Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2016 / Notices 7073 

53 In these prior investigations, the Department 

found that imports of off road tires mounted on 

wheels were not within the scope of subject 

merchandise. See Certain New Pneumatic Off-TheRoad Tires from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 

40485 (July 15, 2008) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 19. 

1See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping 

Duties on Imports of Certain New Pneumatic Offthe-Road Tires from India and the People’s 

Republic of China and Countervailing Duties on 

Imports of Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road 

Tires from India, the People’s Republic of China, 

and Sri Lanka, dated January 8, 2016 (collectively, 

Petitions). 

2 Id. 

3See Volume I of the Petitions, at I–2. 

4See the following January 12, 2016, letters from 

the Department to Petitioners: ‘‘Petition for the 

Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duties on Imports of Certain New Pneumatic OffThe-Road Tires from India and The People’s 

Republic of China and Countervailing Duties on 

Imports from Sri Lanka: Supplemental Questions’’ 

(General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire), 

‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties 

Continued 

Association Year Book, as updated annually, 

unless the tire falls within one of the specific 

exclusions set forth below. The sections of 

the Tire and Rim Association Year Book 

listing numerical size designations of covered 

certain off road tires include: 

The table of mining and logging tires 

included in the section on Truck-Bus tires; 

The entire section on Off-the-Road tires; 

The entire section on Agricultural tires; 

and 

The following tables in the section on 

Industrial/ATV/Special Trailer tires: 

• Industrial, Mining, Counterbalanced Lift 

Truck (Smooth Floors Only); 

• Industrial and Mining (Other than 

Smooth Floors); 

• Construction Equipment; 

• Off-the-Road and Counterbalanced Lift 

Truck (Smooth Floors Only); 

• Aerial Lift and Mobile Crane; and 

• Utility Vehicle and Lawn and Garden 

Tractor. 

Certain off road tires, whether or not 

mounted on wheels or rims, are included in 

the scope. However, if a subject tire is 

imported mounted on a wheel or rim, only 

the tire is covered by the scope. Subject 

merchandise includes certain off road tires 

produced in the subject countries whether 

mounted on wheels or rims in a subject 

country or in a third country. Certain off road 

tires are covered whether or not they are 

accompanied by other parts, e.g., a wheel, 

rim, axle parts, bolts, nuts, etc. Certain off 

road tires that enter attached to a vehicle are 

not covered by the scope. 

Excluded from the scope of these 

investigations are any products covered by 

the existing antidumping and countervailing 

duty orders on Certain New Pneumatic Offthe-Road Tires from the People’s Republic of 

China. See Certain New Pneumatic Off-theRoad Tires From the People’s Republic of 

China: Notice of Amended Final Affirmative 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 73 FR 

51624 (September 4, 2008); Certain New 

Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the 

People’s Republic of China: Countervailing 

Duty Order, 73 FR 51627 (September 4, 

2008).53

In addition, specifically excluded from the 

scope are passenger vehicle and light truck 

tires, racing tires, mobile home tires, 

motorcycle tires, all-terrain vehicle tires, 

bicycle tires, on-road or on-highway trailer 

tires, and truck and bus tires. 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 

prefixes and suffixes included as part of the 

size designation on their sidewalls: 

Prefix letter designations: 

AT—Identifies a tire intended for service on 

All-Terrain Vehicles; 

P—Identifies a tire intended primarily for 

service on passenger cars; 

LT—Identifies a tire intended primarily for 

service on light trucks; 

T—Identifies a tire intended for one-position 

‘‘temporary use’’ as a spare only; and 

ST—Identifies a special tire for trailers in 

highway service. 

Suffix letter designations: 

TR—Identifies a tire for service on trucks, 

buses, and other vehicles with rims having 

specified rim diameter of nominal plus 

0.156′′ or plus 0.250′′; 

MH—Identifies tires for Mobile Homes; 

HC—Identifies a heavy duty tire designated 

for use on ‘‘HC’’ 15′′ tapered rims used on 

trucks, buses, and other vehicles. This 

suffix is intended to differentiate among 

tires for light trucks, and other vehicles or 

other services, which use a similar 

designation. 

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

LT—Identifies light truck tires for service on 

trucks, buses, trailers, and multipurpose 

passenger vehicles used in nominal 

highway service; 

ST—Special tires for trailers in highway 

service; and 

M/C—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; aircraft 

tires; and turf, lawn and garden, and golf 

tires. Also excluded from the scope are 

mining and construction tires 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). 

The subject merchandise is currently 

classifiable under Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

subheadings: 4011.20.1025, 4011.20.1035, 

4011.20.5030, 4011.20.5050, 4011.61.0000, 

4011.62.0000, 4011.63.0000, 4011.69.0050, 

4011.92.0000, 4011.93.4000, 4011.93.8000, 

4011.94.4000, 4011.94.8000, 8431.49.9038, 

8431.49.9090, 8709.90.0020, and 

8716.90.1020. Tires meeting the scope 

description may also enter under the 

following HTSUS subheadings: 

4011.99.4550, 4011.99.8550, 8424.90.9080, 

8431.20.0000, 8431.39.0010, 8431.49.1090, 

8431.49.9030, 8432.90.0005, 8432.90.0015, 

8432.90.0030, 8432.90.0080, 8433.90.5010, 

8503.00.9560, 8708.70.0500, 8708.70.2500, 

8708.70.4530, 8716.90.5035 and 

8716.90.5055. While HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

subject merchandise is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02713 Filed 2–9–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–869, A–570–034] 

Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road 

Tires From India and the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of LessThan-Fair-Value Investigations 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective date: February 3, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen Bailey at (202) 482–0193 

(India) and Alex Rosen at (202) 482– 

7814 (PRC), AD/CVD Operations, 

Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitions 

On January 8, 2016, the Department of 

Commerce (Department) received 

antidumping duty (AD) petitions 

concerning imports of certain new 

pneumatic off-the-road tires (off road 

tires) from the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC) and India, filed in proper 

form on behalf of Titan Tire Corporation 

(Titan) and the United Steel, Paper and 

Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service 

Workers International Union, AFL–CIO, 

CLC (USW) (collectively, Petitioners).1

The AD petitions were accompanied by 

three countervailing duty (CVD) 

petitions for the PRC, India and Sri 

Lanka.2 Petitioners are a domestic 

producer of off road tires and a 

recognized union, which represents the 

domestic industry engaged in the 

manufacture of off road tires in the 

United States.3

On January 12, 2016, the Department 

requested additional information and 

clarification of certain areas of the AD 

Petitions.4 Petitioners filed responses to 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with NOTICES2
7074 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2016 / Notices 

on Imports of Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road 

Tires from The People’s Republic of China: 

Supplemental Questions,’’ and ‘‘Petition for the 

Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of 

Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from 

India: Supplemental Questions.’’ 

5See the following January 14, 2016, responses 

from Petitioners: ‘‘Petitioners’ Response to the 

Department’s January 12, 2016, Supplemental 

Questionnaire Regarding General Issues,’’ (General 

Issues Supplement); ‘‘Petitioners’ Response to the 

Department’s January 12, 2016 Supplemental 

Questions Regarding the Antidumping Petition on 

China (A–570–034),’’ (PRC Supplemental 

Response); ‘‘Petitioners’ Response to the 

Department’s January 12, 2016 Supplemental 

Questions Regarding the Antidumping Duty 

Petition on India’’ (First India Supplemental 

Response); and ‘‘Scope Supplement to the Petitions 

for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 

Imports of Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road 

Tires from India and the People’s Republic of China 

and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain 

New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from India, the 

People’s Republic of China, and Sri Lanka’’ (First 

Scope Supplement). 

6See Petitioners’ submission, ‘‘Petitioners’ 

Second Supplement to the Antidumping Duty 

Petition on India,’’ dated January 19, 2016 (Second 

India Supplemental Response). We note that 

Petitioners’ submission of the Second India 

Supplemental Response was unsolicited by the 

Department. For further information, see the 

Department’s memorandum to the File, ‘‘Petition 

for Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from 

India: Conference Call with Counsel to Petitioners,’’ 

dated January 22, 2016. 

7See Petitioners’ submission, ‘‘Second Scope 

Supplement to the Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain New 

Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from India and the 

People’s Republic of China and Countervailing 

Duties on Imports of Certain New Pneumatic Offthe-Road Tires from India, the People’s Republic of 

China, and Sri Lanka,’’ dated January 20, 2016 

(Second Scope Supplement). 

8See letter from Alliance, ‘‘Certain New 

Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from India, the 

People’s Republic of China and Sri Lanka: 

Comments on Industry Support,’’ dated January 21, 

2016 (Alliance Letter). 

9See letter from Petitioners, ‘‘Petitioners’ 

Response to Alliance’s Polling Request Regarding 

the Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping 

Duties on Imports of Certain New Pneumatic Offthe-Road Tires from India and the People’s 

Republic of China and Countervailing Duties on 

Imports of Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road 

Tires from India, the People’s Republic of China, 

and Sri Lanka,’’ dated January 22, 2016 

(‘‘Petitioners’ Response to Alliance Letter’’). 

10See letter from Alliance, ‘‘Certain New 

Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from India, the 

People’s Republic of China and Sri Lanka: Reply 

Comments on Industry Support,’’ dated January 21, 

2016 (‘‘Alliance Letter II’’). 

11See Memorandum to the Record from Ron 

Lorentzen, Acting A/S for Enforcement & 

Compliance, regarding ‘‘Tolling of Administrative 

Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure 

During Snowstorm Jonas,’’ dated January 27, 2016. 

12See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petitions’’ section below. 

13See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires 

From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Amended Final Affirmative Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order, 73 FR 51624 (September 4, 2008) (A–570– 

912) and Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Countervailing Duty Order, 73 FR 51626 (September 

4, 2008) (C–570–913). 

14See General Issues Supplemental 

Questionnaire and First and Second Scope 

Supplements. 

15See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

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

these requests on January 14, 2016,5

provided further information regarding 

India on January 19, 2016,6 and 

provided further clarification regarding 

scope on January 20, 2016.7 On January 

21, 2016, ATC Tires Private Ltd. and 

Alliance Tire Americas, Inc. 

(collectively, Alliance) provided 

comments on domestic industry support 

and requested that the Department poll 

the domestic industry with respect to 

the Petitions.8 On January 22, 2016, 

Petitioners provided a response to 

Alliance’s comments on industry 

support and request for polling.9

Alliance provided additional comments 

on January 28, 2016.10 On January 27, 

2016, the Department determined to toll 

all deadlines four business days as a 

result of the Federal Government 

closure during snowstorm ‘‘Jonas’’, 

applicable to this initiation. 

As explained in the memorandum 

from the Acting Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance, the 

Department has exercised its discretion 

to toll all administrative deadlines due 

to the recent closure of the Federal 

Government. All deadlines in this 

segment of the proceeding have been 

extended by four business days. The 

revised deadline for the initiation of 

these AD investigations is now February 

3, 2016.11

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), Petitioners alleged that imports of 

off road tires from India and the PRC are 

being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less-than-fair value 

within the meaning of section 731 of the 

Act, and that such imports are 

materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, an industry in the 

United States. Also, consistent with 

section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the 

Petitions are accompanied by 

information reasonably available to 

Petitioners supporting their allegations. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed these Petitions on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioners 

are interested parties as defined in 

sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act. 

The Department also finds that 

Petitioners demonstrated sufficient 

industry support with respect to the 

initiation of the AD investigations that 

Petitioners are requesting.12

Periods of Investigation 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), 

because the Petitions were filed on 

January 8, 2016, the period of 

investigation (POI) is January 1, 2015, 

through December 31, 2015, for India 

and July 1, 2015, through December 31, 

2015, for the PRC. 

Scope of the Investigations 

The product covered by these 

investigations is off road tires from India 

and the PRC. For a full description of 

the scope of these investigations, see the 

‘‘Scope of the Investigations’’ in 

Appendix I of this notice. As explained 

in more detail in Appendix I, the scope 

of the PRC investigation is narrower 

than the scope of the investigation from 

India because the PRC investigation 

excludes any products covered by the 

existing antidumping and 

countervailing duty orders on Certain 

New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from 

the PRC.13

Comments on Scope of the 

Investigations 

During our review of the Petitions, the 

Department issued questions to, and 

received responses from, Petitioners 

pertaining to the proposed scope to 

ensure that the scope language in the 

Petitions would be an accurate 

reflection of the products for which the 

domestic industry is seeking relief.14

As discussed in the preamble to the 

Department’s regulations,15 we are 

setting aside a period for interested 

parties to raise issues regarding product 

coverage (scope). The Department will 

consider all comments received from 

parties and, if necessary, will consult 

with parties prior to the issuance of the 

preliminary determinations. If scope 

comments include factual information 

(see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such 

factual information should be limited to 

public information. In order to facilitate 

preparation of its questionnaires, the 

Department requests all interested 

parties to submit such comments by 

5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on 

Tuesday, February 23, 2016, which is 20 

calendar days from the signature date of 

this notice. Any rebuttal comments, 

which may include factual information, 

must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Friday, 

March 4, 2016, which is 10 calendar 

days after the initial comments 

deadline. 

The Department requests that any 

factual information the parties consider 

relevant to the scope of the 

investigations be submitted during this 

time period. However, if a party 

subsequently finds that additional 

factual information pertaining to the 

scope of the investigations may be 

relevant, the party may contact the 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2016 / Notices 7075 

16See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; 

Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 

39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and 

Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System 

Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) for details 

of the Department’s electronic filing requirements, 

which went into effect on August 5, 2011. 

Information on help using ACCESS can be found at 

https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook 

can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/

Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling

%20Procedures.pdf. 

17Where the deadline falls on a weekend/

holiday, the appropriate date is the next business 

day. Because five days from February 23, 2016, is 

Sunday, February 28, 2016, the actual submission 

date is Monday, February 29, 2016. 

18See section 771(10) of the Act. 

19See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 

2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. 

v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), 

aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). 

20For a discussion of the domestic like product 

analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain New 

Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from India (India AD 

Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry 

Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Petitions Covering Certain New Pneumatic 

Off-the-Road Tires from India, the People’s 

Republic of China, and Sri Lanka (Attachment II); 

and Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation 

Checklist: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road 

Tires from the People’s Republic of China (PRC AD 

Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II. These 

checklists are dated concurrently with this notice 

and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to 

documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the 

Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main 

Department of Commerce building. 

Department and request permission to 

submit the additional information. All 

such comments must be filed on the 

records of each of the concurrent AD 

and CVD investigations. 

Filing Requirements 

All submissions to the Department 

must be filed electronically using 

Enforcement and Compliance’s 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Centralized Electronic Service System 

(ACCESS).16 An electronically filed 

document must be received successfully 

in its entirety by the time and date when 

it is due. Documents excepted from the 

electronic submission requirements 

must be filed manually (i.e., in paper 

form) with Enforcement and 

Compliance’s APO/Dockets Unit, Room 

18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

14th Street and Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20230, and 

stamped with the date and time of 

receipt by the applicable deadlines. 

Comments on Product Characteristics 

for AD Questionnaires 

The Department requests comments 

from interested parties regarding the 

appropriate physical characteristics of 

off road tires to be reported in response 

to the Department’s AD questionnaires. 

This information will be used to 

identify the key physical characteristics 

of the subject merchandise in order to 

report the relevant factors and costs of 

production accurately as well as to 

develop appropriate productcomparison criteria. 

Interested parties may provide any 

information or comments that they feel 

are relevant to the development of an 

accurate list of physical characteristics. 

Specifically, they may provide 

comments as to which characteristics 

are appropriate to use as: (1) General 

product characteristics and (2) productcomparison criteria. We note that it is 

not always appropriate to use all 

product characteristics as productcomparison criteria. We base productcomparison criteria on meaningful 

commercial differences among products. 

In other words, although there may be 

some physical product characteristics 

utilized by manufacturers to describe off 

road tires, it may be that only a select 

few product characteristics take into 

account commercially meaningful 

physical characteristics. In addition, 

interested parties may comment on the 

order in which the physical 

characteristics should be used in 

matching products. Generally, the 

Department attempts to list the most 

important physical characteristics first 

and the least important characteristics 

last. 

In order to consider the suggestions of 

interested parties in developing and 

issuing the AD questionnaires, all 

comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET 

on Tuesday, February 23, 2016, which 

is twenty calendar days from the 

signature date of this notice. Any 

rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 

p.m. ET on Monday, February 29, 

2016.17 All comments and submissions 

to the Department must be filed 

electronically using ACCESS, as 

explained above, on the records of both 

the India and the PRC less-than-fairvalue investigations. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petitions 

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) At least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) Poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method to poll the 

‘‘industry.’’ 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 

to determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The International 

Trade Commission (ITC), which is 

responsible for determining whether 

‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been 

injured, must also determine what 

constitutes a domestic like product in 

order to define the industry. While both 

the Department and the ITC must apply 

the same statutory definition regarding 

the domestic like product,18 they do so 

for different purposes and pursuant to a 

separate and distinct authority. In 

addition, the Department’s 

determination is subject to limitations of 

time and information. Although this 

may result in different definitions of the 

like product, such differences do not 

render the decision of either agency 

contrary to law.19

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

domestic like product as ‘‘a product 

which is like, or in the absence of like, 

most similar in characteristics and uses 

with, the article subject to an 

investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the 

reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ 

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the Petitions). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, Petitioners do not offer a 

definition of the domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigations. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that off 

road tires constitute a single domestic 

like product and we have analyzed 

industry support in terms of that 

domestic like product.20

In determining whether Petitioners 

have standing under section 

732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered 

the industry support data contained in 

the Petitions with reference to the 

domestic like product as defined in the 

‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with NOTICES2
7076 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2016 / Notices 

21See Volume I of the Petitions, at I–5—I–9 and 

Exhibits I–3—I–9 and I–33; see also General Issues 

Supplement, at 4–9 and Exhibits I–SQ–1, I–SQ–5— 

I–SQ–8. 

22 Id. For further discussion, see India AD 

Initiation Checklist and PRC AD Initiation 

Checklist, at Attachment II. 

23See Alliance Letter. 

24See Petitioners’ Response to the Alliance Letter. 

25See Alliance Letter II. 

26See India AD Initiation Checklist and PRC AD 

Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 

27See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also 

India AD Initiation Checklist and PRC AD Initiation 

Checklist, at Attachment II. 

28See India AD Initiation Checklist and PRC AD 

Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 

29 Id. 

30 Id. 

31See Volume I of the Petitions, at I–27, I–28 and 

Exhibit I–17. 

32See Statement of Administrative Action (SAA), 

H.R. Doc. No. 103–316, Vol. 1, (1994), at 857; see 

also Volume I of the Petitions, at I–29—I–34 and 

Exhibits I–17—I–21. 

33See Volume I of the Petitions, at I–18—I–22, I– 

24—I–61 and Exhibits I–14, I–15, I–17—I–37; see 

also General Issues Supplement, at 1–3 and Exhibits 

I–SQ–1 and I–SQ–4. 

34See India AD Initiation Checklist and PRC AD 

Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of 

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and 

Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Petitions Covering Certain New Pneumatic 

Off-the-Road Tires from India, the People’s 

Republic of China, and Sri Lanka. 

Appendix I of this notice. To establish 

industry support, Petitioners provided 

Titan’s production of the domestic like 

product in 2015 and estimated the 2015 

production for each remaining U.S. 

producer of off road tires, by plant. 

Petitioners based their estimates of 2015 

off road tire production by plant on 

daily plant-specific production capacity 

data published in Modern Tire Dealer. 

Petitioners multiplied the daily 

production capacity data by 360 (to 

estimate annual capacity) and then 

multiplied the annual production 

capacity for each plant by Titan’s 

capacity utilization rate, which 

Petitioners believe is representative of 

the U.S. off road tires industry (to 

estimate domestic production by each 

plant). To calculate industry support, 

Petitioners added Titan’s 2015 

production of the domestic like product 

to the estimated 2015 production of the 

domestic like product for those plants 

represented by the USW, and divided 

the result by the estimated production 

of the domestic like product in 2015 for 

the entire U.S. off road tires industry.21

We relied on data Petitioners provided 

for purposes of measuring industry 

support.22

On January 21, 2016, we received 

comments on industry support from 

Alliance, an Indian producer of the 

subject merchandise and its U.S. 

importer.23 Petitioners responded to 

these comments on January 22, 2016.24

Alliance submitted additional industry 

support comments on January 28, 

2016.25 For further discussion of these 

comments, see the India AD Initiation 

Checklist and PRC AD Initiation 

Checklist, at Attachment II. 

Our review of the data provided in the 

Petitions, General Issues Supplement, 

letters from Alliance and Petitioners, 

and other information readily available 

to the Department indicates that 

Petitioners have established industry 

support.26 First, the Petitions 

established support from domestic 

producers and workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product 

and, as such, the Department is not 

required to take further action in order 

to evaluate industry support (e.g., 

polling).27 Second, the domestic 

producers and workers have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act 

because the domestic producers and 

workers who support the Petitions 

account for at least 25 percent of the 

total production of the domestic like 

product.28 Finally, the domestic 

producers and workers have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act 

because the domestic producers and 

workers who support the Petitions 

account for more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like product 

produced by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the Petitions.29 Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the 

Petitions were filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry within the meaning 

of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petitions on behalf of the 

domestic industry because they are 

interested parties as defined in sections 

771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and they 

have demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the AD 

investigations that they are requesting 

the Department initiate.30

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioners allege that the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product is being materially injured, or is 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of the imports of the subject 

merchandise sold at less than normal 

value (NV). In addition, with regard to 

India, Petitioners allege that subject 

imports exceed the negligibility 

threshold provided for under section 

771(24)(A) of the Act.31

With regard to the PRC, Petitioners 

argue that the covered tires are entered 

under at least fifteen basket categories 

that do not permit the imports to be 

reliably quantified based on publicly 

available data. Accordingly, the data do 

not show whether imports from the PRC 

meet the statutory requirements for 

negligibility. However, Petitioners allege 

and provide supporting evidence that 

(1) there is a reasonable indication that 

data obtained in the ITC’s investigation 

will establish that imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold,32 and (2) there is 

the potential that imports from the PRC 

will imminently exceed the negligibility 

threshold. Petitioners’ arguments 

regarding the limitations of publicly 

available import data and the collection 

of scope-specific import data in the 

ITC’s investigation are consistent with 

the SAA. Furthermore, Petitioners’ 

arguments regarding the potential for 

imports from the PRC to imminently 

exceed the negligibility threshold are 

consistent with the statutory criteria for 

‘‘negligibility in threat analysis’’ under 

section 771(24)(A)(iv) of the Act, which 

provides that imports shall not be 

treated as negligible if there is a 

potential that subject imports from a 

country will imminently exceed the 

statutory requirements for negligibility. 

Petitioners contend that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by 

reduced market share; decline in 

shipments, production, and capacity 

utilization; underselling and price 

suppression or depression; reduced 

employment variables; lost sales and 

revenues; and decline in financial 

performance.33 We have assessed the 

allegations and supporting evidence 

regarding material injury, threat of 

material injury, and causation, and we 

have determined that these allegations 

are properly supported by adequate 

evidence and meet the statutory 

requirements for initiation.34

Allegations of Sales at Less-Than-FairValue 

The following is a description of the 

allegations of sales at less-than-fairvalue upon which the Department based 

its decision to initiate investigations of 

imports of off road tires from India and 

the PRC. The sources of data for the 

deductions and adjustments relating to 

U.S. price and NV are discussed in 

greater detail in the country-specific 

initiation checklists. 

Export Price 

India 

For India, Petitioners based U.S. 

prices on price quotes to customers in 

the United States for off road tires 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2016 / Notices 7077 

35See India AD Initiation Checklist; see also 

Volume IV of the Petitions, at IV–2; and First India 

Supplemental Response at IV–SQ–1 and Exhibit 

IV–SQ–1. 

36See India AD Initiation Checklist; see also 

Volume IV of the Petitions, at IV–2 and IV–3 and 

Exhibit IV–3; and First India Supplemental 

Response at Exhibit IV–SQ–2. 

37See India AD Initiation Checklist; see also 

Volume IV of the Petitions, at IV–3 and Exhibit IV– 

4; and First India Supplemental Response at IV– 

SQ–1 and Exhibit IV–SQ–3. 

38See Volume II of the Petitions, at II–2 through 

II–4, Exhibits II–2, II–2(A), II–2(C); PRC 

Supplemental Response at 3, Exhibits II–SQ–9, and 

II–SQ–10. 

39See PRC Supplemental Response at 2, Exhibits 

II–SQ–3 and II–SQ–4. 

40Petitioners stated they conservatively did not 

include an adjustment for inland freight from the 

factory to the port because information regarding 

the location of the companies exporting the farm 

wagon and cart wheel and tire assemblies was not 

reasonably available. 

41See Volume II of the Petitions Exhibit II–2. 

42 Id., at II–4, Exhibits II–1, II–2, II–2(G). 

43 Id., at II–4, Exhibits II–1, II–2, II–2(B), II–2(G); 

PRC Supplemental Response at 2, Exhibits II–SQ– 

3, II–SQ–4, II–SQ–11. 

44See Volume II of the Petitions at Exhibit II–2, 

II–2(H), II–9(J), B), II–2(F), II–9(G), II–9(H); PRC 

Supplemental Response at 4, Exhibits II–SQ–7, II– 

SQ–8. 

45See Volume II of the Petitions at Exhibits II– 

2, II–2(B), II–2(D), PRC Supplemental Response at 

2, Exhibits II–SQ–3, II–SQ–4, II–SQ–11. 

46See Volume II of the Petitions at Exhibit II–9, 

II–9(G), II–9(H), PRC Supplemental Response at 4, 

Exhibits II–SQ–7 and II–SQ–8. 

47See PRC AD Checklist. 

48See Volume IV of the Petitions, at IV–4 and 

First India Supplement Responseat IV–SQ–2 and 

IV–SQ–3. 

49 In accordance with section 505(a) of the Trade 

Preferences Extension Act of 2015, amending 

section 773(b)(2) of the Act, for the India 

investigation, the Department will request 

information necessary to calculate the CV and cost 

of production (COP) to determine whether there are 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales 

of the foreign like product have been made at prices 

that represent less than the COP of the product. The 

Department no longer requires a COP allegation to 

conduct this analysis. 

50See India AD Initiation Checklist. 

51 Id. 

52 Id. 

53See Volume II of the Petitions, at 5. 

54 Id., at 6. 

produced in, and exported from, India 

by both Alliance Tire Group and 

Balkrishna Industries Limited (BKT).35

Petitioners made deductions from U.S. 

price for movement expenses.36

Petitioners also deducted from U.S. 

price brokerage and handling 

expenses.37

PRC 

Petitioners based U.S. price on an 

export price (EP) derived from import 

data for wheel and tire assemblies (i.e., 

tires mounted on wheels) of farm 

wagons and carts classified under 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8716.9010.20 as obtained from 

the ITC’s Trade DataWeb.38 Because 

these data were for wheel and tire 

assemblies, in order to derive a 

comparison U.S. price for tires only, 

Petitioners selected four Titan (i.e., one 

of the petitioning entities) models of 

tires sold in assembilies that are most 

similar to those PRC tires that were 

imported as part of assemblies under 

HTS 8716.9010.20. Using Titan’s actual 

sales of these assemblies during the POI, 

Petitioners calculated ratios for both the 

portion of weight attributable to the tires 

and the portion of the per-kilogram 

price attributable to tires in these four 

assemblies.39 After deducting unrebated 

export tax and foreign brokerage and 

handling from the HTS 8716.9010.20 

import data to determine the EP for 

assembilies,40 Petitioners applied the 

calculated ratios to the adjusted U.S. 

price for assemblies in order to derive 

a comparison U.S. price for tires only.41

In addition, Petitioners obtained 13 

free-on-board (FOB) PRC prices from 

publicly-available internet sources of 

certain subject wheel and tire 

assemblies.42 Similarly, Petitioners 

matched each product in the internet 

price quotes with Titan assembly sales 

that included a tire that was closest in 

size to the model in the internet price 

quote and calculated ratios for price and 

weight attributable to tires based on 

Titan’s assembly sales.43 After 

deducting unrebated export tax, foreign 

brokerage and handling, and inland 

freight from the factory to the port of 

export,44 Petitioners applied the 

calculated ratios to the adjusted price 

quotes of assemblies in order to derive 

comparison U.S. prices for tires only.45

Petitioners valued foreign brokerage 

and handling and foreign inland truck 

freight based on data reported in the 

Doing Business 2016: Thailand.46 The 

Department corrected for a conversion 

error in the calculation of per kilogram 

per kilometer truck freight as submitted 

by Petitioners.47

Normal Value 

India 

For India, Petitioners asserted that 

they were unable to obtain pricing data 

for off road tires sold in the home or 

third country markets.48 Consequently, 

pursuant to section 773(a)(4) of the Act, 

Petitioners relied on constructed value 

(CV) as the basis for NV.49

Normal Value Based on Constructed 

Value 

Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, 

CV consists of the cost of manufacturing 

(COM); selling, general, and 

administrative (SG&A) expenses; 

financial expenses; packing expenses, 

and profit. Petitioners calculated COM 

based on a U.S. producer’s experience 

adjusted for known differences between 

the industry in the United States and 

the industry in India during the 

proposed POI.50 Using publicly 

available data to account for price 

differences, Petitioners multiplied the 

U.S. producer’s usage quantities by the 

submitted value of the inputs used to 

manufacture off road tires in India.51

The U.S. producer’s labor cost was 

adjusted to reflect the experience of 

BKT, an Indian producer of off road 

tires, based on BKT’s March 31, 2015 

audited financial statements. To 

determine fixed overhead (including 

energy and packing material costs), 

SG&A, financial expenses, and profit, 

Petitioners again relied on BKT’s March 

31, 2015, financial statements.52

PRC 

With respect to the PRC, Petitioners 

stated that the Department has found 

the PRC to be a non-market economy 

(NME) country in every administrative 

proceeding in which the PRC has been 

involved.53 In accordance with section 

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

presumption of NME status remains in 

effect until revoked by the Department. 

The presumption of NME status for the 

PRC has not been revoked by the 

Department and, therefore, remains in 

effect for purposes of the initiation of 

this investigation. Accordingly, the NV 

of the product is appropriately based on 

factors of production (FOPs) valued in 

a surrogate market economy country, in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act. In the course of this investigation, 

all parties, and the public, will have the 

opportunity to provide relevant 

information related to the issues of the 

PRC’s NME status and the granting of 

separate rates to individual exporters. 

Petitioners claim that Thailand is an 

appropriate surrogate country because it 

is a market economy that is at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the PRC and it is a significant 

producer of the merchandise under 

consideration.54

Based on the information provided by 

Petitioners, we believe it is appropriate 

to use Thailand as a surrogate country 

for initiation purposes. Interested 

parties will have the opportunity to 

submit comments regarding surrogate 

country selection and, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided 

an opportunity to submit publicly 

available information to value FOPs 

within 30 days before the scheduled 

date of the preliminary determination. 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with NOTICES2
7078 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2016 / Notices 

55See Volume II of the Petitions, at II–9, Exhibits 

II–2(C) and II–2(D), PRC Supplemental Response at 

2, Exhibits II–SQ–12 through II–SQ–14. 

56See PRC Supplemental Response at 1 and 

Exhibit II–SQ–1. 

57See Volume II of the Petitions at II–5 through 

II–7. 

58Per the Department’s instruction, Petitioners 

used the surrogate values using the GTA trade data 

for the most recent six-month period (i.e., JuneNovember 2015) because the trade data for 

December 2015 is not available; see PRC 

Supplemental Response at 3, Exhibits II–SQ–6. 

59See Volume II of the Petitions at Exhibit II–9(F). 

60 Id., at Exhibits II–9(L). 

61See India AD Initiation Checklist. 

62See PRC AD Initiation Checklist. 

63See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 

Pub. L. 114–27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015). 

64See Dates of Application of Amendments to the 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws Made 

by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 80 

FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice). 65 Id., at 46794–95. The 2015 amendments may be 

found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114thcongress/house-bill/1295/text/pl. 66See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I–13. 67See Volume I of the Petition at I–15 and Exhibit 

I–12; see also PRC Supplemental Response at 2 and 

Exhibit II–SQ–2. 68See Appendix I, ‘‘Scope of the Investigations’’, 

which for the PRC, excludes products covered by 

the existing antidumping and countervailing duty 

orders on Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road 

Tires from the People’s Republic of China. 

Factors of Production 

Petitioners based the FOPs for 

materials and labor on Titan’s 

consumption rates for producing off 

road tires.55 Petitioners note that Titan’s 

production process is comparable to 

that of producers of mounted off road 

tires in the PRC.56 Petitioners valued the 

estimated factors of production using 

surrogate values from Thailand.57

Valuation of Raw Materials 

For direct materials, Petitioners 

valued certain rubber components based 

on the daily prices of natural rubber 

published by the Rubber Research 

Institute of Thailand from July 1, 2015, 

to December 31, 2015 and other inputs 

based on publicly-available data for 

Thai imports obtained from the Global 

Trade Atlas (GTA) for the period 

covering June 2015 through November 

2015, the most POI-contemporaneous 

data available at the time the Petition 

was filed.58 Petitioners excluded all 

import values from countries previously 

determined by the Department to 

maintain broadly available, nonindustry-specific export subsidies and 

from countries previously determined 

by the Department to be NME countries. 

In addition, in accordance with the 

Department’s practice, the average 

import value excludes imports that were 

labeled as originating from an 

unidentified country. The Department 

determines that the surrogate values 

used by Petitioners are reasonably 

available and, thus, are acceptable for 

purposes of initiation. 

Valuation of Labor 

Petitioners valued labor using 

quarterly Thai labor data published by 

Thailand’s National Statistics Office 

(NSO).59 Specifically, Petitioners relied 

on data pertaining to wages and benefits 

earned by Thai workers engaged in the 

manufacturing sector of the Thai 

economy. Petitioners converted the 

wage rates to hourly and converted to 

U.S. Dollars using the average exchange 

rate during the POI. 

Valuation of Energy, Factory Overhead, 

Selling, General and Administrative 

Expenses (SG&A), and Profit 

Petitioners calculated surrogate 

financial ratios (i.e., factory overhead 

(including energy), SG&A expenses, and 

profit) using the audited financial 

statements of S. R. Tyres Co., Ltd., 

Hihero Co., Ltd., and Hwa Fong Rubber, 

as used in the 2013–2014 administrative 

review of the existing antidumping 

order on new pneumatic off-the-road 

tires from the PRC.60

Fair Value Comparisons 

Based on the data provided by 

Petitioners, there is reason to believe 

that imports of off road tires from India 

and the PRC are being, or are likely to 

be, sold in the United States at lessthan-fair-value. Based on comparisons 

of EP to CV in accordance with sections 

772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated 

dumping margins for off road tires from 

India range from 10.77 to 76.45 

percent.61 Based on comparisons of EP 

to NV, in accordance with section 773(c) 

of the Act, the estimated dumping 

margins for off road tires from the PRC 

range from 11.20 to 77.69 percent.62

Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value 

Investigations 

Based upon the examination of the 

AD Petitions on off road tires from India 

and the PRC, we find that the Petitions 

meet the requirements of section 732 of 

the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD 

investigations to determine whether 

imports of off road tires from India and 

the PRC are being, or are likely to be, 

sold in the United States at less-thanfair value. In accordance with section 

733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will 

make our preliminary determinations no 

later than 140 days after the date of this 

initiation. 

On June 29, 2015, the President of the 

United States signed into law the Trade 

Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 

which made numerous amendments to 

the AD and CVD law.63 The 2015 law 

does not specify dates of application for 

those amendments. On August 6, 2015, 

the Department published an 

interpretative rule, in which it 

announced the applicability dates for 

each amendment to the Act, except for 

amendments contained in section 771(7) 

of the Act, which relate to 

determinations of material injury by the 

ITC.64 The amendments to sections 

771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are 

applicable to all determinations made 

on or after August 6, 2015, and, 

therefore, apply to these AD 

investigations.65

Respondent Selection 

Petitioners named six companies from 

India as producers/exporters of subject 

off road tires.66 Following standard 

practice in AD investigations involving 

market economy countries, for the India 

AD case, the Department intends to 

select respondents based on U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

data for U.S. imports under the 

appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) 

numbers listed in the ‘‘Scope of the 

Investigation’’ section above. We intend 

to release the CBP data under 

Administrative Protective Order (APO) 

to all parties with access to information 

protected by APO within five business 

days of publication of this Federal 

Register notice. 

Interested parties wishing to comment 

regarding the CBP data and/or 

respondent selection for India must do 

so within seven calendar days after the 

placement of the CBP data on the record 

of this investigation. Parties wishing to 

submit rebuttal comments should 

submit those comments five calendar 

days after the deadline for the initial 

comments. An electronically-filed 

document must be received successfully 

in its entirety by the Department’s 

electronic records system, ACCESS, by 

5:00 p.m. ET by the date noted above. 

We intend to make our decision 

regarding respondent selection within 

20 days of publication of this notice. 

With respect to the PRC, Petitioners 

named 124 companies as producers/

exporters of off road tires.67 In 

accordance with our standard practice 

for respondent selection in cases 

involving NME countries, we intend to 

issue quantity and value (Q&V) 

questionnaires to producers/exporters of 

merchandise subject to this 

investigation 68 and base respondent 

selection on the responses received, 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2016 / Notices 7079 

69See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates 

Practice and Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigation involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at 

http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf 

(Policy Bulletin 05.1). 

70Although in past investigations this deadline 

was 60 days, consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(a), 

which states that ‘‘the Secretary may request any 

person to submit factual information at any time 

during a proceeding,’’ this deadline is now 30 days. 

71See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added). 

72See section 733(a) of the Act. 

73 Id. 

74See 19 CFR 351.301(b). 

75See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2). 

76See section 782(b) of the Act. 

ensuring that potential overlap with 

products covered by the existing AD 

and CVD orders is eliminated. In 

addition, the Department will post the 

Q&V questionnaire along with filing 

instructions on the Enforcement and 

Compliance Web site at http://

www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp. 

Exporters/producers of off road tires 

from the PRC that do not receive Q&V 

questionnaires by mail may still submit 

a response to the Q&V questionnaire 

and can obtain a copy from the 

Enforcement and Compliance Web site. 

The Department will establish an exact 

deadline by which Q&V responses must 

be submitted in the questionnaire itself, 

as subsequently released to potential 

respondents and posted to the 

Enforcement and Compliance Web site. 

All Q&V responses must be filed 

electronically via ACCESS. 

Separate Rates 

In order to obtain separate-rate status 

in an NME investigation, exporters and 

producers must submit a separate-rate 

application.69 The specific requirements 

for submitting a separate-rate 

application in the PRC investigation are 

outlined in detail in the application 

itself, which is available on the 

Department’s Web site at http://

enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-seprate.html. The separate-rate application 

will be due 30 days after publication of 

this initiation notice.70 Exporters and 

producers who submit a separate-rate 

application and have been selected as 

mandatory respondents will be eligible 

for consideration for separate-rate status 

only if they respond to all parts of the 

Department’s AD questionnaire as 

mandatory respondents. The 

Department requires that respondents 

from the PRC submit a response to both 

the Q&V questionnaire and the separaterate application by their respective 

deadlines in order to receive 

consideration for separate-rate status. 

Use of Combination Rates 

The Department will calculate 

combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in an NME investigation. 

The Separate Rates and Combination 

Rates Bulletin 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 Investigation 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.71

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions 

In accordance with section 

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.202(f), copies of the public version 

of the Petitions have been provided to 

the governments of India and the PRC 

via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, 

we will attempt to provide a copy of the 

public version of the Petitions to each 

exporter named in the Petitions, as 

provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification 

We will notify the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 732(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

within 45 days after the date on which 

the Petitions were filed, whether there 

is a reasonable indication that imports 

of off road tires from India and the PRC 

are materially injuring or threatening 

material injury to a U.S. industry.72 A 

negative ITC determination for any 

country will result in the investigation 

being terminated with respect to that 

country; 73 otherwise, these 

investigations will proceed according to 

statutory and regulatory time limits. 

Submission of Factual Information 

Factual information is defined in 19 

CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence 

submitted in response to questionnaires; 

(ii) evidence submitted in support of 

allegations; (iii) publicly available 

information to value factors under 19 

CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the 

adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 

351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on 

the record by the Department; and (v) 

evidence other than factual information 

described in (i)–(iv). Any party, when 

submitting factual information, must 

specify under which subsection of 19 

CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is 

being submitted 74 and, if the 

information is submitted to rebut, 

clarify, or correct factual information 

already on the record, to provide an 

explanation identifying the information 

already on the record that the factual 

information seeks to rebut, clarify, or 

correct.75 Time limits for the 

submission of factual information are 

addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which 

provides specific time limits based on 

the type of factual information being 

submitted. Please review the regulations 

prior to submitting factual information 

in these investigations. 

Extensions of Time Limits 

Parties may request an extension of 

time limits before the expiration of a 

time limit established under 19 CFR 

351, or as otherwise specified by the 

Secretary. In general, an extension 

request will be considered untimely if it 

is filed after the expiration of the time 

limit established under 19 CFR 351 

expires. For submissions that are due 

from multiple parties simultaneously, 

an extension request will be considered 

untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET 

on the due date. Under certain 

circumstances, we may elect to specify 

a different time limit by which 

extension requests will be considered 

untimely for submissions which are due 

from multiple parties simultaneously. In 

such a case, we will inform parties in 

the letter or memorandum setting forth 

the deadline (including a specified time) 

by which extension requests must be 

filed to be considered timely. An 

extension request must be made in a 

separate, stand-alone submission; under 

limited circumstances we will grant 

untimely-filed requests for the extension 

of time limits. Review Extension of 

Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 

(September 20, 2013), available at 

http:// 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/

html/2013-22853.htm, prior to 

submitting factual information in these 

investigations. 

Certification Requirements 

Any party submitting factual 

information in an AD or CVD 

proceeding must certify to the accuracy 

and completeness of that information.76

Parties are hereby reminded that revised 

certification requirements are in effect 

for company/government officials, as 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with NOTICES2
7080 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2016 / Notices 

77See Certification of Factual Information to 

Import Administration during Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 

17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also frequently asked 

questions regarding the Final Rule, available at 

http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_

info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf. 

78While tube-type tires are subject to the scope 

of these proceedings, tubes and flaps are not subject 

merchandise and therefore are not covered by the 

scope of these proceedings, regardless of the 

manner in which they are sold (e.g., sold with or 

separately from subject merchandise). 

79 In these prior investigations, the Department 

found that imports of off road tires mounted on 

wheels were not within the scope of subject 

merchandise. See Certain New Pneumatic Off-TheRoad Tires from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 

40485 (July 15, 2008) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 19. 

well as their representatives. 

Investigations initiated on the basis of 

petitions filed on or after August 16, 

2013, and other segments of any AD or 

CVD proceedings initiated on or after 

August 16, 2013, should use the formats 

for the revised certifications provided at 

the end of the Final Rule.77 The 

Department intends to reject factual 

submissions if the submitting party does 

not comply with applicable revised 

certification requirements. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under 

administrative protective order (APO) in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On 

January 22, 2008, the Department 

published Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Documents Submission Procedures; 

APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 

22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate 

in these investigations should ensure 

that they meet the requirements of these 

procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of 

appearance as discussed in 19 CFR 

351.103(d)). 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: February 3, 2016. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

Appendix I 

Scope of the Investigations 

The scope of these investigations is certain 

new pneumatic off-the-road tires (certain off 

road tires). Certain off road tires are tires with 

an off road tire size designation. The tires 

included in the scope may be either tubetype 78 or tubeless, radial, or non-radial, 

regardless of whether for original equipment 

manufacturers or the replacement market. 

Subject tires may have the following prefix 

or suffix designation, which appears on the 

sidewall of the tire: 

Prefix designations: 

DH—Identifies a tire intended for 

agricultural and logging service which must 

be mounted on a DH drop center rim. 

VA—Identifies a tire intended for 

agricultural and logging service which must 

be mounted on a VA multipiece rim. 

IF—Identifies an agricultural tire to operate 

at 20 percent higher rated load than standard 

metric tires at the same inflation pressure. 

VF—Identifies an agricultural tire to 

operate at 40 percent higher rated load than 

standard metric tires at the same inflation 

pressure. 

Suffix designations: 

ML—Mining and logging tires used in 

intermittent highway service. 

DT—Tires primarily designed for sand and 

paver service. 

NHS—Not for Highway Service. 

TG—Tractor Grader, off-the-road tire for 

use on rims having bead seats with nominal 

+0.188′′ diameter (not for highway service). 

K—Compactor tire for use on 5° drop 

center or semi-drop center rims having bead 

seats with nominal minus 0.032 diameter. 

IND—Drive wheel tractor tire used in 

industrial service. 

SL—Service limited to agricultural usage. 

FI—Implement tire for agricultural towed 

highway service. 

CFO—Cyclic Field Operation. 

SS—Differentiates tires for off-highway 

vehicles such as mini and skid-steer loaders 

from other tires which use similar size 

designations such as 7.00–15TR and 7.00– 

15NHS, but may use different rim bead seat 

configurations. 

All tires marked with any of the prefixes 

or suffixes listed above in their sidewall 

markings are covered by the scope regardless 

of their intended use. 

In addition, all tires that lack any of the 

prefixes or suffixes listed above in their 

sidewall markings are included in the scope, 

regardless of their intended use, as long as 

the tire is of a size that is among the 

numerical size designations listed in the 

following sections of the Tire and Rim 

Association Year Book, as updated annually, 

unless the tire falls within one of the specific 

exclusions set forth below. The sections of 

the Tire and Rim Association Year Book 

listing numerical size designations of covered 

certain off road tires include: 

The table of mining and logging tires 

included in the section on Truck-Bus tires; 

The entire section on Off-the-Road tires; 

The entire section on Agricultural tires; 

and 

The following tables in the section on 

Industrial/ATV/Special Trailer tires: 

• Industrial, Mining, Counterbalanced Lift 

Truck (Smooth Floors Only); 

• Industrial and Mining (Other than 

Smooth Floors); 

• Construction Equipment; 

• Off-the-Road and Counterbalanced Lift 

Truck (Smooth Floors Only); 

• Aerial Lift and Mobile Crane; and 

• Utility Vehicle and Lawn and Garden 

Tractor. 

Certain off road tires, whether or not 

mounted on wheels or rims, are included in 

the scope. However, if a subject tire is 

imported mounted on a wheel or rim, only 

the tire is covered by the scope. Subject 

merchandise includes certain off road tires 

produced in the subject countries whether 

mounted on wheels or rims in a subject 

country or in a third country. Certain off road 

tires are covered whether or not they are 

accompanied by other parts, e.g., a wheel, 

rim, axle parts, bolts, nuts, etc. Certain off 

road tires that enter attached to a vehicle are 

not covered by the scope. 

Excluded from the scope of these 

investigations are any products covered by 

the existing antidumping and countervailing 

duty orders on Certain New Pneumatic Offthe-Road Tires from the People’s Republic of 

China. See Certain New Pneumatic Off-theRoad Tires From the People’s Republic of 

China: Notice of Amended Final Affirmative 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 73 FR 

51624 (September 4, 2008); Certain New 

Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the 

People’s Republic of China: Countervailing 

Duty Order, 73 FR 51627 (September 4, 

2008).79

In addition, specifically excluded from the 

scope are passenger vehicle and light truck 

tires, racing tires, mobile home tires, 

motorcycle tires, all-terrain vehicle tires, 

bicycle tires, on-road or on-highway trailer 

tires, and truck and bus tires. 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 

prefixes and suffixes included as part of the 

size designation on their sidewalls: 

Prefix letter designations: 

AT—Identifies a tire intended for service 

on All-Terrain Vehicles; 

P—Identifies a tire intended primarily for 

service on passenger cars; 

LT—Identifies a tire intended primarily for 

service on light trucks; 

T—Identifies a tire intended for oneposition ‘‘temporary use’’ as a spare only; 

and 

ST—Identifies a special tire for trailers in 

highway service. 

Suffix letter designations: 

TR—Identifies a tire for service on trucks, 

buses, and other vehicles with rims having 

specified rim diameter of nominal plus 

0.156′′ or plus 0.250′′ ; 

MH—Identifies tires for Mobile Homes; 

HC—Identifies a heavy duty tire designated 

for use on ‘‘HC’’ 15′′ tapered rims used on 

trucks, buses, and other vehicles. This suffix 

is intended to differentiate among tires for 

light trucks, and other vehicles or other 

services, which use a similar designation. 

Example: 8R17.5 LT, 8R17.5 HC. 

LT—Identifies light truck tires for service 

on trucks, buses, trailers, and multipurpose 

passenger vehicles used in nominal highway 

service; 

ST—Special tires for trailers in highway 

service; and 

M/C—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; aircraft 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2016 / Notices 7081 

1See Certain Coated Paper Suitable for HighQuality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses 

From the People’s Republic of China: Amended 

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination and Countervailing Duty Order, 75 

FR 70201 (November 17, 2010) (CVD Order). 2See Initiation of Five-Year ‘‘Sunset’’ Review, 80 

FR 59133 (October 1, 2015). 3See Memorandum to the Record from Ron 

Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance, regarding ‘‘Tolling of 

Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the 

Government Closure During Snowstorm Jonas,’’ 

dated January 27, 2016. 

tires; and turf, lawn and garden, and golf 

tires. Also excluded from the scope are 

mining and construction tires 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). 

The subject merchandise is currently 

classifiable under Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

subheadings: 4011.20.1025, 4011.20.1035, 

4011.20.5030, 4011.20.5050, 4011.61.0000, 

4011.62.0000, 4011.63.0000, 4011.69.0050, 

4011.92.0000, 4011.93.4000, 4011.93.8000, 

4011.94.4000, 4011.94.8000, 8431.49.9038, 

8431.49.9090, 8709.90.0020, and 

8716.90.1020. Tires meeting the scope 

description may also enter under the 

following HTSUS subheadings: 

4011.99.4550, 4011.99.8550, 8424.90.9080, 

8431.20.0000, 8431.39.0010, 8431.49.1090, 

8431.49.9030, 8432.90.0005, 8432.90.0015, 

8432.90.0030, 8432.90.0080, 8433.90.5010, 

8503.00.9560, 8708.70.0500, 8708.70.2500, 

8708.70.4530, 8716.90.5035 and 

8716.90.5055. While HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

subject merchandise is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02701 Filed 2–9–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–959] 

Certain Coated Paper Suitable for 

High-Quality Print Graphics Using 

Sheet-Fed Presses From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of 

Expedited Sunset Review of the 

Countervailing Duty Order 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) finds that revocation 

of the countervailing duty (CVD) order 

on certain coated paper suitable for 

high-quality print graphics using sheetfed presses (Certain Coated Paper) from 

the People’s Republic of China (PRC) 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of a countervailable 

subsidy at the levels indicated in the 

Final Results of Review section of this 

notice. 

DATES: Effective date: February 10, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Kennedy, Office I, AD/CVD 

Operations, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–7883. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 1, 2015, the Department 

initiated a sunset review of the CVD 

Order 1 on coated paper from the PRC 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).2 On 

October 15, 2015, the Department 

received a notice of intent to participate 

in the review on behalf of Verso 

Corporation (Verso), S.D. Warren 

Company d/b/a Sappi North America 

(Sappi), Appleton Coated LLC 

(Appleton), and the United Steel, Paper 

and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service 

Workers International Union, AFL–CIO, 

CLC (USW) (collectively, the 

petitioners) within the deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1). 

Verso, Sappi, and Appleton claimed 

interested party status under section 

771(9)(C) of the Act, as domestic 

producers of the domestic like product. 

The USW claimed interested party 

status under section 771(9)(D) of the Act 

as a certified union or recognized union 

or group of workers which is 

representative of an industry engaged in 

the manufacture, production, or 

wholesale in the United States of a 

domestic like product. 

The Department received adequate 

substantive responses collectively from 

the domestic industry within the 30-day 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department did 

not receive a substantive response from 

the Government of the PRC or any 

respondent interested party to the 

proceeding. Because the Department 

received no response from the 

respondent interested parties, the 

Department conducted an expedited 

review of this CVD Order, pursuant to 

section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.218(e)(l)(ii)(B)(2) and (C)(2). 

As explained in the memorandum 

from the Acting Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance, the 

Department has exercised its discretion 

to toll all administrative deadlines due 

to the recent closure of the Federal 

Government. All deadlines in this 

segment of the proceeding have been 

extended by four business days. The 

revised deadline for the final results of 

this expedited sunset review is now 

March 4, 2016.3

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to the order 

is certain coated paper from the People’s 

Republic of China. The product is 

currently classified under the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) numbers 

4810.14.11, 4810.14.1900, 4810.14.2010, 

4810.14.2090, 4810.14.5000, 

4810.14.6000, 4810.14.70, 4810.19.1100, 

4810.19.1900, 4810.19.2010, 

4810.19.2090, 4810.22.1000, 4810.22.50, 

4810.22.6000, 4810.22.70, 4810.29.1000, 

4810.29.5000, 4810.29.6000, 4810.29.70, 

4810.32, 4810.39, 4810.92, 

4810.29.1035, 4810.29.7035, 

4810.92.1235, 4810.92.1435, and 

4810.92.6535. 

For a full description of the scope, see 

‘‘Expedited Sunset Review: Certain 

Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality 

Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses 

from the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul 

Piquado, Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance, dated 

concurrently with this final notice 

(Issues and Decision Memorandum), 

and hereby adopted by this notice. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. The issues discussed in 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum 

include the likelihood of continuation 

or recurrence of a countervailable 

subsidy and the net countervailable 

subsidy likely to prevail if the CVD 

Order were revoked. Parties can find a 

complete discussion of all issues raised 

in this expedited sunset review and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum which is on file 

electronically via the Enforcement and 

Compliance Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (ACCESS). 

ACCESS is available to registered users 

at http://access.trade.gov and in the 

Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of 

the main Department of Commerce 

building. In addition, a complete 

version of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

on the Internet at http://

enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. 

The signed Issues and Decision 

Memorandum and the electronic 

versions of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with NOTICES2