43593. 

31See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Artist Canvas from the 

People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 16116 (March 30, 

2006) (‘‘Artist Canvas’’). 

32See Office of Policy Surrogate Countries 

Memorandum. 

33 Id. at 2. 

34See Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel, 

‘‘Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from 

the People’s Republic of China: Surrogate Value 

Memorandum’’ (February 5, 2008) (‘‘Surrogate 

Value Memorandum’’). 

35See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Sixth New Shipper Review and Preliminary Results 

and Partial Rescission of Fourth Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 69 FR 10410, 10413 (March 

5, 2004), unchanged in Final Results and Final 

Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms From the People’s Republic of China, 

70 FR 54361 (September 14, 2005). 

36See Memorandum to the File ‘‘Antidumping 

Duty Investigation on New Pneumatic Off-the-Road 

Tires from the People’s Republic of China: 

Affiliation and Collapsing of Hebei Starbright Tire 

Co. Ltd. and Tianjin United Tire & Rubber 

International Co. Ltd.’’ (February 5, 2008). 

37See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Antidumping 

Investigation of Certain New Pneumatic Off-TheRoad Tires (‘‘OTR tires’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’): Affiliation and 

Collapsing of Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd., Guizhou 

Advance Rubber Co., Ltd., and Guizhou Tyre 

Import and Export Co.,’’ (February 5, 2008). 

exporters. We further determined to 

limit our examination to the four 

exporters accounting for the largest 

volume of the subject merchandise 

pursuant to section 777 A(c)(2)(B) of the 

Act. Our analysis indicates that Guizhou 

Tyre, Xugong, TUTRIC and Starbright 

are the four largest PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise by weight, and 

account for a significant percentage of 

all exports of the subject merchandise 

from the PRC during the POI. As a 

result, we selected the above entities as 

the mandatory respondents in this 

investigation.29

Non-Market Economy Country 

For purposes of initiation, Petitioners 

submitted an LTFV analysis for the PRC 

as an NME.30 In every case conducted 

by the Department involving the PRC, 

the PRC has been treated as an NME 

country. In accordance with section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any 

determination that a foreign country is 

an NME country shall remain in effect 

until revoked by the administering 

authority.31 Therefore, we have treated 

the PRC as an NME country for 

purposes of this preliminary 

determination. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is investigating 

imports from an NME country or 

producer, section 773(c)(1) of the Act 

directs it to base normal value (‘‘NV’’), 

in most circumstances, on the NME 

producer’s FOPs valued in a surrogate 

market-economy country or countries 

considered to be appropriate by the 

Department. In accordance with section 

773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the 

FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to 

the extent possible, the prices or costs 

of FOPs in one or more market-economy 

countries that are at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

NME country and are significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

The sources of the surrogate values we 

have used in this investigation are 

discussed under the ‘‘Normal Value’’

section below. 

The Department determined that 

India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the 

Philippines, and Egypt are countries 

comparable to the PRC in terms of 

economic development.32 Once the 

countries that are economically 

comparable to the PRC have been 

identified, we select an appropriate 

surrogate country by determining 

whether an economically comparable 

country is a significant producer of 

comparable merchandise and whether 

the data for valuing FOPs is both 

available and reliable. 

We have determined that there is 

insufficient data from Sri Lanka and 

have determined it appropriate to use 

India as a surrogate country pursuant to 

section 773(c)(4) of the Act based on the 

following: (A) India is at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the PRC, and (B) India is a 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise. Furthermore, we have 

reliable data from India that we can use 

to value the FOPs.33 Thus, we have 

calculated NV using Indian prices when 

available and appropriate to value the 

FOPs of the OTR tires producers. We 

have obtained and relied upon publicly 

available information wherever 

possible.34

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final 

determination in an antidumping 

investigation, interested parties may 

submit within 40 days after the date of 

publication of the preliminary 

determination publicly available 

information to value the FOPs. 

Affiliation 

Section 771(33) of the Act states that 

the Department considers the following 

entities to be affiliated: (A) Members of 

a family, including brothers and sisters 

(whether by whole or half blood), 

spouse, ancestors, and lineal 

descendants; (B) Any officer or director 

of an organization and such 

organization; (C) Partners; (D) Employer 

and employee; (E) Any person directly 

or indirectly owning, controlling, or 

holding with power to vote, five percent 

or more of the outstanding voting stock 

or shares of any organization and such 

organization; (F) Two or more persons 

directly or indirectly controlling, 

controlled by, or under common control 

with, any person; and (G) Any person 

who controls any other person and such 

other person. 

For purposes of affiliation, section 

771(33) of the Act states that a person 

shall be considered to control another 

person if the person is legally or 

operationally in a position to exercise 

restraint or direction over the other 

person. In order to find affiliation 

between companies, the Department 

must find that at least one of the criteria 

listed above is applicable to the 

respondents. 

To the extent that the affiliation 

provisions in section 771(33) of the Act 

do not conflict with the Department’s 

application of separate rates and the 

statutory NME provisions in section 

773(c) of the Act, the Department will 

determine that exporters and/or 

producers are affiliated if the facts of the 

case support such a finding.35

Starbright and TUTRIC 

Based on our examination of the 

evidence presented in Starbright, 

TUTRIC and GPX’s submissions, we 

preliminarily determine that GPX and 

TUTRIC do not have a close supplier 

relationship such that one party is 

reliant upon the other and thus 

preliminarily determine they are not 

affiliated parties within the meaning of 

section 771(33) of the Act.36 Therefore, 

these companies will not be treated as 

a single entity for the purposes of this 

preliminary determination. 

Guizhou Tyre 

We preliminarily determine that 

Guizhou Tyre, Guizhou Advance 

Rubber Co., Ltd. (‘‘GAR’’) and Guizhou 

Tyre Import and Export Co. (‘‘GTCIE’’) 

are affiliated pursuant to sections 

771(33)(B), (E), (F) and (G) of the Act, 

and that these companies should be 

treated as a single entity for the 

purposes of this investigation pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.401(f). Based on our 

examination of the evidence presented 

in Guizhou Tyre’s questionnaire 

responses, we have determined that: (1) 

Guizhou Tyre wholly owns both GAR 

and GTCIE; (2) Guizhou Tyre and GAR 

are affiliated producers of identical or 

similar merchandise; and (3) the 

potential for manipulation of price or 

production exists with respect to 

Guizhou Tyre, GAR and GTCIE.37


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
9284 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2008 / Notices 

38See also Policy Bulletin 05.1, which states: 

‘‘[w]hile continuing the practice of assigning 

separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates 

that the Department will now assign in its NME 

investigations will be specific to those producers 

that supplied the exporter during the period of 

investigation. Note, however, that one rate is 

calculated for the exporter and all of the producers 

which supplied subject merchandise to it during 

the period of investigation. This practice applies 

both to mandatory respondents receiving an 

individually calculated separate rate as well as the 

pool of non-investigated firms receiving the 

weighted-average of the individually calculated 

rates. This practice is referred to as the application 

of ‘‘combination rates’’ because such rates apply to 

specific combinations of exporters and one or more 

producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an 

exporter will apply only to merchandise both 

exported by the firm in question and produced by 

a firm that supplied the exporter during the period 

of investigation.’’ See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6. 

39All separate-rate applicants receiving a separate 

rate are hereby referred to collectively as the ‘‘SR 

Recipients;’’ this includes the mandatory 

respondents. 

40See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate 

from the People’s Republic of China, 64 FR 71104–

05 (December 20, 1999) (where the respondent was 

wholly foreign-owned and, thus, qualified for a 

separate rate). 41See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People’s 

Republic of China, 61 FR 19026, 19027 (April 30, 

1996), citing Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Disposable Pocket Lighters from 

the People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 22359, 22361 

(May 5,1995). 42See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 

43See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586–87; see 

also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 

(May 8, 1995). 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department has a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and thus 

should be assessed a single antidumping 

duty rate. It is the Department’s policy 

to assign all exporters of merchandise 

subject to 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. Exporters can 

demonstrate this independence through 

the absence of both de jure and de facto 

governmental control over export 

activities. The Department analyzes 

each entity exporting the subject 

merchandise under a test arising from 

the Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 

People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 

(May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as further 

developed in the Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon 

Carbide from the People’s Republic of 

China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) 

(‘‘Silicon Carbide’’).38 However, if the 

Department determines that a company 

is wholly foreign-owned or located in a 

market economy, then a separate-rate 

analysis is not necessary to determine 

whether it is independent from 

government control. 

A. Separate-Rate Recipients 39

1. Wholly Foreign-Owned 

Two separate rate companies reported 

in their SRAs that they are wholly 

owned by individuals or companies 

located in a market economy 

(collectively ‘‘Foreign-Owned SR 

Applicants’’). See ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’ section below for 

companies marked with a ‘‘∧’’

designating these companies as wholly 

foreign-owned. Therefore, because they 

are wholly foreign-owned, and we have 

no evidence indicating that they are 

under the control of the PRC, a separaterate analysis is not necessary to 

determine whether these companies are 

independent from government 

control.40 Accordingly, we have 

preliminarily granted a separate rate to 

these companies. 

2. Located in a Market Economy With 

No PRC Ownership 

One of the separate rate companies in 

this investigation is located outside the 

PRC (’’Foreign SR Applicant’’). See 

‘‘Preliminary Determination’’ section 

below for companies marked with a ‘‘+’’

designating these companies as located 

in a market economy, with no PRC 

ownership. Because there is no PRC 

ownership in any of these companies, 

we determine that no separate-rate 

analysis is required for these exporters 

because they are beyond the jurisdiction 

of the PRC government.41 Accordingly, 

we have preliminarily granted a 

separate rate to these companies. 

3. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and 

Foreign Companies or Wholly ChineseOwned Companies 

Twenty-four of the separate-rate 

companies in this investigation stated 

that they are either joint ventures 

between Chinese and foreign companies 

or are wholly Chinese-owned 

companies (collectively ‘‘PRC SR 

Applicants’’). Therefore, the Department 

must analyze whether these respondents 

can demonstrate the absence of both de 

jure and de facto governmental control 

over export activities. 

a. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with an individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies.42

The evidence provided by the 

mandatory respondents and the PRC SR 

Recipients supports a preliminary 

finding of de jure absence of 

governmental control based on the 

following: (1) An absence of restrictive 

stipulations associated with the 

individual exporters’ business and 

export licenses; (2) there are applicable 

legislative enactments decentralizing 

control of the companies; and (3) and 

there are formal measures by the 

government decentralizing control of 

companies. 

b. Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

governmental control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by or are subject to the approval 

of a governmental agency; (2) whether 

the respondent has authority to 

negotiate and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses.43 The Department has 

determined that an analysis of de facto 

control is critical in determining 

whether respondents are, in fact, subject 

to a degree of governmental control 

which would preclude the Department 

from assigning separate rates. 

The evidence placed on the record of 

this investigation by the PRC SR 

Recipients demonstrates an absence of 

de jure and de facto government control 

with respect to each of the exporters’

exports of the merchandise under 

investigation, in accordance with the 

criteria identified in Sparklers and 

Silicon Carbide. See ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’ section below for 

companies marked with an ‘‘*’’

designating these companies as joint 

ventures between Chinese and foreign 

companies or wholly Chinese-owned 

companies that have demonstrated their 

eligibility for a separate rate. 

B. Companies Not Receiving a Separate 

Rate 

The Department is not granting a 

separate rate to the following separaterate applicant for the reasons discussed 

below. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2008 / Notices 9285 

44See Respondent Selection Memorandum at 2. 

45See, e.g., Artist Canvas, 71 FR 16116 (March 30, 

2006). 

46See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Saccharin from the People’s 

Republic of China, 67 FR 79049, 79053–54 

(December 27, 2002), unchanged in Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Saccharin From the People’s Republic of China, 68 

FR 27530 (May 20, 2003). 

47See, e.g., Artist Canvas, 71 FR 16116, 16118 

(March 30, 2006). See also Statement of 

Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, 

H.R. Rep No. 103–316 (‘‘SAA’’) at 870. 

48See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 

8932 (February 23, 1998). 

49See SAA at 870. See also, Brake Rotors From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of the Seventh Administrative 

Review; Final Results of the Eleventh New Shipper 

Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 (November 18, 2005). 

50See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the 

People’s Republic of China; Notice of Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 76755, 

76761 (December 28, 2005). 

51See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 

F. 2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (affmning the 

Department’s presumption that the highest margin 

was the best information of current margins) 

(‘‘Rhone Poulenc’’); NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 

F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (ClT 2004) (affirming a 

73.55 percent total AFA rate, the highest available 

dumping margin from a different respondent in an 

LTFV investigation); Kompass Food Trading 

International v. United States, 24 CIT 678,683 

(2000) (affirming a 51.16 percent total AFA rate, the 

highest available dumping margin from a different, 

fully cooperative respondent); and Shanghai Taoen 

International Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, 360 

F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1348 (CIT 2005) (affirming a 

223.01 percent total AFA rate, the highest available 

dumping margin from a different respondent in a 

previous administrative review). 

52See Rhone Poulenc, 899 F. 2d at 1190. 

Double-Star was unable to 

demonstrate that it had sales of subject 

merchandise to the United States. 

Double-Star explained in its SRA that its 

reported U.S. sales were in fact sales to 

another PRC entity that it knew resold 

the merchandise to the United States. In 

NME proceedings, we do not examine 

sales prices between NME entities (e.g., 

transaction prices between an NME 

producer of subject merchandise and 

the NME exporter of subject 

merchandise) since NME countries are 

presumed to ‘‘not operate on market 

principles of cost or pricing structures 

so that the sales of merchandise in such 

countr{ies} do not reflect the fair value 

of the merchandise.’’ See section 771 

(18) of the Act. Accordingly, nonexporting NME producers of subject 

merchandise are not eligible for 

examination as respondents. Based on 

Double-Star’s description of the sales 

chain for the merchandise it produces, 

Double-Star is a producer and not an 

exporter of subject merchandise, and 

therefore is not eligible to receive a 

separate rate in this investigation. 

Application of Facts Available 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that, if an interested party (A) withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the Department, (B) fails to provide such 

information in a timely manner or in the 

form or manner requested, subject to 

subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act, 

(C) significantly impedes a proceeding 

under the antidumping statute, or (D) 

provides such information but the 

information cannot be verified, the 

Department shall, subject to subsection 

782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise 

available in reaching the applicable 

determination. 

In reviewing the respondents’ original 

and supplemental questionnaire 

responses, we have determined that 

certain reported items require additional 

supplemental information. We have 

used the reported values as facts 

available for this preliminary 

determination and will issue postpreliminary determination 

supplemental questionnaires to the 

respective respondents to address these 

issues. 

The PRC-Wide Entity 

The record evidence indicates there 

were more exporters of OTR tires from 

the PRC during the POI than those that 

responded to the Q&V questionnaire or 

the full antidumping questionnaire.44

Specifically, we issued the Q&V 

questionnaire to 94 identified PRC 

exporters of the subject merchandise but 

received responses from only 30, with 

one reporting that it made no shipments 

of subject merchandise during the POI. 

The other 29 responses did not account 

for all imports into the United States 

from the PRC during the POI. Further, 

evidence on the record indicates that 

the 94 identified PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise received our Q&V 

questionnaire. See Memorandum to the 

File, ‘‘Quantity and Value (‘‘Q&V’’) 

Tracking,’’ dated September 4, 2007. 

Based on the above facts, the 

Department preliminarily determines 

that there were exports of the subject 

merchandise under investigation from 

PRC producers/exporters that did not 

respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire, and we are treating these 

PRC producers/exporters as part of the 

countrywide entity. As a result, use of 

facts available pursuant to section 

776(a)(2)(A) of the Act is warranted for 

the PRC entity.45

The Department will consider all 

margins on the record at the time of the 

final determination for the purpose of 

determining the most appropriate AFA 

rate for the PRC-wide entity.46

Selection of the Adverse Facts 

Available Rate 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that if an interested party fails to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with requests for 

information, the Department may 

employ adverse inferences.47 We find 

that, because the PRC-wide entity did 

not respond to our request for 

information, it has failed to cooperate to 

the best of its ability. Therefore, the 

Department preliminarily finds that, in 

selecting from among the facts available, 

an adverse inference is appropriate. 

In deciding which facts to use as 

AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 

C.F.R. 351.308(c)(1) provide that the 

Department may rely on information 

derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final 

determination in the investigation, (3) 

any previous review or determination, 

or (4) any information placed on the 

record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the 

Department selects a rate that is 

sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the 

purpose of the facts available rule to 

induce respondents to provide the 

Department with complete and accurate 

information in a timely manner.48 It is 

further the Department’s practice to 

select a rate that ensures ‘‘that the party 

does not obtain a more favorable result 

by failing to cooperate than if it had 

cooperated fully.49

Generally, the Department finds 

selecting the highest rate in any segment 

of the proceeding as AFA to be 

appropriate.50 The Court of 

International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) and the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

(‘‘Fed. Cir.’’) have affirmed decisions to 

select the highest margin from any prior 

segment of the proceeding as the AFA 

rate on numerous occasions.51

In choosing the appropriate balance 

between providing respondents with an 

incentive to respond accurately and 

imposing a rate that is reasonably 

related to the respondents’ prior 

commercial activity, selecting the 

highest prior margin ‘‘reflects a common 

sense inference that the highest prior 

margin is the most probative evidence of 

current margins, because, if it were not 

so, the importer, knowing of the rule, 

would have produced current 

information showing the margin to be 

less.52

As AFA, we have preliminarily 

assigned to the PRC-wide entity a rate 

of 210.48 percent, the highest calculated 

rate from the petition. The Department 

preliminarily determines that this 

information is the most appropriate 

from the available sources to effectuate 

the purposes of AFA. The Department’s 

reliance on the petition rate to 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
9286 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2008 / Notices 

53See the ‘‘Corroboration’’ section below. 54See SAA at 870. 

55See id. 

56See id. 

57See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered 

Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 

(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Termination in Part: Tapered Roller Bearings and 

Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From 

Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 

Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, 

From Japan, 62 FR 11825 (March 13, 1997). 

58See ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation 

Checklist: Certain Off-the-Road Tires from the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC)’’ at 10. See Notice 

of Initiation, 72 FR at 43593. 

59See Notice of Initiation, 72 FR at 43593. 

60See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Synthetic Indigo from the People’s 

Republic of China, 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 3, 

2000). 

61See section 771(33) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.102(b). 

62For a detailed description of all adjustments, 

see Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Certain New 

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

Republic of China: Analysis Memorandum for the 

Preliminary Determination: Tianjin United Tire & 

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

(February 5, 2008) (‘‘TUTRIC Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum’’); Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Certain 

New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the 

People’s Republic of China: Analysis Memorandum 

for the Preliminary Determination: Guizhou Tyre 

Co., Ltd. (‘GTC’) and its affiliates (collectively 

‘Guizhou Tyre’)’’ (February 5, 2008) (‘‘Guizhou Tyre 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum’’); and 

‘‘Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary 

Determination: Xuzhou Xugong Tyre Co., Ltd. 

(‘Xugong’)’’ (February 5, 2008) (‘‘Xugong 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum’’). 

63See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 37757 (June 30, 2005). See also 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

determine an AFA rate is subject to the 

requirement to corroborate secondary 

information.53

Corroboration 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation as facts available, it must, 

to the extent practicable, corroborate 

that information from independent 

sources reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is described in 

the SAA as ‘‘information derived from 

the petition that gave rise to the 

investigation or review, the final 

determination concerning subject 

merchandise, or any previous review 

under section 751 concerning the 

subject merchandise.’’ 54 The SAA 

provides that to ‘‘corroborate’’ means 

simply that the Department will satisfy 

itself that the secondary information to 

be used has probative value.55 The SAA 

also states that independent sources 

used to corroborate may include, for 

example, published price lists, official 

import statistics and customs data, and 

information obtained from interested 

parties during the particular 

investigation.56 To corroborate 

secondary information, the Department 

will, to the extent practicable, examine 

the reliability and relevance of the 

information used.57

The AFA rate that the Department 

used is from the petition.58 Petitioners’

methodology for calculating the export 

price (‘‘EP’’) and NV in the petition is 

discussed in the initiation notice.59 To 

corroborate the AFA margin we have 

selected, we compared that margin to 

the margins we found for the 

respondents. We found that the margin 

of 210.48 percent has probative value 

because it is in the range of margins we 

found for the mandatory respondents. 

Accordingly, we find that the rate of 

210.48 percent is corroborated within 

the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. 

Consequently, we are applying a 

single antidumping rate—the PRC-wide 

rate—to producers/exporters that failed 

to respond to the Department’s 

antidumping questionnaire, and/or the 

Q&V questionnaire, or did not apply for 

a separate rate, as applicable. This rate 

will also apply to separate-rate 

applicants which did not demonstrate 

entitlement to a separate rate.60 The 

PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of 

the merchandise under investigation 

except for entries from mandatory 

respondents Guizhou Tyre, Starbright, 

TUTRIC and Xugong, and from the 

separate-rate recipients. These 

companies and their corresponding 

antidumping duty cash deposit rates are 

listed below in the ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’ section of this notice. 

Margin for the Separate-Rate 

Applicants 

Several exporters of OTR tires from 

the PRC, listed above, were not selected 

as mandatory respondents in this 

investigation but have applied for 

separate-rate status and provided 

information to the Department for this 

purpose. We have established a 

weighted-average margin for all 

separate-rate recipients, based on the 

rates we calculated for the mandatory 

respondents, excluding any rates that 

are zero, de minimis, or based entirely 

on AFA. That rate is 24.75 percent. The 

exporters given a separate rate are 

identified by name in the ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’ section of this notice. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of OTR 

tires to the United States by the 

mandatory respondents were made at 

LTFV, we compared EP or CEP to NV, 

as described in the ‘‘Export Price,’’

‘‘Constructed Export Price’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. 

Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, EP is the price at which the 

subject merchandise is first sold (or 

agreed to be sold) before the date of 

importation by the producer or exporter 

of the subject merchandise outside of 

the United States to an unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States or to an 

unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to 

the United States, as adjusted under 

section 772(c) of the Act. In accordance 

with section 772(a) of the Act, we used 

EP for TUTRIC, Xugong and certain of 

Guizhou Tyre’s U.S. sales because the 

subject merchandise was sold directly to 

the unaffiliated customers in the United 

States prior to importation and because 

CEP was not otherwise indicated. 

Xugong claimed that it sold certain sales 

of subject merchandise through a U.S. 

affiliate (i.e., API) in the United States 

and Xugong reported these sales as CEP 

sales. After examining evidence on the 

record, we have determined that Xugong 

is not affiliated with API within the 

meaning of the Act and regulations.61

Thus, for the preliminary determination, 

we have classified Xugong’s sales to API 

as EP sales. 

We calculated EP based on the packed 

FOB, CFR, CNF, CIF or delivered prices 

to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for 

exportation to, the United States. We 

made deductions, as appropriate, for 

any movement expenses (e.g., foreign 

inland freight from the plant to the port 

of exportation, foreign inland insurance, 

domestic brokerage) in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act,62 To 

value foreign inland insurance, we used 

the average insurance expenses reported 

in the public version of Agro Dutch’s 

May 24, 2005 response submitted in the 

February 2004–January 2005 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

preserved mushrooms from India.63

Constructed Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the Act, CEP is the price at which the 

subject merchandise is first sold (or 

agreed to be sold) in the United States 

before or after the date of importation by 

or for the account of the producer or 

exporter of such merchandise or by a 

seller affiliated with the producer or 

exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated 

with the producer or exporter, as 

adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d) 

of the Act. In accordance with section 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2008 / Notices 9287 

64For a detailed description of all adjustments, 

see Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Certain New 

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

Republic of China: Analysis Memorandum for the 

Preliminary Determination: Hebei Starbright Tire 

Co., Ltd. (‘Starbright’)’’ (February 5, 2008) 

(‘‘Starbright Preliminary Analysis Memorandum’’). 

65Section 772(c)(l)(C) of the Act directs the 

Department to add the amount of CVDs imposed to 

offset export subsidies to the U.S. price. See Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from Korea, 67 FR 62124, 62165 (October 

3, 2002), where we stated, ‘‘We believe the 

economic theory implicit in section 772(c)(1)(C) of 

the Act should also generally apply to our cash 

deposit calculations in an investigation.’’

66See CFS, I&D Memo at Comment 2. 

67See CFS, I&D Memo at Comment 2. 68See CFS, I&D Memo at Comment 2. 

772(b) of the Act, we used CEP for 

Starbright’s and certain of Guizhou 

Tyre’s sales because the sales were 

made by the U.S. affiliate in the United 

States. 

We calculated CEP based on delivered 

prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the 

United States. In accordance with 

section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we made 

deductions from the starting price for 

billing adjustments, movement 

expenses, discounts and rebates. We 

made deductions from the U.S. sales 

price for movement expenses in 

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 

the Act. These included, where 

applicable, foreign inland freight and 

insurance from the plant to the port of 

exportation, foreign inland insurance, 

ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. 

Customs duty, U.S. brokerage and 

handling, U.S. inland freight from port 

to the warehouse, warehousing expense 

and U.S. inland freight from the 

warehouse to the customer. In 

accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the 

Act, the Department deducted, where 

applicable, commissions, credit 

expenses, warranty expenses, inventory 

carrying costs and indirect selling 

expenses from the U.S. price, all of 

which relate to commercial activity in 

the United States. In addition, we 

deducted CEP profit in accordance with 

sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. 

In accordance with section 773(a) of the 

Act, we calculated Starbright’s credit 

expenses and inventory carrying costs 

based on the Federal Reserve short-term 

rate.64

Adjustment for Domestic Subsidies 

On January 28, 2008, the Bureau of 

Fair Trade for Imports & Exports 

(‘‘BOFT’’) of the Ministry of Commerce 

of the PRC submitted a request that the 

Department adjust U.S. prices 65 for 

what it claims are double remedies. 

While the Department has always been 

determined to prevent any double 

remedies from arising (see, e.g., 

Wheatland Tube v. United States, 495 

F.3d 1355, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2007), BOFT 

offers no evidence supporting its 

argument that domestic subsidies 

automatically lower prices (including 

export prices) pro rata. Instead, BOFT 

argues that U.S. law embodies the 

presumption that domestic subsidies 

lower prices pro rata. We do not agree. 

First, despite addressing the issue of 

parallel AD duties and CVDs directly, 

and explicitly requiring that the amount 

of any CVDs to offset export subsidies 

be added to U.S. price, Congress 

provided no adjustment for CVDs 

imposed by reason of domestic 

subsidies in NME proceedings. Second, 

we fmd the assertion that the AD law 

embodies the presumption that 

domestic subsidies automatically lower 

prices, pro rata, to be baseless.66

BOFT is correct in noting that the 

purpose of adding CVDs to offset export 

subsidies to U.S. prices is to prevent AD 

duties from coinstituting a second 

remedy for export subsidies. BOFT is 

also correct that the apparent premise of 

this adjustment is the presumption that 

export subsidies automatically lower the 

price of exported merchandise, pro rata, 

increasing dumping margins 

accordingly. While this presumption 

may be debatable, it is not unreasonable, 

given the typically direct connection 

between export subsidies and exports. 

In any event, the statute plainly requires 

the Department to add the full amount 

of CVDs imposed to offset export 

subsidies to the U.S. price. See section 

772(c)(1)(C) of the Act. 

The premise of BOFT’s claimed 

adjustment is that the AD law embodies 

the presumption that domestic subsidies 

automatically lower export prices, pro 

rata (while having no effect upon 

normal value, as determined in NME 

proceedings). BOFT provides no basis 

for this presumption. Whereas the 

connection between export subsidies 

and export prices is direct, the 

connection between domestic subsidies 

and export price is indirect and subject 

to a number of variables. Consequently, 

presuming that domestic subsidies 

automatically lower export prices, pro 

rata, would be speculative.67

More importantly, we find no 

indication in the statute or legislative 

history that Congress harbored any 

presumption about the effect of 

domestic subsidies upon export prices, 

let alone the presumption that they 

automatically reduce export prices, pro 

rata. The Senate Report accompanying 

the 1979 legislation states simply that, 

for domestic subsidies (where the 

situation with respect to the domestic 

and export markets is the same) no 

adjustment to U.S. price is appropriate. 

See Trade Agreement Act of 1979, 

Report of the Committee on Finance on 

H.R. 4537, Senate Report No. 96–249, 

96th Cong. (July 17,1979), at 79. In so 

stating, Congress may have presumed 

that domestic subsidies had no effect on 

prices, had the same (if uncertain) effect 

on domestic and export prices, or may 

have presumed nothing. Thus, neither 

the statute nor the Senate Report 

indicates that the statute embodies the 

presumption that domestic subsidies 

automatically lower prices (including 

export prices) pro rata. 

BOFT asserts that the presumption 

that domestic subsidies lower prices, 

pro rata, is the whole basis for imposing 

CVDs upon such subsidies. That is not 

correct. While subsidies unquestionably 

benefit their recipients, it is by no 

means certain that those recipients 

automatically respond to subsidies by 

lowering their prices, pro rata, as 

opposed to investing in capital 

improvements, retiring debt, or any 

number of other uses. 

BOFT also argues that the fact that the 

Department uses only surrogate values 

that are ‘‘subsidy free’’ demonstrates 

that the Department believes subsidy 

recipients automatically lower their 

prices pro rata. This is also incorrect. 

The House Report cited by BOFT 

establishes only that Congress believed 

that Commerce should avoid using 

values that may have been affected by 

dumping or subsidies. Similarly, the 

Department’s compliance with 

Congress’ direction does not establish 

that the Department has made any 

assumption about the impact of 

subsidies upon prices. The Department 

has acknowledged simply that the 

existence of dumping or subsidies may 

taint the values upon which it otherwise 

would rely. 

BOFT also argues that the Department 

previously has assumed that benefits 

from domestic subsidies are fully passed 

though into home-market and export 

prices. This is misleading. The more 

accurate statement would be that, when 

it has considered the issue, the 

Department has sometimes presumed 

that, whatever the effect, if any, of 

domestic subsidies upon the prices 

subsequently charged by their 

recipients, that effect would be the same 

for domestic prices and export prices.68

BOFT also argues that, by recognizing 

that subsidies may have no (or an 

unpredictable) effect upon prices 

subsequently charged by their recipients 

in NME countries, the Department is 

conceding that it is not possible to 

measure subsidies in an NME country. 

This is incorrect. In both market 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
9288 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2008 / Notices 

69See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances: 

Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the 

People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 (October 

28, 2003), and the accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 19. 

70See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 

1997). 

71See Antidumping Methodologies: Market 

Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy 

Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments, 

71 FR 61716 (October 19, 2006) ( ‘‘Antidumping 

Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs’’). 

72See Guizhou Tyre Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum, Starbright Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum, TUTRIC Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum, and Xugong Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum. 

73See Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

74See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), 

unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8. 2004). 

75See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Color Television Receivers From the People’s 

economy and NME countries, 

identifying subsidies involves 

measuring benefits received by a firm. 

Whether such firms respond to 

subsidies received by lowering their 

prices, pro rata, would be a completely 

separate inquiry in either a market 

economy or NME country. 

Because we do not accept BOFT’s 

assertion that the AD law embodies the 

presumption that domestic subsidies 

automatically lower export prices, pro 

rata, and that is the only basis on which 

BOFT has claimed an adjustment, we 

must deny BOFT’s request. 

Normal Value 

We compared NV to weighted-average 

EPs and CEPs in accordance with 

section 777A(d)(1) of the Act. Further, 

section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that the Department shall determine the 

NV using an FOP methodology if the 

merchandise is exported from an NME 

and the information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home-market 

prices, third-country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. The Department bases NV on 

the FOPs because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of these economies renders price 

comparisons and the calculation of 

production costs invalid under its 

normal methodologies. 

The Department’s questionnaire 

requires that the respondent provide 

information regarding the weightedaverage FOPs across all of the 

company’s plants that produce the 

subject merchandise, not just the FOPs 

from a single plant. This methodology 

ensures that the Department’s 

calculations are as accurate as 

possible.69 The Department calculated 

the FOPs using the weighted-average 

factor values for all of the facilities 

involved in producing the subject 

merchandise for each exporter. The 

Department calculated NV for each 

matching control number (‘‘CONNUM’’) 

based on the factors of production 

reported from each of the exporters’

suppliers and then averaged the 

supplier-specific NV together, weighted 

by production quantity, to derive a 

single, weighted-average NV for each 

CONNUM exported by each exporter. 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773( c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on 

FOPs reported by respondents for the 

POI. To calculate NV, we multiplied the 

reported per-unit factor-consumption 

rates by publicly available Indian 

surrogate values. In selecting the 

surrogate values, we considered the 

quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to make them 

delivered prices. Specifically, we added 

to Indian import surrogate values a 

surrogate freight cost using the shorter 

of the reported distance from the 

domestic supplier to the factory of 

production or the distance from the 

nearest seaport to the factory of 

production, where appropriate. This 

adjustment is in accordance with the 

Fed. Cir. decision in Sigma Corp. v. 

United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407–

1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

The mandatory respondents reported 

that certain of their reported raw 

material inputs were sourced from a 

market-economy country and paid for in 

market-economy currencies. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), when a 

mandatory respondent sources inputs 

from a market-economy supplier in 

meaningful quantities (i.e., not 

insignificant quantities), we use the 

actual price paid by respondents for 

those inputs, except when prices may 

have been distorted by findings of 

dumping by the PRC and/or subsidies.70

Guizhou Tyre’s, Starbright’s, and 

TUTRIC’s reported information 

demonstrates that the quantities of 

certain raw materials purchased from 

market-economy suppliers are 

significant. Where we found market 

economy purchases to be in significant 

quantities, in accordance with our 

statement of policy as outlined in 

Antidumping Methodologies: Market 

Economy Inputs, we have used the 

actual purchases of these inputs to value 

the inputs.71 For a detailed description 

of all actual values used for marketeconomy inputs, see the companyspecific analysis memoranda dated 

February 5, 2008. Where the quantity of 

the input purchased from marketeconomy suppliers is insignificant, the 

Department will not rely on the price 

paid by an NME producer to a marketeconomy supplier because it cannot 

have confidence that a company could 

fulfill all its needs at that price. For 

Guizhou Tyre, and TUTRIC, the 

Department found certain of their inputs 

purchased from market-economy 

suppliers to be insignificant.72

For this preliminary determination, in 

accordance with past practice, we used 

import values from the World Trade 

Atlas online (‘‘Indian Import 

Statistics’’), which were published by 

the Directorate General of Commercial 

Intelligence and Statistics, Ministry of 

Commerce of India, which were 

reported in rupees and are 

contemporaneous with the POI to 

calculate surrogate values for the 

mandatory respondents’ material inputs. 

Where we found Indian Import 

Statistics to be unreliable, we used 

Indonesian Import Statistics from the 

World Trade Atlas.73 In selecting the 

best available information for valuing 

FOPs in accordance with section 

773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department’s 

practice is to select, to the extent 

practicable, surrogate values which are 

non-export average values, most 

contemporaneous with the POI, 

product-specific, and tax-exclusive.74

Where we could not obtain publicly 

available information contemporaneous 

with the POI with which to value FOPs, 

we adjusted the surrogate values using, 

where appropriate, the Indian 

Wholesale Price Index (‘‘WPI’’) as 

published in the International Financial 

Statistics of the International Monetary 

Fund (‘‘IMF’’). 

Furthermore, with regard to the 

Indian import-based surrogate values, 

we have disregarded import prices that 

we have reason to believe or suspect 

may be subsidized. We have reason to 

believe or suspect that prices of inputs 

from Indonesia, South Korea, and 

Thailand may have been subsidized. We 

have found in other proceedings that 

these countries maintain broadly 

available, non-industry-specific export 

subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable 

to infer that all exports to all markets 

from these countries may be 

subsidized.75 We are also directed by 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2008 / Notices 9289 

Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 7. 

76See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act 

of 1988, Conference Report to Accompanying H.R. 

3, H.R. Rep. 100–576 at 590 (1988). 

77For a detailed description of all surrogate 

values used for each respondent, see Surrogate 

Value Memorandum. 

78See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Critical 

Circumstances, In Part, and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products from 

the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 19695, 19704 

(April 17, 2006) (utilizing these same data, 

unchanged for the final determination); Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part, and 

Postponement of Final Determination: Certain 

Lined Paper Products from the People’s Republic of 

China, 71 FR 53079 (September 8, 2006). The 

Department averaged December 2003–November 

2004 data contained in the February 28, 2005, 

public version of Essar Steel’s response submitted 

in the antidumping duty administrative review of 

hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India. See 

also Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products 

From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 2018 (January 

12, 2006) (unchanged in the final results); Certain 

Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 40694 (July 18, 2006). 

79See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 37757 (June 30, 2005). See also 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

80See Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

81See Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

82See Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

83See Guizhou DQR pg. 15. 

84See Section D pg. 5, Exhibit D–9. 

85See Guizhou Tyre Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum. 

86See Xugong Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum. 

the legislative history not to conduct a 

formal investigation to ensure that such 

prices are not subsidized.76 Rather, 

Congress directed the Department to 

base its decision on information that is 

available to it at the time it makes its 

determination. Therefore, we have not 

used prices from these countries in 

calculating the Indian import-based 

surrogate values. In instances where a 

market economy input was obtained 

solely from suppliers located in these 

countries, we used Indian import-based 

surrogate values to value the input. In 

addition, we excluded Indian import 

data from NME countries from our 

surrogate value calculations.77

We used Indian transport information 

in order to value the inland freight cost 

of the raw materials. The Department 

determined the best available 

information for valuing truck freight to 

be from http://www.infreight.com and 

rail freight to be from http:// 

www.indianrailways.gov.in. This source 

provides daily rates from six major 

points of origin to five destinations in 

India. The Department obtained a price 

quote on the first day of each month 

from June 2005 to May 2006 from each 

point of origin to each destination and 

averaged the data accordingly. We 

adjusted these rates for inflation. 

Consistent with the Department’s 

practice, we used two sources to 

calculate a surrogate value for domestic 

brokerage expenses.78 These data were 

averaged with the February 2004–

January 2005 data contained in the 

May 24, 2005, public version of Agro 

Dutch Industries Limited’s (‘‘Agro 

Dutch’’) response submitted in the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

preserved mushrooms from India.79 The 

brokerage expense data reported by 

Essar Steel and Agro Dutch in their 

public versions are ranged data. The 

Department first derived an average perunit amount from each source. Then the 

Department adjusted each average rate 

for inflation. Finally, the Department 

averaged the two per-unit amounts to 

derive an overall average rate for the 

POI. 

For direct, indirect, and packing 

labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC 

regression-based wage rate as reported 

on Import Administration’s home page, 

Import Library, Expected Wages of 

Selected NME Countries, revised in 

November 2005, available at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. 

Because this regression-based wage rate 

does not separate the labor rates into 

different skill levels or types of labor, 

we have applied the same wage rate to 

all skill levels and types of labor 

reported by the respondent. If the NME 

wage rates are updated by the 

Department prior to issuance of the final 

determination, we will use the updated 

wage rate in the final LTFV 

determination. 

To value electricity, we used data 

from the International Energy Agency 

Key World Energy Statistics (2003 

edition). Because the value was not 

contemporaneous with the POI, we 

adjusted the rate for inflation. 

The Department valued water using 

data from the Maharashtra Industrial 

Development Corporation (http:// 

www.midcindia.org) because it includes 

a wide range of industrial water tariffs. 

This source provides 386 industrial 

water rates within the Maharashtra 

province from June 2003: 193 for the 

‘‘inside industrial areas’’ usage category 

and 193 for the ‘‘outside industrial 

areas’’ usage category. Because the value 

was not contemporaneous with the POI, 

we adjusted the rate for inflation. 

We valued steam using the January–

June 1999 Indian price data from PR 

Newswire Association Inc. following the 

methodology in Goldlink Industries Co., 

Ltd., Trust Chem Co., Ltd., Tianjin 

Hanchem International Trading Co., 

Ltd. v. United States, 431 F. Supp. 2d 

1323 (CIT 2006).80 Because the 

information was not contemporaneous 

with the POI, we applied the 

appropriate WPI inflator.81

To value factory overhead, selling, 

general, and administrative expenses, 

and profit, we used audited financial 

statements for the year ending March 

31, 2007, of Apollo Tyres Ltd., CEAT 

Limited, Falcon Tyres Ltd., and TVS 

Srichakra Limited, and the financial 

statement for the year ending December 

31, 2006, of Goodyear India Limited, 

producers of the subject merchandise 

from India.82 The Department may 

consider other publicly available 

financial statements for the final 

determination, as appropriate. 

Guizhou Tyre claimed that it 

produced five separate types of byproducts consisting of the scrap of steel 

curtain, rubber, tires, steel wire for 

beading and nylon.83 It claimed that it 

sold all five types of by-product. 

However, it failed to demonstrate that it 

sold scrap to unaffiliated purchasers.84

Therefore, for the preliminary 

determination, we have not granted a 

by-product offset for any of Guizhou 

Tyre’s claimed by-products.85

In its questionnaire responses, 

Xugong stated that it generates a 

‘‘waste’’ by-product which it sold 

during the POI. However, record 

evidence indicates that Xugong’s single 

reported waste by-product is comprised 

of four separate by-products (i.e., steel 

wire, rubber, and two different types of 

fabric). Further, Xugong did not 

demonstrate actual sales of the claimed 

waste product during the POI. Because 

Xugong reported different types of byproducts in a cumulative by-product 

field, reported four different surrogate 

values to one per-unit consumption of 

waste, and did not demonstrate actual 

sales of the individual waste products at 

issue, we are not able to grant Xugong’s 

requested by product offset.86

On January 17, 2008, Starbright 

requested that the Department grant it a 

CEP offset for differences in level of 

trade between its U.S. sales and those of 

the surrogate producers, under section 

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. Section 

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act allows for a 

reduction in NV when NV is established 

at a more advanced stage of distribution 

than the level of trade of the CEP, but 

where the available data do not provide 

an appropriate basis on which to 

calculate—under section 773(a)(7)(A) of 

the Act—a level-of-trade adjustment. In 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
9290 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2008 / Notices 

87See Torrington Co. v. United States, 156 F.3d 

1361, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

88We note that with the limited exception of 

certain freight expenses, Starbright has provided no 

record evidence in this investigation regarding 

specific expenses incurred in the PRC by the foreign 

exporter. 

89The Department’s practice is not to analyze 

information or amounts utilized to construct a 

surrogate producer’s financial statements as the 

surrogate producer is not a party to the proceeding 

and the books and records supporting these 

financial statements are not subject to verification. 

90See Notice of Initiation, 72 FR at 43595. 

91See Footnote 36, supra. 

applying the CEP offset, the Department 

reduces NV by the amount of indirect 

selling expenses incurred in the country 

in which NV is determined on sales of 

the foreign like product, but not more 

than the amount of such expenses for 

which a deduction is made under 

section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act 

(‘‘additional adjustments to constructed 

export price’’). 

In NME cases, the Department 

calculates NV pursuant to section 773(c) 

of the Act. Consequently, normal value 

for NME cases is determined under a 

different subsection of the statute than 

normal value for ME cases. See sections 

772(a) and 772(e) of the Act. In the 

subsection of the statute regarding NME 

NV, there is no provision for allowing 

either a level-of-trade adjustment or, by 

extension, a CEP offset. Furthermore, 

even if the statute contemplated 

considering such an adjustment for 

NME cases, the Department would have 

to apply the same standards as those 

used in market economy cases. In other 

words, the Department would have to 

issue a level-of-trade questionnaire to 

determine selling functions conducted 

in the country in which NV is 

determined on sales of the foreign like 

product. Because NV in an NME case is 

calculated based on surrogate valuation 

of FOPs, we do not analyze selling 

functions of the PRC respondent. 

Consequently, to determine whether a 

CEP offset is warranted, the Department 

would have to issue a level-of-trade 

questionnaire to surrogate financial 

companies, which is not practicable 

because they are not parties to the 

proceeding, and thus not subject to 

verification. Furthermore, the 

Department allows parties to provide 

surrogate financial statements after its 

preliminary findings, thus to issue a 

level-of-trade questionnaire after the 

preliminary findings would not allow 

ample time for parties to the proceeding 

to effectively comment on the 

responses, and would hinder the 

Department’s ability to meet its 

statutory deadlines for completion of 

the proceeding. 

Further, we have not made 

circumstance-of-sale (‘‘COS’’) 

adjustments as requested by Starbright 

for expenses borne by GPX, its U.S. 

affiliate, on sales of subject merchandise 

in the United States. Under the statute, 

such expenses are direct expenses 

incurred in the United States and are 

properly deducted from starting price to 

arrive at CEP. Because they are borne by 

the U.S. affiliate and are not incurred in 

the foreign country, such expenses 

cannot form the basis of any COS 

adjustments pursuant to section 

773(a)(6)(C) of the Act.87

In a market economy proceeding, the 

Department, in calculating NV, will 

make COS adjustments by offsetting 

expenses incurred by the exporter on 

sales to one market with the 

corresponding direct or indirect selling 

expenses incurred by that same exporter 

on sales to the other. For example, if an 

exporter paid commissions on its sales 

in the home market but not on its sales 

to the United States, the Department 

would deduct the home market 

commissions from NV but add to NV the 

exporter’s commissions and/or indirect 

selling expenses incurred on its sales to 

the United States.88

Applying that example to this NME 

investigation, however, in order to make 

a COS adjustment, with respect to 

commissions paid by one or more of the 

surrogate producers 89 but not paid by 

Starbright, the Department would have 

to collect and rely on data with respect 

to Starbright’s indirect selling expenses 

incurred in the PRC for sales to the 

United States. Such expenses, however, 

would be based on internal PRC pricing, 

which the Department does not utilize 

for purposes of antidumping 

calculations because such pricing 

reflects internal transactions in an NME 

country, which are considered 

unreliable. See section 771(18)(A) of the 

Act. See also Shandong Huarong 

Machinery Co., Ltd. v. United States, 

2007 WL 4633315 at 13 (CIT Nov. 20, 

2007). 

Thus, while Starbright assumes that 

the Department’s practice of making 

COS adjustments in market economy 

cases can be replicated in the NME 

context, we are precluded from making 

parallel adjustments in NME cases 

where the necessary data to calculate 

such adjustments cannot be relied upon 

due to the fact that the relevant 

expenses are incurred and priced under 

NME conditions. Therefore, for the 

reasons cited above, we find that we are 

precluded from making COS 

adjustments in this investigation. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act, based on the 

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 

Reserve Bank. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the 

Act, we intend to verify the information 

from Guizhou Tyre, Starbright, TUTRIC 

and Xugong upon which we will rely in 

making our final determination. 

Additionally, we may also verify the 

information on the record submitted by 

selected separate-rate applicants. 

Combination Rates 

In the Notice of Initiation, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation.90 This 

change in practice is described in Policy 

Bulletin 05.1.91


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2008 / Notices 9291 

Preliminary Determination 

The weighted-average dumping 

margins are as fol1ows: 

Exporter Producer Margin 

(in percent) 

Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd.* .............................................................. Guizhou Advance Rubber .......................................................... 16.35 

Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd.* .............................................................. Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd ............................................................... 16.35 

Hebei Starbright Co., Ltd.∧ ......................................................... Hebei Starbright Co., Ltd ........................................................... 19.73 

Tianjin United Tire & Rubber International Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘TUTRIC’’)*.

Tianjin United Tire & Rubber International Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘TUTRIC’’).

10.98 

Xuzhou Xugong Tyre Company Limited* ................................... Xuzhou Xugong Tyre Company Limited .................................... 51.81 

Aeolus Tyre Co., Ltd.* ................................................................ Aeolus Tyre Co., Ltd .................................................................. 24.75 

Double Coin Holdings Ltd.* ........................................................ Double Coin Holdings Ltd .......................................................... 24.75 

Double Coin Holdings Ltd.* ........................................................ Double Coin Group Rugao Tyre Co., Ltd .................................. 24.75 

Double Coin Holdings Ltd.* ........................................................ Double Coin Group Shanghai Donghai Tyre Co., Ltd ............... 24.75 

Double Happiness Tyre Industries Corp., Ltd.* .......................... Double Happiness Tyre Industries Corp., Ltd ........................... 24.75 

Jiangsu Feichi Co., Ltd.* ............................................................. Jiangsu Feichi Co., Ltd .............................................................. 24.75 

KS Holding Limited∧ ................................................................... Oriental Tyre Technology Ltd .................................................... 24.75 

KS Holding Limited∧ ................................................................... Shandong Taishan Tyre Co., Ltd .............................................. 24.75 

KS Holding Limited∧ ................................................................... Xu Zhou Xugong Tyres Co., Ltd ................................................ 24.75 

Laizhou Xiongying Rubber Industry Co., Ltd.* ........................... Laizhou Xiongying Rubber Industry Co., Ltd ............................. 24.75 

Oriental Tyre Technology Limited+ ............................................. Midland Off the Road Tire Co., Ltd ........................................... 24.75 

Oriental Tyre Technology Limited+ ............................................. Midland Specialty Tire Co., Ltd ................................................. 24.75 

Oriental Tyre Technology Limited+ ............................................. Xuzhou Hanbang Tyres Co., Ltd ............................................... 24.75 

Qingdao Etyre International Trade Co., Ltd.* ............................. ShanGong Xingua Tyre Co. Ltd ................................................ 24.75 

Qingdao Etyre International Trade Co., Ltd.* ............................. Shandong Xingyuan International Trade Co. Ltd ...................... 24.75 

Qingdao Etyre International Trade Co., Ltd.* ............................. Shandong Xingyuan Rubber Co. Ltd ......................................... 24.75 

Qingdao Free Trade Zone Full-World International Trading Co., 

Ltd.* 

Qingdao Eastern Industrial Group Co., Ltd ............................... 24.75 

Qingdao Free Trade Zone Full-World International Trading Co., 

Ltd.* 

Qingdao Qihang Tyre Co., Ltd .................................................. 24.75 

Qingdao Free Trade Zone Full-World International Trading Co., 

Ltd.* 

Qingdao Shuanghe Tyre Co., Ltd .............................................. 24.75 

Qingdao Free Trade Zone Full-World International Trading Co., 

Ltd.* 

Qingdao Yellowsea Tyre Factory .............................................. 24.75 

Qingdao Free Trade Zone Full-World International Trading Co., 

Ltd.* 

Shandong Zhentai Tyre Co., Ltd ............................................... 24.75 

Qingdao Hengda Tyres Co., Ltd.* .............................................. Qingdao Hengda Tyres Co., Ltd ................................................ 24.75 

Qingdao Milestone Tyre Co., Ltd.* ............................................. Qingdao Shuanghe Tyre Co., Ltd .............................................. 24.75 

Qingdao Milestone Tyre Co., Ltd.* ............................................. Shandong Zhentai Tyre Co., Ltd ............................................... 24.75 

Qingdao Milestone Tyre Co., Ltd.* ............................................. Shifeng Double-Star Tire Co., Ltd ............................................. 24.75 

Qingdao Milestone Tyre Co., Ltd.* ............................................. Weifang Longtai Tyre Co., Ltd ................................................... 24.75 

Qingdao Qinghang Tyre Co., Ltd.* ............................................. Qingdao Qinghang Tyre Co., Ltd .............................................. 24.75 

Qingdao Qizhou Rubber Co., Ltd.* ............................................. Qingdao Qizhou Rubber Co., Ltd .............................................. 24.75 

Qingdao Sinorient International Ltd.* .......................................... Qingdao Hengda Tyres Co., Ltd ................................................ 24.75 

Qingdao Sinorient International Ltd.* .......................................... Shifeng Double-Star Tire Co., Ltd ............................................. 24.75 

Qingdao Sinorient International Ltd.* .......................................... Tenzhou Broncho Tyre Co., Ltd ................................................ 24.75 

Shandong Huitong Tyre Co., Ltd.* ............................................. Shandong Huitong Tyre Co., Ltd ............................................... 24.75 

Shandong Jinyu Tyre Co., Ltd.* ................................................. Shandong Jinyu Tyre Co., Ltd ................................................... 24.75 

Shandong Taishan Tyre Co., Ltd.* ............................................. Shandong Taishan Tyre Co., Ltd .............................................. 24.75 

Shandong Wanda Boto Tyre Co., Ltd.* ...................................... Shandong Wanda Boto Tyre Co., Ltd ....................................... 24.75 

Shandong Xingyuan International Trading Co., Ltd.* ................. Shangdong Xingda Tyre Co., Ltd .............................................. 24.75 

Shandong Xingyuan International Trading Co., Ltd.* ................. Xingyuan Tyre Group Co., Ltd ................................................... 24.75 

Techking Tires Limited (Techking Enterprise (H.K.) Co., Ltd.)* Shandong Xingda Tyre Co. Ltd ................................................. 24.75 

Techking Tires Limited (Techking Enterprise (H.K.) Co., Ltd.)* Shandong Xing International Trade Co. Ltd .............................. 24.75 

Techking Tires Limited (Techking Enterprise (H.K.) Co., Ltd.)* Shandong Xingyuan Rubber Co. Ltd ......................................... 24.75 

Triangle Tyre Co., Ltd.* .............................................................. Triangle Tyre Co., Ltd ................................................................ 24.75 

Wendeng Sanfeng Tyre Co., Ltd.* ............................................. Wendeng Sanfeng Tyre Co., Ltd ............................................... 24.75 

Zhaoyuan Leo Rubber Co., Ltd.* ................................................ Zhaoyuan Leo Rubber Co., Ltd ................................................. 24.75 

PRC-Entity .................................................................................. .................................................................................................... 210.48 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed to parties in this proceeding 

within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d) of 

the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to 

suspend liquidation of all entries of 

subject merchandise, entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. We will instruct CBP to 

require a cash deposit or the posting of 

a bond equal to the weighted-average 

amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. 

price, as indicated above. The 

suspension of liquidation will remain in 

effect until further notice. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
9292 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2008 / Notices 

92See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

preliminary affirmative determination of 

sales at LTFV. Section 735(b)(2) of the 

Act requires the ITC to make its final 

determination as to whether the 

domestic industry in the United States 

is materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports of 

OTR tires, or sales (or the likelihood of 

sales) for importation, of the subject 

merchandise within 45 days of our final 

determination. 

Public Comment 

Case briefs or other written comments 

may be submitted to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration no 

later than seven days after the date on 

which the final verification report is 

issued in this proceeding and rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in case 

briefs may be submitted no later than 

five days after the deadline date for case 

briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309. A table of 

contents, list of authorities used and an 

executive summary of issues should 

accompany any briefs submitted to the 

Department. This summary should be 

limited to five pages total, including 

footnotes. 

In accordance with section 774 of the 

Act, we will hold a public hearing, if 

requested, to afford interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on arguments 

raised in case or rebuttal briefs. 

Interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice.92 Requests should contain the 

party’s name, address, and telephone 

number, the number of participants, and 

a list of the issues to be discussed. If a 

request for a hearing is made, we intend 

to hold the hearing three days after the 

deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs 

at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 

14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20230, at a time and 

location to be determined. See 19 CFR 

351.310. Parties should confirm by 

telephone the date, time, and location of 

the hearing two days before the 

scheduled date. 

We will make our final determination 

no later than 135 days after the date of 

publication of this preliminary 

determination, pursuant to section 

735(a)(2) of the Act. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: February 5, 2008. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 08–672 Filed 2–19–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–507–502] 

Certain In–Shell Raw Pistachios from 

Iran: Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

SUMMARY: In response to a request from 

Cal Pure Pistachios, Inc. (Cal Pure), a 

domestic interested party, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on certain in–shell raw pistachios (raw 

pistachios) from Iran. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Request for 

Revocation in Part, 72 FR 48613 (August 

24, 2007). This review covers the period 

July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007. We 

are now rescinding this review due to 

Cal Pure’s withdrawal of its request for 

review. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 20, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dena Crossland or John Drury, 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) 482–3362 or (202) 482–

0195, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 17, 1986, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of the antidumping duty order on 

raw pistachios from Iran. See 

Antidumping Duty Order; Certain In–

Shell Pistachios from Iran, 51 FR 25922 

(July 17, 1986). On July 3, 2007, the 

Department published the opportunity 

to request an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on raw 

pistachios from Iran for the period July 

1, 2006, through June 30, 2007. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 36420 

(July 3, 2007). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(1), on July 24, 2007, Cal 

Pure, a domestic interested party, 

requested an administrative review of 

the sales of subject merchandise from 

Iran for the following companies: 

Ahmadi’s Agricultural Production, 

Processing and Trade Complex 

(Ahmadi); Maghsoudi Farms 

(Maghsoudi); Rafsanjan Pistachio 

Producers Cooperative (RPPC); Razi 

Domghan Agricultural & Animal 

Husbandry Co. (Razi); and Tehran 

Negah Nima Trading Company Inc. 

(Nima). On August 24, 2007, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice of initiation of this 

antidumping duty administrative review 

covering the period July 1, 2006, 

through June 30, 2007. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Request for 

Revocation in Part, 72 FR 48613 (August 

24, 2007). 

On September 10, 2007, the 

Department issued its antidumping duty 

questionnaire to Ahmadi, Maghsoudi, 

Nima, Razi, and RPPC. On September 

26, 2007, a former representative on 

behalf of RPPC notified the Department 

that it was no longer representing RPPC 

and provided a new mailing address for 

RPPC. On September 28, 2007, the 

Department sent RPPC the original 

questionnaire to the new mailing 

address in Iran. See Memorandum to the 

File from Judy Lao, Analyst, through 

Angelica Mendoza, Program Manager, 

dated October 3, 2007. On October 4, 

2007, the representative for Maghsoudi, 

Nima, and Razi informed the 

Department that it would not be filing 

responses to the Department’s 

questionnaire as Maghsoudi, Nima, and 

Razi did not export or ship subject 

merchandise during the period of 

review (POR). See Memorandum to the 

File from Judy Lao, Analyst, through 

Angelica Mendoza, Program Manager, 

dated October 12, 2007. On October 5, 

2007, the Department received notice 

that the RPPC did not receive the 

antidumping questionnaire, and re–sent 

the original questionnaire, and changed 

the due dates for RPPC’s responses, after 

revising the shipping information. See 

Memorandum to the File from Judy Lao, 

Analyst, through Angelica Mendoza, 

Program Manager, dated October 9, 

2007. On October 10, 2007, Ahmadi’s 

representative informed the Department 

that it would not be filing responses to 

the Department’s questionnaire as it did 

not export or ship subject merchandise 

during the POR. See Letter from 

Ahmadi’s Agricultural Production, 

Processing and Trade Complex, dated 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES