Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 64259 

1See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 54956, 54958 

(October 26, 2009) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). The 

Department initiated reviews of (1) Aeolus Tyre Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Aeolus’’), (2) Guizhou Tire Co., Ltd. (‘‘GTC’’), 

(3) Hanghzou Zhongce Rubber Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hangzhou 

Zhongce’’), (4) Starbright, (5) Innova Rubber Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Innova’’), (6) Jiangsu Feichi Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Feichi’’), (7) KS Holding Limited/KS Resources 

Limited (‘‘KS Ltd.’’), (8) Laizhou Xiongying Rubber 

Industry Co., Ltd. (Laizhou Xiongying’’), (9) 

Qingdao Free Trade Zone Full-World International 

Trading Co. (‘‘Full World’’), Ltd., (10) Qingdao Taifa 

Group Co., Ltd. (Qingdao Taifa’’), (11) Shandong 

Huitong Tyre Co., Ltd. (‘‘Huitong’’), (12) Tianjin 

Wanda Tyre Group (Wanda’’), (13) Tianjin United 

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

(14) Triangle Tyre Co., Ltd. (‘‘Triangle’’), and (15) 

Weihai Zhongwei Rubber Co., Ltd. (‘‘Weihai 

Zhongwei’’). 

2See New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 28567 (May 21, 2010). In addition 

to TUTRIC, the Department rescinded the reviews 

of Aeolus, Feichi, GTC, Huitong, Innova, Triangle 

and Wanda. 

3Titan Tire Corporation (‘‘Titan’’), and 

Bridgestone Americas, Inc., and Bridgestone 

Americas Tire Operations, LLC (collectively 

‘‘Bridgestone’’), both domestic producers of the like 

product. 

4See New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 46917 (August 4, 2010). 

Dated: October 14, 2010. 

Yvette Springer, 

Committee Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26295 Filed 10–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–JT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–912] 

Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road 

Tires From the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain new 

pneumatic off-the-road tires (‘‘OTR 

tires’’) from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’) covering the period 

February 20, 2008, through August 31, 

2009. The administrative review (‘‘AR’’) 

covers six exporters. We have 

preliminarily determined that certain 

exporters who participated fully and are 

entitled to a separate rate sold subject 

merchandise to the United States at 

prices below normal value (‘‘NV’’) 

during the period of review (‘‘POR’’). If 

these preliminary results are adopted in 

our final results of review, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR for which 

the importer-specific assessment rates 

are above de minimis. 

We invite interested parties to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We intend to issue the final results no 

later than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). 

DATES: Effective Date: October 19, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Raquel Silva or Lilit Astvatsatrian, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–6475 or (202) 482– 

6412, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 4, 2008, the 

Department published the antidumping 

duty order on OTR Tires from the PRC. 

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). On September 1, 2009, the 

Department published a notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of this order for the February 20, 

2008, through, August 31, 2009, POR 

(hereinafter referred to as the 2008–2009 

review). See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 74 

FR 45179 (September 1, 2009). In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), 

interested parties made requests for 

review between September 23, 2009, 

and September 30, 2009, on fifteen 

exporters. On October 26, 2009, the 

Department initiated the 2008–2009 

review.1 GPX International Tire 

Corporation (‘‘GPX’’) requested that the 

Department conduct a review of exports 

of eight of the fifteen exporters. On 

November 20, 2009, GPX withdrew its 

review request for seven of the eight 

exporters for which it requested review, 

but maintained its request that the 

Department conduct a review of Hebei 

Starbright Tire Co., Ltd. (‘‘Starbright’’). 

On January 22, 2010, the Department 

selected Starbright and TUTRIC as 

mandatory respondents. Between 

November 24, 2009, and February 24, 

2010, three more parties withdrew their 

respective review requests related to 

these same exporters, including 

TUTRIC. On May 21, 2010, the 

Department rescinded the 

administrative reviews of OTR tires 

with respect to TUTRIC and seven 

additional exporters because all parties 

requesting reviews of these entities had 

withdrawn their respective requests.2

On January 28, 2010, Hanify & King, 

bankruptcy counsel to GPX, informed 

the Department of GPX’s filing of a 

Chapter 11 petition under the United 

States Bankruptcy Code on October 26, 

2009, which counsel claimed 

automatically stayed the Department’s 

administrative proceedings with respect 

to GPX. On February 3, 2010, both 

domestic interested parties 3 submitted 

letters to the Department expressing 

concerns about the effect of GPX’s 

bankruptcy petition on the ongoing 

administrative review. In response to 

parties’ concerns, the Department 

extended regulatory deadlines for Titan 

and Bridgestone until resolution of 

those concerns. On February 12, 2010, 

as a result of Government closures 

during snowstorms, Import 

Administration tolled all deadlines by 

one calendar week. See Memorandum 

from DAS for Import Administration, 

‘‘Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As 

A Result of the Government Closure 

During the Recent Snowstorm,’’ dated 

February 12, 2010, available at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-andnews.html. On May 5, 2010, upon 

resolution of issues related to GPX’s 

bankruptcy petition, the Department 

extended the deadlines for (1) 

Verification requests, (2) factual 

information submissions, (3) comments 

on surrogate country selection, and (4) 

submission of publicly available 

information for valuing factors of 

production. 

On May 5, 2010, the Department 

selected Qingdao Free Trade Zone Full 

World International Trading Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Full-World’’) as the mandatory 

respondent to replace TUTRIC. On May 

26, 2010, Full-World withdrew its 

request for an administrative review of 

its exports. On August 4, 2010, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice rescinding the 

administrative review of OTR tires with 

respect to Full-World.4

On June 7, 2010, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice fully extending the time limit for 

the preliminary results of this review to 

October 7, 2010. See New Pneumatic 

Off-the-Road Tires from the People’s 

Republic of China: Extension of 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

64260 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 

5Agricultural tractors are dual-axle vehicles that 

typically are designed to pull farming equipment in 

the field and that may have front tires of a different 

size than the rear tires. 

6Combine harvesters are used to harvest crops 

such as corn or wheat. 

7Agricultural sprayers are used to irrigate 

agricultural fields. 

8 Industrial tractors are dual-axle vehicles that 

typically are designed to pull industrial equipment 

and that may have front tires of a different size than 

the rear tires. 

9A 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. 

10Skid-steer loaders are four-wheel drive vehicles 

with the left-side drive wheels independent of the 

right-side drive wheels and lift arms that lie 

alongside the driver with the major pivot points 

behind the driver’s shoulders. Skid-steer loaders are 

used in agricultural, construction and industrial 

settings. 

11Haul trucks, which may be either rigid frame 

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

typically used in mines, quarries and construction 

sites to haul soil, aggregate, mined ore, or debris. 12Front loaders have lift arms in front of the 

vehicle. They can scrape material from one location 

to another, carry material in their buckets, or load 

material into a truck or trailer. 13A 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. 14A 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. 15A grader is a vehicle with a large blade used 

to create a flat surface. Graders are typically used 

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

used in maintenance of unpaved roads and road 

construction to prepare the base course on to which 

asphalt or other paving material will be laid. 

16 I.e., ‘‘on-site’’ mobile cranes designed for offhighway use. 17A counterbalanced lift truck is a rigid framed, 

engine-powered machine with lift arms that has 

additional weight incorporated into the back of the 

machine to offset or counterbalance the weight of 

loads that it lifts so as to prevent the vehicle from 

overturning. An example of a counterbalanced lift 

truck is a counterbalanced fork lift truck. 

Counterbalanced lift trucks may be designed for use 

on smooth floor surfaces, such as a factory or 

warehouse, or other surfaces, such as construction 

sites, mines, etc. 

18While tube-type tires are subject to the scope 

of this proceeding, tubes and flaps are not subject 

merchandise and therefore are not covered by the 

scope of this proceeding, regardless of the manner 

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

from subject merchandise). 

Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 

32158 (June 7, 2010). On July 23, 2010, 

and July 29, 2010, parties submitted 

comments on surrogate country 

selection. On July 29, 2010, parties 

submitted comments on surrogate 

values. On August 10, 2010, parties 

submitted rebuttal comments on 

surrogate values. Between January 22, 

2010, and September 1, 2010, the 

Department issued to Starbright the 

original antidumping questionnaire, and 

six supplemental questionnaires. 

Between February 24, 2010, and 

September 10, 2010, Starbright 

submitted timely responses to the 

Department’s seven questionnaires. 

Period of Review 

The POR is February 20, 2008, 

through August 31, 2009. 

Scope of Order 

The products covered by the order are 

new pneumatic tires designed for offthe-road and off-highway use, subject to 

exceptions identified below. Certain 

OTR tires are generally designed, 

manufactured and offered for sale for 

use on off-road or off-highway surfaces, 

including but not limited to, agricultural 

fields, forests, construction sites, factory 

and warehouse interiors, airport 

tarmacs, ports and harbors, mines, 

quarries, gravel yards, and steel mills. 

The vehicles and equipment for which 

certain OTR tires are designed for use 

include, but are not limited to: (1) 

Agricultural and forestry vehicles and 

equipment, including agricultural 

tractors,5 combine harvesters,6

agricultural high clearance sprayers,7

industrial tractors,8 log-skidders,9

agricultural implements, highwaytowed implements, agricultural logging, 

and agricultural, industrial, skid-steers/ 

mini-loaders; 10 (2) construction 

vehicles and equipment, including 

earthmover articulated dump products, 

rigid frame haul trucks,11 front end 

loaders,12 dozers,13 lift trucks, straddle 

carriers,14 graders,15 mobile cranes,16

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.17 The 

foregoing list of vehicles and equipment 

generally have in common that they are 

used for hauling, towing, lifting, and/or 

loading a wide variety of equipment and 

materials in agricultural, construction 

and industrial settings. Such vehicles 

and equipment, and the descriptions 

contained in the footnotes are 

illustrative of the types of vehicles and 

equipment that use certain OTR tires, 

but are not necessarily all-inclusive. 

While the physical characteristics of 

certain OTR tires will vary depending 

on the specific applications and 

conditions for which the tires are 

designed (e.g., tread pattern and depth), 

all of the tires within the scope have in 

common that they are designed for offroad and off-highway use. Except as 

discussed below, OTR tires included in 

the scope of the order range in size (rim 

diameter) generally but not exclusively 

from 8 inches to 54 inches. The tires 

may be either tube-type 18 or tubeless, 

radial or non-radial, and intended for 

sale either to original equipment 

manufacturers or the replacement 

market. The subject merchandise is 

currently classifiable under Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings: 4011.20.10.25, 

4011.20.10.35, 4011.20.50.30, 

4011.20.50.50, 4011.61.00.00, 

4011.62.00.00, 4011.63.00.00, 

4011.69.00.00, 4011.92.00.00, 

4011.93.40.00, 4011.93.80.00, 

4011.94.40.00, and 4011.94.80.00. While 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope is 

dispositive. 

Specifically excluded from the scope 

are new pneumatic tires designed, 

manufactured and offered for sale 

primarily for on-highway or on-road 

use, including passenger cars, race cars, 

station wagons, sport utility vehicles, 

minivans, mobile homes, motorcycles, 

bicycles, on-road or on-highway trailers, 

light trucks, and trucks and buses. Such 

tires generally have in common that the 

symbol ‘‘DOT’’ must appear on the 

sidewall, certifying that the tire 

conforms to applicable motor vehicle 

safety standards. Such excluded tires 

may also have the following 

designations that are used by the Tire 

and Rim Association: 

Prefix Letter Designations 

• P—Identifies a tire intended 

primarily for service on passenger cars; 

• LT—Identifies a tire intended 

primarily for service on light trucks; 

and, 

• ST—Identifies a special tire for 

trailers in highway service. 

Suffix Letter Designations 

• TR—Identifies a tire for service on 

trucks, buses, and other vehicles with 

rims having specified rim diameter of 

nominal plus 0.156′′ or plus 0.250′′ 

• MH—Identifies tires for Mobile 

Homes; 

• HC—Identifies a heavy duty tire 

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

rims used on trucks, buses, and other 

vehicles. This suffix is intended to 

differentiate among tires for light trucks, 

and other vehicles or other services, 

which use a similar designation. 

• Example: 8R17.5 LT, 8R17.5 HC; 

• LT—Identifies light truck tires for 

service on trucks, buses, trailers, and 

multipurpose passenger vehicles used 

in nominal highway service; and 

• MC—Identifies tires and rims for 

motorcycles. 

The following types of tires are also 

excluded from the scope: Pneumatic 

tires that are not new, including 

recycled or retreaded tires and used 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 64261 

19See, e.g., Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

52645 (September 10, 2008); see also Folding Metal 

Tables and Chairs from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 3560 (January 21, 

2009). 

20See Memoranda to Wendy J. Frankel, Office 

Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, ‘‘Request for 

a List of Surrogate Countries for an Administrative 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order Covering 

New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the 

People’s Republic of China,’’ dated January 25, 

2010. 

21See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates 

Practice and Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf. 

22Hangzou Zhongce; Starbright; KS Ltd.; Laizhou 

Xiongying; Qingdao Taifa; and Weihai Zhongwei. 

23See, e.g., Certain Coated Paper Suitable for 

High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed 

Presses From the People’s Republic of China: Notice 

of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 75 FR 24892, 24899 (May 6, 2010) 

(unchanged in Certain Coated Paper Suitable for 

High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed 

Presses From the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 

FR 59217 (September 27, 2010)). 

24 Id. 

25See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles 

From the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 52355, 

52356 (September 13, 2007). 

26All separate-rate applicants receiving a separate 

rate are hereby referred to collectively as the ‘‘SR 

Recipients;’’ this includes the mandatory 

respondent. 

tires; non-pneumatic tires, including 

solid rubber tires; tires of a kind 

designed for use on aircraft, all-terrain 

vehicles, and vehicles for turf, lawn and 

garden, golf and trailer applications. 

Also excluded from the scope are radial 

and bias tires of a kind designed for use 

in mining and construction vehicles and 

equipment that have a rim diameter 

equal to or exceeding 39 inches. Such 

tires may be distinguished from other 

tires of similar size by the number of 

plies that the construction and mining 

tires contain (minimum of 16) and the 

weight of such tires (minimum 1500 

pounds). 

Non-Market Economy Country Status 

No party contested the Department’s 

treatment of the PRC as a non-market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) country, and the 

Department has treated the PRC as an 

NME country in all past antidumping 

duty investigations and administrative 

reviews.19 No interested party in this 

case has argued that we should do 

otherwise. Designation as an NME 

country remains in effect until it is 

revoked by the Department. See section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act. As such, we 

continue to treat the PRC as an NME in 

this proceeding. 

Surrogate Country 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the 

Department to base NV on the NME 

producer’s factors of production 

(‘‘FOPs’’), valued in a surrogate market 

economy (‘‘ME’’) 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 use, to the 

extent possible, the prices or costs of the 

FOPs in one or more ME countries that 

are: (1) At a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

NME country; and (2) significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

The sources of the surrogate factor 

values are discussed under the ‘‘Normal 

Value’’ section below. See Memorandum 

to The File, ‘‘Preliminary Results of the 

2008–2009 Administrative Review of 

New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Surrogate Value Memorandum,’’ dated 

concurrently with this notice 

(‘‘Surrogate Value Memorandum’’). 

The Department determined that 

India, Indonesia, Ukraine, Peru, the 

Philippines and Thailand are countries 

comparable to the PRC in terms of 

economic development.20 Once we have 

identified the countries that are 

economically comparable to the PRC, 

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 are both available and 

reliable. 

The Department has determined that 

India is the appropriate surrogate 

country for use in this review. The 

Department based its decision on the 

following facts: (1) India is at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the PRC; (2) India is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise; 

and (3) India provides the best 

opportunity to use quality, publicly 

available data to value the FOPs. Titan 

and Bridgestone provided comments on 

July 23, 2010, and July 29, 2010, 

respectively, arguing that India is the 

appropriate surrogate country for use in 

this review. Additionally, the data 

submitted by Titan, Bridgestone and 

Starbright for our consideration as 

potential surrogate values are sourced 

from India. 

Therefore, because India best 

represents the experience of producers 

of comparable merchandise operating in 

an ME, we have selected India as the 

surrogate country and, accordingly, 

have calculated NV using Indian prices 

to value the respondent’s FOPs, when 

available and appropriate. See Surrogate 

Value Memorandum. We have obtained 

and relied upon publicly available 

information wherever possible. 

Separate Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department applied a process by which 

exporters and producers not being 

individually reviewed may obtain 

separate-rate status in NME reviews. 

The process requires exporters and 

producers to submit a separate-rate 

status application (‘‘SRA’’) or separaterate status certification (‘‘SRC’’).21

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. From November 30 to 

December 2, 2009, six exporters of the 

subject merchandise filed timely 

responses to the Department’s SRAs or 

SRCs, as applicable.22

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.23 It is the Department’s policy 

to assign all exporters of merchandise 

subject to review 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.24 Exporters can 

demonstrate this independence through 

the absence of both de jure and de facto 

government control over export 

activities. The Department analyzes 

each entity exporting the subject 

merchandise under a test arising from 

the Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588, at Comment 1 (May 6, 1991) 

(‘‘Sparklers’’), as further developed in 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 

from the People’s Republic of China, 59 

FR 22585, 22587 (May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon 

Carbide’’). However, if the Department 

determines that a company is wholly 

foreign-owned or located in an ME, then 

an SRA analysis is not necessary to 

determine whether it is independent 

from government control.25

A. Separate-Rate Recipients 26

1. Wholly Foreign-Owned 

Starbright reported that during the 

POR it was wholly owned by GPX, a 

U.S. company, and KS Ltd. reported in 

its SRA that it is wholly-owned by a 

company located in Hong Kong. 

Therefore, consistent with the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

64262 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 

27See, 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, 

71104–05 (December 20, 1999) (where the 

respondent was wholly foreign-owned and, thus, 

qualified for a separate rate). 

28See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 

29Collective reference for all respondents 

receiving a separate rate in this administrative 

review. 

30See 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). 

31See, e.g., Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 

Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review and 

Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 73 FR 

8273, 8279 (February 13, 2008) (unchanged in 

Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper 

Review, 73 FR 49162 (August 20, 2008)). 

Department’s practice, a further SRA 

analysis is not necessary to determine 

whether Starbright’s and KS Ltd.’s 

export activities are independent from 

government control, and we have 

preliminarily granted a separate rate to 

Starbright and KS Ltd.27

2. Wholly Chinese-Owned Companies 

Hangzhou Zhongce, Laizhou 

Xiongying, Qingdao Taifa, and Weihai 

Zhongwei stated that they 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.28

The evidence provided by the PRC SR 

Recipients 29 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) 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.30 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 

review 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 consideration, 

in accordance with the criteria 

identified in Sparklers and Silicon 

Carbide. 

Rate for Non-Selected Companies 

The statute and the Department’s 

regulations do not address the 

establishment of a rate to be applied to 

individual companies not selected for 

examination where the Department 

limited its examination in an 

administrative review pursuant to 

section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, 

we have looked to section 735(c)(5) of 

the Act, which provides instructions for 

calculating the all-others rate in an 

investigation, for guidance when 

calculating the rate for respondents we 

did not examine in an administrative 

review. For the exporters subject to a 

review that were determined to be 

eligible for separate rate status, but were 

not selected as mandatory respondents, 

the Department generally weightaverages the rates calculated for the 

mandatory respondents, excluding any 

rates that are zero, de minimis, or based 

entirely on FA.31 For this administrative 

review, the Department has calculated a 

positive margin for the single mandatory 

respondent, Starbright. Accordingly, for 

these preliminary results, consistent 

with our practice, the Department has 

preliminarily established a margin for 

the SR Recipients based on the rate 

calculated for the single mandatory 

respondent, Starbright. 

Date of Sale 

Section 401(i) of the Department’s 

regulations states that: 

In identifying the date of sale of the subject 

merchandise or foreign like product, the 

Secretary normally will use the date of 

invoice, as recorded in the exporter or 

producer’s records kept in the ordinary 

course of business. However, the Secretary 

may use a date other than the date of invoice 

if the Secretary is satisfied that a different 

date better reflects the date on which the 

exporter or producer establishes the material 

terms of sale. 

See also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. 

v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 

1090–1092 (CIT 2001) (upholding the 

Department’s rebuttable presumption 

that invoice date is the appropriate date 

of sale). After examining the 

questionnaire responses and the sales 

documentation placed on the record by 

Starbright, we preliminarily determine 

that invoice date is the most appropriate 

date of sale for Starbright. Nothing on 

the record rebuts the presumption that 

invoice date should be the date of sale. 

Normal Value Comparisons 

To determine whether Starbright’s 

sales of OTR tires to the United States 

were made at less than NV, we 

compared constructed export price 

(‘‘CEP’’) to NV, as described in the 

‘‘Constructed Export Price,’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice, 

pursuant to section 771(35) of the Act. 

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 

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

Starbright’s sales because the sales were 

made by GPX, Starbright’s 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, and 

selling expenses in the U.S. market. 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 64263 

32See 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’),’’ dated October 7, 2010 

(‘Starbright Preliminary Analysis Memorandum’’). 

33See Starbright Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum. 

34See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Lasko Metal 

Products v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442, 1445–1446 

(Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming the Department’s use of 

market-based prices to value certain FOPs). 

35See, e.g., China National Machinery Import & 

Export Corp. v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 

1339 (CIT 2003) (aff’d, 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. 

Cir. 2004)) (‘‘China National Machinery’’), and see 

Frontseating Service Valves from the People’s 

Republic of China; Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Preliminary Negative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances, and 

Postponement of Final Determination, 73 FR 62952 

(October 22, 2008) (unchanged in Frontseating 

Service Valves from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value and Final Negative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 74 FR 10886 (March 13, 2009)) 

(‘‘Frontseating Service Valves’’). 

36Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 

1988, Conf. Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. 

No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988) at 590. 

37See, e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from 

India: Final Results of the Expedited Five-year 

(Sunset) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order, 

75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at pages 4–5; 

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate 

from Indonesia: Final Results of Expedited Sunset 

Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

page 4; Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Results 

of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 

FR 2512 (January 15, 2009), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at pages 17, 19– 

20; Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 

2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at page 23. 

38See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 

50946, 50950 (October 2, 2009) (unchanged in 

Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 65520 (December 

10, 2009)). 

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 calculating its 

reported indirect selling expenses, the 

company did not include a significant 

number of items that it later claimed 

should be excluded; however, it did not 

provide any substantiation for this 

claim. Accordingly, for purposes of 

these preliminary results of review, we 

have included these items in the 

indirect selling expense adjustment to 

U.S. price.32 Further, we did not grant 

an offset to interest expenses for shortterm interest income because Starbright 

did not demonstrate that any of GPX’s 

interest income was generated from 

short-term assets. However, we will 

issue a post-preliminary supplemental 

questionnaire to Starbright requesting 

that it provide substantiating 

documentation for its claim that all of 

its originally excluded items should be 

excluded from indirect selling expenses, 

and provide Starbright an opportunity 

to provide evidence that any of GPX’s 

interest income was short term in 

nature. In addition, we deducted CEP 

profit in accordance with sections 

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

accordance with section 772(d) of the 

Act, we calculated Starbright’s credit 

expenses and inventory carrying costs 

based on the actual short-term interest 

rate reported for loans obtained by GPX 

during the POR.33

Normal Value 

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

that, in the case of an NME, the 

Department shall determine 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 FOPs 

because the presence of government 

controls on various aspects of NME 

economies renders price comparisons 

and the calculation of production costs 

invalid under our normal 

methodologies. Therefore, in these 

preliminary results, we have calculated 

NV based on FOPs in accordance with 

sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.408(c). The FOPs include: 

(1) Hours of labor required; (2) 

quantities of raw materials employed; 

(3) amounts of energy and other utilities 

consumed; and (4) representative capital 

costs. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1), the Department normally 

uses publicly available information to 

value the FOPs. However, when a 

producer sources a meaningful amount 

of an input from an ME country and 

pays for it in ME currency, the 

Department may value the factor using 

the actual price paid for the input.34

Further, the Department disregards 

prices it has reason to suspect may be 

subsidized.35

In accordance with the legislative 

history of the Omnibus Trade and 

Competitiveness Act of 1988, the 

Department continues to apply its longstanding practice of disregarding 

surrogate values if it has a reason to 

believe or suspect the source data may 

be subsidized.36 In this regard, the 

Department has previously found that it 

is appropriate to disregard such prices 

from India, Indonesia, South Korea and 

Thailand because we have determined 

that these countries maintain broadly 

available, non-industry specific export 

subsidies.37 Based on the existence of 

these subsidy programs that were 

generally available to all exporters and 

producers in these countries at the time 

of the POR, the Department finds that it 

is reasonable to infer that all exporters 

from India, Indonesia, South Korea and 

Thailand may have benefitted from 

these subsidies. 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on the 

FOPs reported by Starbright for the 

POR. To calculate NV, we multiplied 

the reported per-unit factor quantities 

by publicly available Indian surrogate 

values (except as noted below). In 

selecting the surrogate values, we 

considered the quality, specificity, 

public availability, and 

contemporaneity of the data. As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to render 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 or the 

distance from the nearest seaport to the 

factory where appropriate (i.e., where 

the sales terms for the ME inputs were 

not delivered to the factory). This 

adjustment is in accordance with the 

decision of the Federal Circuit in Sigma 

Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 

1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed 

description of all surrogate values used 

for Starbright, see the Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

In past cases, it has been the 

Department’s practice to value various 

FOPs using import statistics of the 

primary selected surrogate country from 

World Trade Atlas (‘‘WTA’’), as 

published by Global Trade Information 

Services (‘‘GTIS’’).38 However, in 

October 2009, the Department learned 

that Indian import data obtained from 

the WTA, as published by GTIS, began 

identifying the original reporting 

currency for India as the U.S. Dollar. 

The Department then contacted GTIS 

about the change in the original 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

64264 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 

39See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Final 

Determination of Critical Circumstances, and Final 

Determination of Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335 

(April 19, 2010), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. 

40See Antidumping Methodologies: Market 

Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy 

Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments, 

71 FR 61716, 61717–19 (October 19, 2006) 

(‘‘Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy 

Inputs’’). 

41For a detailed description of all actual values 

used for market-economy inputs, see New-Tec 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum dated 

concurrently with this notice. 

42We did not accept all of Starbright’s claimed 

market economy purchases; however due to the 

proprietary nature of this issue, please see further 

discussion in the Starbright Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum. 

43 http://www.jnport.gov.in/ 

CMSPage.aspx?PageID=27. 

44The ILO industry-specific data is reported 

according to the International Standard Industrial 

Classification of all Economic Activities (‘‘ISIC’’) 

code, which is maintained by the United Nations 

Statistical Division and is periodically updated. 

These updates are referred to as ‘‘Revisions.’’ The 

ILO, an organization under the auspices of the 

reporting currency for India from the 

Indian Rupee to the U.S. Dollar. 

Officials at GTIS explained that while 

GTIS obtains data on imports into India 

directly from the Ministry of Commerce, 

Government of India, as denominated 

and published in Indian Rupees, the 

WTA software is limited with regard to 

the number of significant digits it can 

manage. Therefore, GTIS made a 

decision to change the original reporting 

currency for Indian data from the Indian 

Rupee to the U.S. Dollar in order to 

reduce the loss of significant digits 

when obtaining data through the WTA 

software. GTIS explained that it 

converts the Indian Rupee to the U.S. 

Dollar using the monthly Federal 

Reserve exchange rate applicable to the 

relevant month of the data being 

downloaded and converted.39

However, the data reported in the 

Global Trade Atlas (‘‘GTA’’) software 

published by GTIS reports import 

statistics, such as from India, in the 

original reporting currency and, thus, 

these data correspond to the original 

currency value reported by each 

country. Additionally, the data reported 

in the GTA software are reported to the 

nearest digit and, thus, there is not a 

loss of data by rounding, as there is with 

the data reported by the WTA software. 

Consequently, the Department will now 

obtain import statistics from GTA for 

valuing various FOPs because the GTA 

import statistics are in the original 

reporting currency of the country from 

which the data are obtained, and have 

the same level of accuracy as the 

original data released. 

We further adjusted material input 

values to account for freight costs 

incurred between the supplier and 

respondent. We used the freight rates 

published by http://www.infobanc.com, 

‘‘The Great Indian Bazaar, Gateway to 

Overseas Markets.’’ The logistics section 

of the website contains inland freight 

truck rates between many large Indian 

cities. The truck freight rates are for the 

period August 2008 through July 2009. 

See Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

Starbright made raw materials 

purchases from ME suppliers. 

Therefore, in accordance with our 

practice outlined in Antidumping 

Methodologies: Market Economy 

Inputs,40 where at least 33 percent of an 

input is sourced from ME suppliers and 

purchased in an ME currency, the 

Department used actual weightedaverage purchase prices to value these 

inputs.41 Where the quantity of the 

input purchased from ME suppliers 

during the period is below 33 percent of 

the total volume of purchases of the 

input during the period, the Department 

weight-averaged the weighted average 

ME purchase price with an appropriate 

surrogate value.42 See Antidumping 

Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs. 

For a complete description of the factor 

values we used, see the Surrogate Value 

Memorandum and the Starbright 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. 

Where we could not obtain publicly 

available information contemporaneous 

with the POR 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’’). 

To value electricity, we used price 

data for small, medium, and large 

industries, as published by the Central 

Electricity Authority of the Government 

of India in its publication entitled 

‘‘Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average 

Rates of Electricity Supply in India,’’ 

dated March 2008. These electricity 

rates represent actual country-wide, 

publicly-available information on taxexclusive electricity rates charged to 

industries in India. We did not inflate 

this value because utility rates represent 

current rates, as indicated by the 

effective dates listed for each of the rates 

provided. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

To value water, we used the revised 

Maharashtra Industrial Development 

Corporation (‘‘MIDC’’) water rates 

available at http://www.midcindia.com/ 

water-supply. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

The Department valued brokerage and 

handling using a price list of export 

procedures necessary to export a 

standardized cargo of goods in India. 

The price list is compiled based on a 

survey case study of the procedural 

requirements for trading a standard 

shipment of goods by ocean transport in 

India that is published in Doing 

Business 2010: India, published by the 

World Bank. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

To value steam coal, we used data 

obtained for grades A and B coal 

reported in the December 2007 Coal 

India Limited Circular. See Surrogate 

Value Memorandum. 

To value warehousing, the 

Department used values obtained from 

the Board of Jawaharlal Nehru Port 

Trust’s Web site,43 a source identified 

and used in the less-than-fair-value 

investigation of this proceeding. See 

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 (Sept. 4, 2008), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 26. We 

applied these values to the average 

number of days that Starbright’s subject 

merchandise is in inventory. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

As a consequence of the decision of 

the Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit (‘‘Federal Circuit’’) in Dorbest 

Ltd. v. United States, 604 F. 3d 1363 

(Fed. Cir. 2010), the Department is no 

longer relying on the regression-based 

wage rate described in 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3). The Department is 

continuing to evaluate options for 

determining labor values in light of the 

recent Federal Circuit decision. For 

these preliminary results, we have 

calculated an hourly wage rate to use in 

valuing the reported labor input by 

averaging earnings and/or wages in 

countries that are economically 

comparable to the PRC and that are 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. To calculate the hourly 

wage data, we used wage rate data 

reported by the International Labor 

Organization (‘‘ILO’’). Because an 

industry-specific dataset relevant to this 

proceeding exists within the 

Department’s preferred ILO source, we 

will be using industry-specific data to 

calculate a surrogate wage rate for this 

review, in accordance with section 

773(c)(1) of the Act. 

For this review, the Department has 

calculated the wage rate using a simple 

average of the data provided to the ILO 

under Sub-Classification 25 of the ISIC– 

Revision 44 3 standard by countries 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 64265 

United Nation, utilizes this classification for 

reporting purposes. Currently, wage and earnings 

data are available from the ILO under the following 

revisions: ISIC–Rev.2, ISIC–Rev.3, and most 

recently, ISIC–Rev.4. The ISIC code establishes a 

two-digit breakout for each manufacturing category, 

and also often provides a three- or four-digit subcategory for each two-digit category. Depending on 

the country, data may be reported at either the 

two-, three- or four-digit subcategory. SubClassification 25 of the ISIC–Revision 3 covers 

‘‘Manufacture of Rubber and Plastics Products’’. 

45See Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

46Specifically, JK Industries received subsidies 

under the Sales Tax Deferred from Government of 

Karnataka program (see page 40 of its financial 

statement), found by the Department to be 

countervailable. See Notice of Preliminary Results 

and Rescission, in Part, of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Film, Sheet, and Strip from India, 71 FR 45037 

(August 8, 2006) (8/8/2006 PET Film). MRF Tyres 

received subsidies under the Export Promotion 

Capital Goods Scheme (see page 61 of its financial 

statement), found by the Department to be 

countervailable. See Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination: Bottle-Grade 

Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin From India, 

70 FR 13460 (March 21, 2005) (3/21/2005 PET 

Resin). Balkrishna Industries received subsidies 

under the Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (see 

page 32 of its financial statement), found by the 

Department to be countervailable. See, e.g., 8/8/ 

2006 PET Film and 3/21/2005 PET Resin. 

47See Letter from the Department to Starbright, 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 

Continued 

determined to be both economically 

comparable and significant producers to 

the PRC. Specifically, the Department 

finds the two-digit description under 

ISIC–Revision 3 (‘‘Manufacture of 

Rubber and Plastics Products’’) to be the 

best available wage rate surrogate value 

on the record because it is specific and 

derived from industries that produce 

merchandise comparable to the subject 

merchandise. For further information on 

the calculation of the wage rate, see the 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

To value factory overhead, selling, 

general, and administrative expenses, 

and profit, we used audited financial 

statements for the year ending March 

31, 2009, of Falcon Tyres Ltd., and TVS 

Srichakra Limited, and the financial 

statement for the year ending December 

31, 2008, of Goodyear India Limited, 

Indian producers of comparable 

merchandise.45 For these preliminary 

results, the Department determined not 

to use audited financial statements of 

Govind Rubber Limited because the 

overwhelming amount of production is 

cycle tires and tubes, and auto tires and 

tubes accounted for less than 1 percent 

of production. Based upon that 

information, we find that Govind 

Rubber Limited does not produce 

comparable merchandise. In addition, 

the Department has declined to use 

audited financial statements of three 

other Indian producers, JK Industries 

Ltd., MRF Tyres Ltd. and Balkrishna 

Industries Limited, because there is 

evidence that each of these companies 

received subsidies under programs 

previously found by the Department to 

be countervailable.46 Nevertheless, the 

Department may consider other publicly 

available financial statements for the 

final results, as appropriate. 

In its original questionnaire response, 

Starbright stated that it does not 

produce any by-products, with the 

exception of a small amount of scrap 

tires. In a July 14, 2010, supplemental 

questionnaire, we requested that 

Starbright explain, as requested in the 

original questionnaire, the disposition 

of its by-products, and that it 

demonstrate the quantities of scrap 

product produced during the POR. In 

addition we asked Starbright to 

demonstrate that there is a commercial 

value to its claimed scrap through either 

sale, or the reintroduction into its 

production process. On August 17, 

2010, Starbright provided a worksheet 

purportedly showing scrap production 

for July 2008; however it did not explain 

the worksheet or tie to any supporting 

documents. In this same response, 

Starbright also stated that it does not 

sell or reintroduce the scrap tires into 

production, but, if possible repaired and 

returned them to inventory. Because 

Starbright clearly and repeatedly stated 

that these scrap tires were neither sold 

nor re-used in production, but simply 

placed in inventory, it has not 

demonstrated that these scrap tires have 

any commercial value that would 

warrant a by-product offset. 

On September 1, 2010, the 

Department requested for the third time 

that Starbright provide documentation 

to demonstrate the production, sale, 

and/or reintroduction of its scrap tires 

by-product, whereupon, on September 

13, 2010, Starbright stated that due to 

time and staffing constraints, it had not 

been able to prepare the requested 

information. Because Starbright 

reported that it produced scrap tires but 

did not report or demonstrate that it 

sold or reintroduced the scrap tires into 

production and thus did not 

demonstrate either the production or 

commercial value of any such scrap, we 

have not granted Starbright its claimed 

by-product offset for tire scrap. 

Adverse Facts Available 

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

provide that the Department shall apply 

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

necessary information is not on the 

record or an interested party or any 

other person: (A) Withholds information 

that has been requested; (B) fails to 

provide information within the 

deadlines established, or in the form 

and manner requested by the 

Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) 

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

significantly impedes a proceeding; or 

(D) provides information that cannot be 

verified as provided by section 782(i) of 

the Act. 

Where the Department determines 

that a response to a request for 

information does not comply with the 

request, section 782(d) of the Act 

provides that the Department will so 

inform the party submitting the 

response and will, to the extent 

practicable, provide that party the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If the party fails to remedy 

the deficiency within the applicable 

time limits and subject to section 782(e) 

of the Act, the Department may 

disregard all or part of the original and 

subsequent responses, as appropriate. 

Section 782(e) of the Act provides that 

the Department ‘‘shall not decline to 

consider information that is submitted 

by an interested party and is necessary 

to the determination but does not meet 

all applicable requirements established 

by the administering authority’’ if the 

information is timely, can be verified, is 

not so incomplete that it cannot be used, 

and if the interested party acted to the 

best of its ability in providing the 

information. Where all of these 

conditions are met, the statute requires 

the Department to use the information if 

it can do so without undue difficulties. 

Section 776(b) of the Act further 

provides that the Department may use 

an adverse inference in applying the 

facts otherwise available when a party 

has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information. Section 776(b) 

of the Act also authorizes the 

Department to use as adverse facts 

available (‘‘AFA’’) information derived 

from the petition, the final 

determination, a previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. 

For the reasons discussed below, we 

determine that, in accordance with 

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

the use of partial AFA is appropriate for 

the preliminary results with respect to 

Starbright. 

1. Products with Unreported Factors of 

Production 

The original questionnaire states: ‘‘if 

you sold some products/models during 

the POR but did not produce them 

during the POR * * * please contact the 

official in charge before preparing your 

response to this section of the 

questionnaire.’’ 47 However, in filing its 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

64266 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 

Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the 

People’s Republic of China: Questionnaire,’’ dated 

January 22, 2010, at page D–1 (‘‘Questionnaire’’). 

48See Starbright’s April 27, 2010, sections C and 

D questionnaire response. 

49See Starbright’s August 2, 2010, supplemental 

questionnaire response at 5. 

50See Starbright’s August 17, 2010, supplemental 

questionnaire response at 1 and Exhibit SD–2. 

51See Starbright’s September 13, 2010, 

supplemental questionnaire response at 19. 

52See Questionnaire at C–23. 

53See Starbright’s April 27, 2010, sections C 

questionnaire response at 35 and Exhibit C–4. 

54See Letter from the Department to Starbright: 

‘‘First Administrative Review of the Antidumping 

Duty Order on New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires 

from the People’s Republic of China: Supplemental 

Section C Questionnaire’’, dated July 1, 2010, at 7. 

55See Starbright’s August 2, 2010, supplemental 

questionnaire response at 22–24. 

56See id. at 9. 

questionnaire response, Starbright 

included several products in the 

reported U.S. sales list in its response to 

section C of the questionnaire for which 

it failed to provide any factors of 

production in its response to section 

D.48 Furthermore, prior to submitting its 

response, Starbright never contacted the 

Department regarding this matter, 

despite the instructions in the 

questionnaire that it do so. 

On July 1, 2010, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire in 

which it asked Starbright to explain the 

missing product control numbers, and 

to provide FOPs for the product control 

numbers included in the section C 

database but missing from the section D 

database. In its August 2, 2010, response 

to the supplemental section C 

questionnaire, Starbright explained that 

these products were sold during the 

POR, but not produced during the POR. 

Starbright further stated that it would 

provide the FOP information for these 

products in its response to the section 

D supplemental questionnaire.49

On August 17, 2010 Starbright 

provided matching product control 

numbers in its FOP database for the 

products that it reported were sold 

during the POR but not produced during 

the POR. Starbright stated that it had 

‘‘created similars’’ for the product 

control numbers that did not have 

matches in the FOP database, and that 

it had created a new variable in the FOP 

database for the ‘‘similar’’ product 

control number. Starbright also 

included a chart listing the control 

numbers for the products sold to the 

United States, and the similar control 

number created by Starbright.50

However, based on Starbright’s 

explanation that it sold these products 

during the POR but did not produce 

these products during the POR, it was 

not clear whether Starbright produced 

the products prior to the POR, or 

purchased the products from another 

producer and how it derived the FOPs 

it reported for these products (e.g., did 

they reflect prior year’s production, 

production of other products, or 

something else entirely). Thus, on 

September 1, 2010, in a second section 

D supplemental questionnaire, the 

Department asked that Starbright 

explain the origin of the merchandise 

sold during the POR but not produced 

by Starbright during the POR, and that 

Starbright provide evidence of its 

attempts to obtain FOP information 

from the producer or the merchandise if 

the products were purchased from 

another producer. The Department also 

explained that, if Starbright produced 

these products prior to the POR, it 

should provide the FOPs based on the 

prior production period (data it should 

have from the period of the 

investigation). 

On September 13, 2010, Starbright 

argued that any request for FOPs based 

on the prior year’s production would 

require a revision to its entire FOP 

database and refused to comply with the 

Department’s request for the FOP data 

from the prior production period. 

However, Starbright failed to explain 

why having to report the prior year’s 

FOPs for products not produced in the 

current POR would require a revision to 

the entire FOP database, since the prior 

year’s reporting would only be 

necessary for the products sold but not 

produced during the instant POR. 

Starbright further contended that it was 

unable to provide the requested FOP 

data in such a short period of time.51

Thus, Starbright disregarded the clear 

instructions in the original 

questionnaire, directing it to contact the 

Department if it had made sales of 

products during the POR that it did not 

produce during the POR. Starbright also 

refused to provide the information when 

requested by the Department in a 

supplemental questionnaire regarding 

the nature of what it had reported, thus 

rendering the data unusable. Moreover, 

Starbright provided no rationale for its 

creation of ‘‘similar’’ product control 

numbers for these products. 

Consequently, we preliminarily 

determine that partial facts available is 

warranted because necessary 

information is not on the record and 

because Starbright failed to provide 

requested information by the applicable 

deadlines and impeded the proceeding 

by not explaining the derivation of its 

reported ‘‘similar’’ FOPs. Section 

776(a)(1), (a)(2)(B) and (a)(2)(C) of the 

Act. Moreover, by failing to notify the 

Department of the existence of sales for 

products not produced in the POR, 

despite the clear instruction in the 

questionnaire, and by failing to provide 

usable information by the applicable 

deadlines, the conditions of section 

782(c)(1) and (e), to which Section 

776(a)(2)(B) is subject, have not been 

satisfied. In addition, we determine that 

Starbright has not cooperated to the best 

of its ability by repeatedly failing to 

provide the requested FOP data from the 

production period, despite numerous 

opportunities to do so. Accordingly, an 

adverse inference in using facts 

available under section 776(b) of the Act 

is warranted for Starbright with regard 

to this specific information. For the 

products sold but not produced by 

Starbright during the POR as adverse 

facts available, we have applied the 

highest normal value for any control 

number in Starbright’s FOP database. 

See Starbright Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum. 

2. Rebates 

The original questionnaire instructs 

respondents: ‘‘where available, provide 

documentation, including sample 

agreements, for each type of rebate.’’ 52

Starbright provided a chart in exhibit C– 

4 of its April 27, 2010, section C 

response, in which it summarized and 

calculated the rebates granted in 2008; 

however, Starbright provided no 

documentation to support its reported 

rebates, and no explanation as to why 

such documentation was unavailable. 

Furthermore, Starbright explained that 

it was still compiling information 

related to rebates granted in 2009.53

On July 1, 2010, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire, in 

which it copied the question for the 

original questionnaire and requested 

that Starbright respond ‘‘in full.’’ 54 In its 

August 2, 2010, supplemental 

questionnaire response, Starbright 

submitted a revised exhibit C–4, in 

which it ‘‘expanded the summary to 

detail all customer codes,’’ but again 

provided no documentation, including 

copies of rebate agreements, and no 

explanation as to why it was unable to 

provide the requested information.55

On August 3, 2010, the Department 

requested that Starbright provide 

documentation to substantiate the rebate 

amounts for one sample customer 

reported in exhibit C–4 of its original 

section C response. On August 27, 2010, 

Starbright again revised its worksheet 

for 2008 rebates, and explained that the 

reported information ‘‘is from GPX’s 

system. As such, GPX believes these 

amounts to be substantiated.’’ 56

Starbright stated that based on 

information already provided, the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 64267 

57See id. 

58See id. 

59See id. 

60See id. at 10. 

61See id. 

62See id. 

63See Letter from the Department to Starbright: 

‘‘First Administrative Review of the Antidumping 

Duty Order on New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires 

from the People’s Republic of China: Third 

Supplemental Sections A, C, and D Questionnaire’’, 

dated September 1, 2010, at 5. 

64See id. at 3–4. 

65See Starbright’s September 13, 2010, 

supplemental questionnaire response at 14. 

66See id at 1–4 and Exhibit 4SA–1. 

67See id. 

68Similarly, because no export subsidies were 

found to be applicable to ‘‘all others’’ in the most 

recently completed segment of the companion 

countervailing duty proceeding, we also have not 

adjusted the rate applied to the separate rate 

recipients. 

Department ‘‘is able to calculate an 

antidumping margin that is 

substantiated by data and 

documentation drawn directly from 

GPX’s accounting system.’’ 57 With 

respect to the documentation that the 

Department repeatedly requested, such 

as copies of rebate agreements, 

Starbright stated that ‘‘it is virtually 

impossible for GPX to provide this 

documentation at this time.’’ 58

According to Starbright, as a result of 

GPX’s bankruptcy, ‘‘for all practical 

purposes, GPX, no longer exists * * * 

and the human staff has long since been 

dismissed.’’ 59 As a result, Starbright 

argued that ‘‘it would be unduly 

burdensome to require GPX to provide 

this additional documentation.’’ 60

With respect to its 2009 rebates, 

Starbright reported one program related 

solely to a specific customer, and 

another rebate program related to 

another specific customer. Starbright 

explained the relevant customer codes 

to which these two rebate programs 

were allocable. Starbright also reported 

an additional rebate program, claiming 

that a group of buyers ‘‘joined together 

in order to receive better large-scale 

pricing and/or rebates, (similar to a 

cooperative).’’ 61 Stabright explained 

that it was ‘‘still working to allocate the 

rebates’’ for this customer grouping, on 

a customer and/or product code basis.62

While Starbright reported the 2009 

rebate rate for this rebate program, and 

claimed it could identify the full 

amount of the rebate paid, it stated that 

it could not identify the group of 

customers that participated in this 

rebate program, and thus it allocated the 

total claimed amount paid out over all 

2009 U.S. sales of subject merchandise. 

On September 1, 2010, the 

Department explained that Starbright 

had failed to provide the requested 

documentation to substantiate the 

reported rebate amount for a previouslyselected sample customer. The 

Department again requested that 

Starbright provide a copy of the rebate 

agreement that established the rebate 

amount for that customer, as well as 

rebate receipts or any other documents 

that substantiate the numbers reported 

in Starbright’s rebate worksheets.63 The 

Department also asked Starbright to 

document efforts to obtain the requested 

information in light of its claim that it 

would be unduly burdensome to require 

GPX to provide that documentation.64 In 

response, Starbright provided a credit 

memo used to grant the customer a 

credit in the amount of the rebate, but 

no documentation establishing the 

rebate rate, and no explanation for why 

it was unable to provide this 

documentation repeatedly requested by 

the Department.65 Starbright has still 

not allocated rebates to the cooperative 

customer grouping discussed in its 

August 27, 2010, response, and nor has 

it identified the members of this 

customer grouping. In response to the 

Department’s request for documentation 

of Starbright’s efforts to access 

substantiating documents, Starbright 

submitted a letter from the attorney for 

the liquidating supervisor for GPX 

explaining that, due to GPX’s 

liquidation, ‘‘complying with 

Commerce’s demands is extremely 

difficult.’’ 66 Starbright also submitted a 

declaration from a former GPX 

employee describing the liquidation 

process and a general summary of the 

employee’s efforts to retrieve requested 

documents.67 Neither submission nor 

the narrative provided to explain the 

submissions indicated any specific 

attempts to access the requested 

documents before September 2010, 

more than eight months after the 

Department first requested the 

information. Because Starbright did not 

provide the requested data the 

Department preliminary determines that 

it is appropriate to use facts available 

under sections 776(a)(1) and (a)(2)(B) of 

the Act. Because Starbright failed to 

promptly inform the Department of any 

difficulty in obtaining the data and 

failed to provide usable information by 

the applicable deadlines, the conditions 

of section 782(c)(1) and (e), to which 

section 776(a)(2)(B) is subject, have not 

been satisfied. Further, because 

Starbright did not satisfactorily 

demonstrate how it was unable to 

provide or unduly burdensome to 

provide the requested information, we 

determine that an adverse inference in 

using facts available under section 

776(b) of the Act is warranted. As AFA, 

the Department is applying the reported 

rebate rate from this 2009 program to all 

2009 sales for all customers, with the 

exception of the two customers 

identified by Starbright as having their 

own rebate programs. See Starbright 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars, where appropriate, 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. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminary find that the 

following margins exist: 

Exporter Percent 

margin 

Hebei Starbright Tire Co., Ltd ...... 20.74 

Hanghzou Zhongce Rubber Co., 

Ltd. 20.74 

KS Holding Limited/KS Resources 

Limited 20.74 

Laizhou Xiongying Rubber Industry Co., Ltd. 20.74 

Qingdao Taifa Group Co., Ltd ...... 20.74 

Weihai Zhongwei Rubber Co., Ltd 20.74 

We have not made an adjustment to the 

U.S. price for export subsidies because 

Starbright was not found to have export 

subsidies in the most recently 

completed segment of the companion 

countervailing duty proceeding.68

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to this 

proceeding within five days of the 

publication date of this notice. See 19 

CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are 

invited to comment on the preliminary 

results and may submit case briefs and/ 

or written comments within 30 days of 

the date of publication of this notice. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c). Interested 

parties may file rebuttal briefs and 

rebuttals to written comments, limited 

to issues raised in such briefs or 

comments, no later than five days after 

the date on which the case briefs are 

due. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). The 

Department requests that parties 

submitting written comments provide 

an executive summary and a table of 

authorities as well as an additional copy 

of those comments electronically. 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If a 

request for a hearing is made, parties 

will be notified of the time and date for 

the hearing to be held at the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

64268 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 

69See, e.g., Glycine from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in 

Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2. 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. See 19 CFR 

351.310(d). The Department will issue 

the final results of this administrative 

review, which will include the results of 

its analysis of issues raised in any such 

comments, within 120 days of 

publication of these preliminary results, 

pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act. 

Deadline for Submission of Publicly 

Available Surrogate Value Information 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), the deadline for 

submission of publicly available 

information to value FOPs under 19 

CFR 351.408(c) is 20 days after the date 

of publication of the preliminary results. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(1), if an interested party 

submits factual information less than 

ten days before, on, or after (if the 

Department has extended the deadline), 

the applicable deadline for submission 

of such factual information, an 

interested party may submit factual 

information to rebut, clarify, or correct 

the factual information no later than ten 

days after such factual information is 

served on the interested party. However, 

the Department generally will not 

accept in the rebuttal submission 

additional or alternative surrogate value 

information not previously on the 

record, if the deadline for submission of 

surrogate value information has 

passed.69 Furthermore, the Department 

generally will not accept business 

proprietary information in either the 

surrogate value submissions or the 

rebuttals thereto, as the regulation 

regarding the submission of surrogate 

values allows only for the submission of 

publicly available information. See 19 

CFR 351.301(c)(3). 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review. The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the publication date of the final 

results of this review. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we 

calculated exporter/importer (or 

customer)-specific assessment rates for 

the merchandise subject to this review. 

Where the respondent reports reliable 

entered values, we calculate importer 

(or customer)-specific ad valorem rates 

by aggregating the dumping margins 

calculated for all U.S. sales to each 

importer (or customer) and dividing this 

amount by the total entered value of the 

sales to each importer (or customer). See 

19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an 

importer (or customer)-specific ad 

valorem rate is greater than de minimis, 

we will apply the assessment rate to the 

entered value of the importers’/ 

customers’ entries during the POR. See 

19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where we do not 

have entered values for all U.S. sales, 

we calculate a per-unit assessment rate 

by aggregating the antidumping duties 

due for all U.S. sales to each importer 

(or customer) and dividing this amount 

by the total quantity sold to that 

importer (or customer). 

To determine whether the duty 

assessment rates are de minimis, in 

accordance with the requirement set 

forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we 

calculated importer (or customer)- 

specific ad valorem ratios based on the 

estimated entered value. Where an 

importer (or customer)-specific ad 

valorem rate is zero or de minimis, we 

will instruct CBP to liquidate 

appropriate entries without regard to 

antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

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

Starbright, Hangzhou Zhongce, KS Ltd., 

Laizhou Xiongying, Qingdao Taifa and 

Weihai Zhongwei, the cash deposit rate 

will be the company-specific rate 

established in the final results of this 

review (except, if the rate is zero or de 

minimis, no cash deposit will be 

required); (2) for previously investigated 

or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters 

not listed above that have separate rates, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the exporter-specific or exporter/ 

producer-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise that 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate of 210.48 percent; 

and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise that have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC exporters that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: October 7, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26193 Filed 10–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–913] 

New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of Hebei 

Starbright Tire Co., Ltd. (Starbright) 

under the countervailing duty order on 

certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires 

(OTR Tires) from the People’s Republic 

of China (PRC) for the period December 

17, 2007, through December 31, 2008. 

We preliminarily determine that 

subsidies are being provided to 

Starbright for the production and export 

of certain new pneumatic off-the-road 

tires from the PRC. See ‘‘Preliminary 

Results of Administrative Review’’ 

section, below. If the final results 

remain the same as the preliminary 

results of this review, we will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to assess countervailing duties at 

the rate indicated below. Interested 

parties are invited to comment on the 

preliminary results of this 

administrative review. See ‘‘Disclosure 

and Public Comments’’ section below. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 19, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew Huston or Jun Jack Zhao, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES