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

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 64269 

1A public version of all memoranda referenced 

in this notice is on file in the Department’s Central 

Records Unit (CRU) in Room 1117 of the main 

Department building. 

2Titan is one of the petitioners in the 

investigation along with United Steel, Paper and 

Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy Allied 

Industrial and Service Workers International Union, 

AFL–CIO–CLC. 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4261 and (202) 

482–1396, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 4, 2008, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register the countervailing duty (CVD) 

order on OTR tires from the People’s 

Republic of China. See Certain New 

Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Countervailing Duty Order, 73 FR 51627 

(September 4, 2008). On September 1, 

2009, the Department published a notice 

of opportunity to request an 

administrative review of the 

countervailing duty order on OTR Tires 

from the PRC. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 74 

FR 45179 (September 1, 2009). 

On September 8, 2009, GPX 

International Tire Corporation (GPX) 

requested on a timely basis an 

administrative review of the 

countervailing duty order on OTR Tires 

from the PRC for the period December 

17, 2007 through December 31, 2008 for 

the following companies: Aeolus Tyre 

Co., Ltd., Guizhou Tire Co., Ltd., 

Hanghzou Zhongce Rubber Co., Ltd. 

(Zhongce), Starbright, Jiangsu Feichi 

Co., Ltd., Shandong Huitong Tyre Co., 

Ltd., Tianjin United Tire & Rubber 

International Co., Ltd. (TUTRIC), 

Tianjin Wanda Tyre Group, and 

Triangle Tyre Co., Ltd. On September 

20, 2009, the Department received 

timely requests from Zhongce and 

TUTRIC for reviews of themselves and 

on September 28, 2009, Starbright 

requested a review of itself. 

In accordance with section 751(a)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 

(the Act) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), 

the Department published a notice 

initiating an administrative review of 

the countervailing duty order. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 74 FR 54956 (October 26, 2009). 

On December 30, 2009, the 

Department rescinded the review with 

respect to the following six companies, 

pursuant to a timely withdrawal by GPX 

of its request for reviews of these 

companies: Aeolus Tyre Co. Ltd., 

Guizhou Tire Co. Ltd., Jiangsu Feichi 

Co., Ltd., Shandong Huitong Tyre Co., 

Ltd., Tianjin Wanda Tyre Co., Ltd., and 

Triangle Tyre Co., Ltd. See Certain New 

Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the 

People’s Republic of China: Partial 

Rescission of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 846 

(December 30, 2009). On May 6, 2010, 

the Department rescinded the review of 

Zhongce and TUTRIC, pursuant to the 

timely withdrawal by GPX of its request 

for reviews of Zhongce and TUTRIC, 

and Zhongce and TUTRIC’s timely 

withdrawal of their requests for reviews 

of themselves. See Certain New 

Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the 

People’s Republic of China: Partial 

Rescission of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 24884 

(May 6, 2010). 

The Department issued questionnaires 

to Starbright and the Government of the 

PRC (GOC) on December 7, 2009. On 

January 6, 2010, Starbright requested an 

extension of time to submit its 

responses to the questionnaire. In 

response, the Department granted an 

extension for responses from all parties, 

originally due January 13, 2010, until 

January 29, 2010. See Memorandum to 

the File, ‘‘Extension of Deadlines for 

Submission of December 7 ‘Initial’ 

Questionnaire Response,’’ (January 7, 

2010).1 On January 25, 2010, Starbright 

requested a second extension to submit 

its questionnaire response. The 

Department granted an extension to 

Starbright until February 16, 2010. See 

Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Extension of 

Deadlines for Submission of December 7 

‘Initial’ Questionnaire Response’’ 

(January 27, 2010). 

On February 12, 2010, the Department 

exercised its discretion to toll Import 

Administration deadlines for the 

duration of the closure of the Federal 

Government from February 5 through 

February 12, 2010. See Memorandum to 

the Record from Ronald Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, ‘‘Tolling of 

Administrative Deadlines As a Result of 

the Government Closure During the 

Recent Snowstorm,’’ (February 12, 

2010). Thus, Starbright’s deadline was 

extended by seven days. On February 

24, 2010, Starbright submitted its 

Questionnaire Response on a timely 

basis. On February 23, 2010, the GOC 

submitted a document, purportedly in 

response to the Department’s original 

questionnaire, that was over three weeks 

past the extended January 29, 2010 

deadline for that questionnaire 

response. The GOC did not answer any 

of the specific questions in the 

December 7, 2009 questionnaire, but 

merely stated its objections to the 

conduct of this review. Due to the 

unique circumstances created by the 

bankruptcy proceedings of GPX in 

Federal court, during which a number of 

parties claimed they were prohibited 

from filing any submissions in this 

review, the Department offered the GOC 

an exceptional second opportunity to 

respond to the original questionnaire by 

May 7, 2010. See Letter from Barbara 

Tillman, ‘‘New Pneumatic Off-the-Road 

Tires From the People’s Republic of 

China: Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review (C–570–913),’’ 

(April 30, 2010). On May 7, 2010, the 

GOC submitted a document in response 

to the Department’s April 30, 2010 letter 

which, again, did not answer any of the 

specific questions in the questionnaire. 

On April 1, 2010 the Department 

extended until further notice all 

regulatory deadlines in this review 

occurring on or after January 28, 2010, 

due to the concerns of parties regarding 

the application of stay provisions of the 

U.S. bankruptcy code to matters 

involving GPX. See Memorandum to the 

File, ‘‘Extension of Deadlines,’’ (April 1, 

2010). On May 3, 2010, the Department 

issued its first supplemental 

questionnaire to Starbright; Starbright 

responded on May 25, 2010. On April 

30, 2010 the Department issued a 

memorandum stating that the 

Department ‘‘believes parties’ concerns 

have been addressed’’ and that the 

Department required submissions due 

from domestic parties after January 28, 

2010 be submitted by May 10, 2010. See 

Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Due Date for 

Domestic Party Submissions,’’ (April 30, 

2010). 

On May 10, 2010, Bridgestone 

Americas, Inc. and its subsidiary, 

Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, 

LLC (collectively Bridgestone), a 

domestic interested party, submitted 

new subsidy allegations regarding the 

provision of nylon cord and carbon 

black for less than adequate 

remuneration (LTAR). Also on May 10, 

2010, Titan Tire Corporation (Titan),2

submitted an allegation that Starbright 

was uncreditworthy during 2006, 2007 

and 2008. On July 1, 2010, the 

Department initiated investigations of 

the provision of nylon cord and carbon 

black for LTAR, and Starbright’s 

creditworthiness for 2006. See 

Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, 

‘‘Initiation Analysis of New Subsidy 

Allegation and Creditworthiness 

Allegation for Starbright,’’ (July 1, 2010). 

On May 10, 2010, Bridgestone and Titan 

each submitted timely requests for the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

64270 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 

3Agricultural 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. 

4Combine harvesters are used to harvest crops 

such as corn or wheat. 

5Agricultural sprayers are used to irrigate 

agricultural fields. 

6 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. 

7A 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. 

8Skid-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. 

9Haul 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. 

10Front 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. 

11A 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. 

12A 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. 

13A grader is a vehicle with a large blade used 

to create a flat surface. Graders are typically used 

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

used in maintenance of unpaved roads and road 

construction to prepare the base course onto which 

asphalt or other paving material will be laid. 

14 i.e., ‘‘on-site’’ mobile cranes designed for offhighway use. 

15A 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. 

16While 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). 

Department to conduct a verification of 

the questionnaire responses submitted 

by Starbright and the GOC. 

On June 7, 2010, the Department 

extended the time limit for the 

preliminary results of this 

administrative review until October 7, 

2010. See Certain New Pneumatic Offthe-Road Tires from the People’s 

Republic of China: Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 32159 (June 7, 2010). 

On June 18, 2010, the Department 

issued its second supplemental 

questionnaire to Starbright; Starbright 

submitted its timely response on July 6, 

2010. On July 8, 2010, the Department 

issued a New Subsidy Allegation 

Questionnaire and Uncreditworthy 

Allegation Questionnaire to Starbright; 

Starbright submitted a timely response 

on July 29, 2010. On July 19, 2010, the 

Department issued a New Subsidy 

Allegation Questionnaire to the GOC; on 

August 9, 2010, the GOC submitted a 

document that did not respond to any 

of the specific questions in the 

questionnaire. On August 10, 2010, the 

Department informed parties that it 

would accept new information 

pertaining to prices for natural and 

synthetic rubber, nylon cord and carbon 

black sold outside the PRC for the types 

of these inputs purchased by Starbright. 

See Memorandum to the File, 

‘‘Accepting Information on Prices for 

Rubber Sold Outside the PRC,’’ dated 

August 10, 2010. On August 19, 2010, 

Titan submitted information pertaining 

to prices for nylon cord sold outside the 

PRC (data had previously been 

submitted by both Titan and 

Bridgestone in a new factual 

information filing, submitted on the last 

day the record was open). On August 

30, 2010, the Department issued a third 

supplemental questionnaire to 

Starbright. Starbright submitted a timely 

response on September 17, 2010. On 

September 21, 2010, the Department 

received pre-preliminary comments 

from Titan and Bridgestone arguing 

primarily that the Department should 

apply adverse facts available (AFA) in 

this review, continue to find 

countervailable the programs Starbright 

was found to benefit from in the original 

investigation, find Starbright 

uncreditworthy, and revise the 

benchmarks used in the original 

investigation. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the scope of 

this order are new pneumatic tires 

designed for off-the-road (OTR) and offhighway use, subject to exceptions 

identified below. Certain OTR tires are 

generally designed, manufactured and 

offered for sale for use on off-road or offhighway surfaces, including but not 

limited to, agricultural fields, forests, 

construction sites, factory and 

warehouse interiors, airport tarmacs, 

ports and harbors, mines, quarries, 

gravel yards, and steel mills. The 

vehicles and equipment for which 

certain OTR tires are designed for use 

include, but are not limited to: (1) 

Agricultural and forestry vehicles and 

equipment, including agricultural 

tractors,3 combine harvesters,4

agricultural high clearance sprayers,5

industrial tractors,6 log-skidders,7

agricultural implements, highwaytowed implements, agricultural logging, 

and agricultural, industrial, skid-steers/ 

mini-loaders; 8 (2) construction vehicles 

and equipment, including earthmover 

articulated dump products, rigid frame 

haul trucks,9 front end loaders,10

dozers,11 lift trucks, straddle carriers,12

graders,13 mobile cranes,14 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.15 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 proceeding range in size 

(rim diameter) generally but not 

exclusively from 8 inches to 54 inches. 

The tires may be either tube-type 16 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, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 64271 

light trucks, and trucks and buses. Such 

tires generally have in common that the 

symbol ‘‘DOT’’ must appear on the 

sidewall, certifying that the tire 

conforms to applicable motor vehicle 

safety standards. Such excluded tires 

may also have the following 

designations that are used by the Tire 

and Rim Association: 

Prefix letter designations: 

• P—Identifies a tire intended 

primarily for service on passenger cars; 

• LT—Identifies a tire intended 

primarily for service on light trucks; 

and, 

• ST—Identifies a special tire for 

trailers in highway service. 

Suffix letter designations: 

• TR—Identifies a tire for service on 

trucks, buses, and other vehicles with 

rims having specified rim diameter of 

nominal plus 0.156’’ or plus 0.250’’; 

• MH—Identifies tires for Mobile 

Homes; 

• HC—Identifies a heavy duty tire 

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

rims used on trucks, buses, and other 

vehicles. This suffix is intended to 

differentiate among tires for light trucks, 

and other vehicles or other services, 

which use a similar designation. 

• Example: 8R17.5 LT, 8R17.5 HC; 

• LT—Identifies light truck tires for 

service on trucks, buses, trailers, and 

multipurpose passenger vehicles used 

in nominal highway service; and 

• MC—Identifies tires and rims for 

motorcycles. 

The following types of tires are also 

excluded from the scope: Pneumatic 

tires that are not new, including 

recycled or retreaded tires and used 

tires; non-pneumatic tires, including 

solid rubber tires; tires of a kind 

designed for use on aircraft, all-terrain 

vehicles, and vehicles for turf, lawn and 

garden, golf and trailer applications. 

Also excluded from the scope are radial 

and bias tires of a kind designed for use 

in mining and construction vehicles and 

equipment that have a rim diameter 

equal to or exceeding 39 inches. Such 

tires may be distinguished from other 

tires of similar size by the number of 

plies that the construction and mining 

tires contain (minimum of 16) and the 

weight of such tires (minimum 1500 

pounds). 

Period of Review 

The period for which we are 

measuring subsidies, i.e., the period of 

review (POR), is December 17, 2007 

through December 31, 2008. See 

351.213(e)(2)(ii). Since there are only 15 

days of 2007 entries covered in the 

review, the Department has decided to 

calculate a single rate for subsidies 

received in calendar year 2008 and 

apply this rate to entries made from 

December 17, 2007 through December 

31, 2007 for assessment purposes. 

Subsidies Valuation Information 

Allocation Period 

In the investigation, consistent with 

19 CFR 351.524(d)(2), we used an 

average useful life (AUL) of assets as the 

allocation period for non-recurring 

subsidies provided on or after December 

11, 2001, the date the Department 

determined subsidies in the PRC 

became identifiable and measurable 

(i.e., the ‘‘cutoff’’ date). The AUL 

applicable to the OTR tires industry is 

14 years according to the U.S. Internal 

Revenue Service’s 1977 Class Life Asset 

Depreciation Range System. No party in 

this proceeding has disputed this 

allocation period. Thus, we continue to 

use a 14-year AUL for these preliminary 

results of review. 

Sales Denominator 

After considering the basis for 

Starbright’s receipt of a benefit under 

each program at issue, we have 

determined to use its total sales value as 

the denominator in our calculations for 

these preliminary results of review, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.525(b)(3), 

except for VAT and Import Duty 

Exemptions for Imported Materials 

discussed below. For that program, we 

have determined that Starbright 

benefitted by its status as an exporter, 

and thus we have used total export sales 

as the denominator in calculating the 

countervailable subsidy rate for this 

program. 

Creditworthiness 

Titan alleged that Starbright was 

uncreditworthy from 2006 through 2008 

due to its poor financial ratios and lack 

of long-term commercial loans. The 

Department found the allegation 

sufficient and indicated an 

uncreditworthy condition for the years 

2006 through 2008. Because we have 

preliminarily determined that the only 

non-recurring subsidies were received 

in 2006 we have limited our analysis to 

that year. According to 19 CFR 

351.505(a)(4)(i), a firm is considered 

uncreditworthy if it could not have 

obtained long-term loans from 

conventional commercial sources. Given 

that Starbright did not have long-term 

commercial loans in 2006 from 

conventional commercial sources, the 

next step in the Department’s analysis, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(4)(i)(B)– 

(C), would typically be to examine the 

past and present financial health of the 

firm and its recent past and present 

ability to meet its costs and financial 

obligations with its cash flow. In 2006, 

Starbright had just been created from 

the assets of Hebei Tire, a company that 

was laden with unpaid debts, as 

indicated by the debt forgiveness 

decisions in the investigation. See 

Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road 

Tires From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination and Final Negative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 73 FR 40480 (July 15, 

2008), Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (OTR Final IDM) at 

‘‘Analysis of Programs.’’ In this first year 

of operations under its new form, the 

company had high startup costs, a low 

sales volume, and liquid assets on hand 

to cover a relatively small fraction of its 

immediate obligations; facts that served 

as the basis for the creditworthiness 

allegation. 

However, despite the poor state of its 

past and present finances in 2006, its 

acquisition in that same year created the 

possibility of a much healthier future. 

Such a prospective view is relevant, 

given 19 CFR 351.505(a)(4)(i)(D), which 

states that we may examine ‘‘evidence of 

the firm’s future financial position, such 

as market studies, country and industry 

economic forecasts, and project and 

loan appraisals. * * * ’’ There are no 

such evaluations on the record 

regarding Starbright per se. However, in 

preparing to acquire Hebei Tire’s 

productive assets in 2006, Starbright’s 

parent, GPX, commissioned legal and 

financial due diligence analyses of those 

assets. Among these were evaluations 

from commercial lenders outside China, 

which imply profitable employment of 

those assets after acquisition by GPX. 

The favorable projections attest not only 

to positive prospects for GPX overall, 

but, by extension, for the new business 

operation formed solely by GPX to 

employ those assets, namely Starbright. 

See Starbright’s April 5, 2008 

questionnaire response in the 

investigation, at Exhibit V–CVD–1, 

placed on the record of this review by 

the Department on May 7, 2010. The 

content of these evaluations is business 

proprietary and the details cannot be 

discussed within this public document. 

They are discussed more fully in the 

Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Preliminary 

Calculation Memorandum for Hebei 

Starbright Tire Co., Ltd.,’’ (October 7, 

2010) (Preliminary Calculation 

Memorandum) in which we discuss in 

greater detail the statements we find to 

be indicative of Starbright’s positive 

prospects in 2006. Finally, our 

regulations refer not just to evidence of 

the firm’s future financial position, but 

to ‘‘market studies, country and industry 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

64272 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 

economic forecasts.’’ In this regard, the 

propriety record indicates strong 

demand, insufficient capacity, and 

increasing price levels in its description 

of the global OTR tire industry. Id. 

Thus, Starbright’s purchase by GPX 

creates the unique situation in which a 

company performing poorly historically 

and in the recent past, is transformed 

into a new producer with a radically 

different prospective financial outlook. 

Such is the result of the CIO resulting 

from the GPX takeover, which, 

according to the details of the BPI data 

cited above, involved plans for a 

significant retooling of GPX’s facilities 

into a modern, first class producer 

consistent with GPX’s global standards. 

On these bases, we find that 

Starbright was not uncreditworthy for 

the year 2006. 

Benchmarks and Discount Rates 

As discussed below, we are 

countervailing short-term lending to 

Starbright in the form of a loan from a 

State-owned commercial bank. To 

calculate the benchmark interest rate 

used in determining the benefit 

provided by this program, we used a 

regression-based methodology identical 

to that used in the investigation in all 

respects, except that the data used for 

this review is contemporaneous with 

the POR. The resulting short-term 

lending rate for the POR is identical to 

that calculated for several recent PRC 

investigations with periods of 

investigations equal to calendar year 

2008. See, e.g., Certain Coated Paper 

Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics 

Using Sheet-Fed Presses From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination, 75 FR 59212 (September 

27, 2010). 

The only non-recurring programs 

countervailed in these preliminary 

results are the same non-recurring 

programs countervailed in the 

investigation. Therefore, in determining 

the benefits for those programs allocable 

to this POR, we took the discount rate 

calculated in the investigation and 

modified it only to reflect agency-wide 

changes in the calculation methodology 

developed in an investigation 

concluded subsequent to the OTR Tires 

investigation, Citric Acid and Certain 

Citrate Salts From the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination, 74 

FR 16836 (April 13, 2009) (Citric Acid 

from the PRC). Specifically, in Citric 

Acid from the PRC we determined that 

the spread used to convert short-term 

rates to long-term rates should be based 

on the spread between a 2-year BB bond 

and an ‘‘N’’-year BB bond, where N is the 

AUL, or as close to the AUL in years as 

can be obtained in available bond rates, 

and that this spread should be applied 

as an addition to the short-term rate, not 

as a multiplicative factor. See Citric 

Acid from the PRC, ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’ at Comments 13 and 14. 

In Citric Acid from the PRC we 

determined these changes were not 

merely preferable to the older method, 

but were necessary to correct errors in 

the prior method. For the remainder of 

the benefit calculation for these 

programs, we relied on the information 

from the investigation without changes. 

Application of Facts Available, and Use 

of Adverse Inferences 

A. Standards 

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

provide that the Department shall apply 

‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if 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. 

Section 776(b) of the Act further 

provides that the Department may use 

an adverse inference in applying the 

facts otherwise available—i.e., adverse 

facts available (AFA)—when a party has 

failed to cooperate by not acting to the 

best of its ability in complying with a 

request for information. As explained in 

more detail in ‘‘Programs to Which AFA 

is Being Applied’’ below, we find that 

the GOC has not acted to the best of its 

ability to comply with the Department’s 

repeated requests for information 

necessary to analyze fully certain of the 

subsidy programs under review. 

B. Programs to Which AFA Is Being 

Applied 

Provision of Rubber, Carbon Black, and 

Nylon Cord for LTAR 

The Department is investigating the 

provision of rubber, carbon black and 

nylon cord for LTAR by the GOC. We 

requested information from the GOC 

about the PRC’s rubber, carbon black 

and nylon cord industries in general as 

well as the specific companies that 

produced the rubber, carbon black and 

nylon cord purchased by Starbright. In 

both respects, the GOC has withheld the 

requested information, in effect refusing 

to provide it. In response to the 

Department’s first questionnaire the 

GOC submitted a document that was 

argumentative and which merely stated 

that ‘‘it makes little sense to submit 

detailed answers to the questions set 

forth in the Commerce Department 

Questionnaire at this time.’’ When given 

a second, extraordinary opportunity to 

respond to the Department’s initial 

questionnaire, the GOC again decided 

not to answer any questions and only 

referred to its previous arguments for 

not responding. In response to the 

Department’s New Subsidy Allegation 

questionnaire, rather than answer any 

specific questions, the GOC merely 

stated that it ‘‘strongly opposes the 

Department’s presumption that 

government ownership is a dispositive 

factor in determining the ‘authority’ 

status of entities, as well as the 

enormous documentary burdens 

imposed by the Department in 

examining the status of various input 

suppliers and the input industry in 

question as a whole,’’ and requested that 

the Department terminate the 

proceedings. These submissions by the 

GOC amount to little more than the 

venting of grievances against the 

Department and cannot reasonably be 

considered proper questionnaire 

responses. They are, in fact, outright 

refusals even to attempt to respond to 

the Department’s requests for 

information. 

Based on the above, we preliminarily 

find that necessary information is not 

available on the record, that the GOC 

has withheld information requested by 

the Department, and, thus, that the 

Department must rely on ‘‘facts 

available’’ in making its preliminary 

determination. See sections 776(a)(1) 

and (a)(2)(A) of the Act. Moreover, we 

preliminarily find that the GOC has 

failed to cooperate by not acting to the 

best of its ability in complying with our 

request for information. Consequently, 

an adverse inference is warranted in the 

application of facts available. See 

section 776(b) of the Act. 

Regarding the GOC’s failure to 

provide certain requested ownership 

and control information about the 

producers of inputs purchased by the 

respondent, we are assuming adversely 

that all of the producers of rubber, 

carbon black and nylon cord purchased 

by Starbright are ‘‘authorities’’ within 

the meaning of section 771(5)(B) of the 

Act. While Starbright has given us some 

information concerning the ownership 

of three of the producers, given the 

GOC’s lack of a response, we have no 

information concerning government 

control of any of the producers, beyond 

the immediate owners of these three 

producers. With respect to the GOC’s 

failure to provide requested information 

about the production and consumption 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 64273 

17See CIO Memorandum at 4. 

of rubber, carbon black and nylon cord 

generally, we are assuming adversely 

that the GOC’s dominance of the market 

in the PRC for these inputs results in 

significant distortion of domestic prices 

and, hence, that the use of external 

benchmarks is warranted. For details on 

the calculation of the subsidy rate for 

Starbright, see below under the 

‘‘Analysis of Programs’’ section. 

VAT and Import Duty Exemptions on 

Imported Material 

In the investigation, we determined 

that certain respondents ‘‘used imported 

rubber to produce tires sold in the PRC 

and, therefore, such imports would not 

have been entitled to VAT and import 

duty exemptions.’’ See OTR Final IDM 

at 12. We then concluded: ‘‘Therefore, if 

a CVD order is issued and an 

administrative review requested, the 

Department intends to examine the 

GOC’s import duty and VAT exemption 

programs.’’ Id. Consequently, we 

included several questions in our initial 

questionnaire to the GOC concerning 

the operation and administration of the 

program by which companies are 

exempt from paying VAT and import 

duties on imports used in the 

production of exported products. 

Specifically, the questions were 

designed to determine whether a system 

was in place that ensures all exempted 

materials are consumed in exported 

products, based on the actual 

experience of companies using the 

program. Given that the GOC did not 

respond to these questions, we are 

unable to evaluate whether the GOC’s 

system meets the criteria for noncountervailability set forth in 19 CFR 

351.519(a). As such the decision by the 

GOC not to respond to any of our 

questions leaves the Department with 

no choice but to find the entire amount 

of the exemptions ‘‘extends to inputs 

that are not consumed in the production 

of the exported product, making normal 

allowances for waste.’’ See 19 CFR 

351.519(a). For details on the 

calculation of the subsidy rate for the 

respondent, see below under the 

‘‘Analysis of Programs’’ section. 

C. Corroboration of AFA 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation or review, it shall, to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is defined as 

‘‘information derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination 

concerning the subject merchandise, or 

any previous review under section 751 

of the Act concerning the subject 

merchandise.’’ 

The facts available decisions 

described above do not rely on 

secondary information. While 

Bridgestone and Titan have submitted 

information regarding the status of 

rubber producers and suppliers relevant 

to this review, our determination that 

these producers are public entities is 

based on the unwillingness of the GOC 

to provide necessary information on the 

status of these entities. Likewise, our 

determinations that the domestic rubber 

market in the PRC is distorted through 

government intervention, and that the 

PRC’s bonding system does not ensure 

that imports exempted from duties are 

solely consumed in exported products, 

are based on the GOC’s refusal to 

address either of these issues, or to 

provide any information that would 

lead us to a different conclusion. The 

corroboration requirement of section 

776(c) of the Act is therefore not 

applicable to the use of facts available 

in this review. 

Analysis of Programs 

A. Programs Previously Determined To 

Be Countervailable 

1. Government Debt Forgiveness and the 

Provision of Land to Starbright Pursuant 

to Its Change in Ownership 

On July 7, 2008, the Department 

issued a change in ownership 

memorandum, analyzing Starbright’s 

2006 purchase of the assets of Hebei 

Tire. See Memorandum to the File, 

‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation of 

Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road 

Tires (OTR Tires) From the People’s 

Republic of China; Analysis of Change 

in Ownership, Final Determination’’ 

(July 7, 2008) (CIO Memorandum) 

determining that debt and land 

provided to Hebei Tire benefitted 

Starbright. Applying the Department’s 

CIO methodology we concluded that the 

2006 transaction did not extinguish any 

non-recurring subsidies provided to 

Hebei Tire prior to the transaction, 

including debt forgiveness, because 

Starbright had not demonstrated the 

transaction was at arm’s length and for 

fair market value. We also determined 

that Starbright had been the direct 

recipient of land use rights provided at 

less than adequate remuneration. No 

new information or evidence of changed 

circumstances has been submitted in 

this review that leads us to reconsider 

these determinations. Therefore for the 

preliminary results of this review, we 

are maintaining our determination that 

the 2006 transaction did not extinguish 

prior non-recurring subsidies to Hebei 

Tire. 

a. Debt Forgiveness From State-Owned 

Banks to Hebei Tire 

Consistent with our prior 

determination, the Department 

continues to find that the forgiveness of 

certain loans from State-owned banks to 

Hebei Tire is countervailable. This debt 

forgiveness constitutes a financial 

contribution under section 771(5)(D)(i) 

of the Act, and is specific under section 

771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act, as it was 

limited to a specific enterprise (i.e., to 

Hebei Tire only). A benefit exists equal 

to the amount of principal and accrued 

interest forgiven within the meaning of 

19 CFR 351.508(a). In determining this 

benefit, we have taken the amount of the 

debt forgiveness from the investigation 

calculations placed on the record on 

May 7, 2010. We then reallocated this 

amount using the revised discount rate 

methodology discussed above in the 

‘‘Benchmarks and Discount Rate’’ 

section, using an allocation table 

beginning in 2006, just as in the 

investigation. We then divided the 

benefit amount allocated to the POR by 

Starbright’s total sales during the POR to 

calculate a countervailable subsidy rate 

of 1.52 percent ad valorem. 

b. Debt Forgiveness of Hebei Tire’s Loan 

Guarantee Obligations 

In the investigation, the Department 

found that obligations arising from the 

provision of loan guarantees represented 

a form of debt forgiveness to Hebei Tire 

and that this debt forgiveness was 

countervailable. In its initial 

questionnaire response, Starbright 

submitted new information regarding 

this program. Specifically, Starbright 

claimed that under Article 219 of the 

Civil Procedures Law of the PRC, 

Starbright’s debt guarantees were 

extinguished. Starbright further argues 

that that the debt was extinguished 

through the bankruptcy of the primary 

debtor. Given that the record indicates 

clearly that at least two of the 

obligations survived the bankruptcy 

proceeding,17 and were not, in fact, 

extinguished by the Civil Procedures 

Law, and Starbright’s failure to provide 

direct evidence that any of the debt 

guarantees were extinguished, the 

Department continues to find this 

program countervailable. This debt 

forgiveness constitutes a financial 

contribution under section 771(5)(D)(i) 

of the Act, and is specific under section 

771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act, as it was 

limited to specific enterprises (i.e., 

Hebei Tire, co-guarantors, primary 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

64274 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 

18The GOC was asked to provide information 

regarding changes to this program in the initial 

questionnaire. Starbright provided rent payment 

information in response to the May 25, 2010 

supplemental questionnaire. 

borrower). A benefit exists equal to the 

amount of principal and accrued 

interest forgiven under 19 CFR 

351.508(a). In determining this benefit, 

we have taken the amount of the debt 

forgiveness from the investigation 

calculations placed on the record on 

May 7, 2010. We then reallocated this 

amount using the revised discount rate 

methodology discussed above in the 

‘‘Benchmarks and Discount Rate’’ 

section, using an allocation table 

beginning in 2006, just as in the 

investigation. We divided the benefit 

amount allocated to the POR by 

Starbright’s total sales during the POR to 

calculate a countervailable subsidy rate 

of 5.39 percent ad valorem. 

c. Government Provision of Land to 

SOEs for Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration—Starbright’s Granted 

Land Use Rights 

Consistent with our prior 

determination, the Department 

continues to find that Starbright’s 

granted land use rights are 

countervailable. We previously 

determined that this subsidy was 

specific in accordance with section 

771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act, because 

Starbright obtained its granted land use 

rights as part of a government policy of 

SOE reform. We also found a financial 

contribution under section 771(5)(D)(iii) 

of the Act and a benefit under section 

771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act, because we 

determined the granted land use rights 

were a provision of a good or service for 

LTAR. In determining this benefit, we 

have taken the amount of the benefit 

from the granted land use rights from 

the investigation calculations placed on 

the record on May 7, 2010. We then 

reallocated this amount using the 

revised discount rate discussed above, 

using an allocation table beginning in 

2006, just as in the investigation. We 

divided the benefit amount allocated to 

the POR by Starbright’s total sales 

during the POR to calculate a 

countervailable subsidy rate of 0.43 

percent ad valorem. 

d. Government Provision of Land to 

SOEs for Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration—Starbright’s Land 

Leased From Local Villages 

Consistent with our prior 

determination, the Department 

continues to find that the land 

Starbright leases from local villages is 

countervailable.18 In the investigation, 

we found that the local village 

committees are authorities within the 

meaning of section 771(5)(B) of the Act. 

Accordingly, we found a financial 

contribution under section 771(5)(D)(iii) 

of the Act because the provision of land 

is a provision of a good or service. We 

also found that the provision of leased 

land is specific in accordance with 

section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act because 

Starbright assumed the leases for these 

village tracts as part of its asset purchase 

of Hebei Tire, which was part of a 

government program to reform SOEs. 

With respect to benefit, we determined 

that a benefit exists under 19 CFR 

351.511(a) to the extent that the leased 

land was provided at LTAR. No 

information was placed on the record of 

this review that would cause us to 

change these findings from the 

investigation. In determining the 

amount of the benefit, we have updated 

the benchmark from the investigation, 

using 2008 quarterly industrial rental 

values in Thailand. This is the same 

source of information used in the 

investigation, but updated with values 

contemporaneous with the POR. See 

Preliminary Calculation Memorandum. 

We then compared the rental 

payments made by Starbright during the 

POR with the amount of rent Starbright 

would have at the benchmark rate; we 

divided the benefit amount by 

Starbright’s total sales during the POR to 

calculate a countervailable subsidy rate 

of 0.76 percent ad valorem. 

2. Government Policy Lending 

In the investigation, we found that 

policy lending was de jure specific 

within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act, constitutes 

financial contributions by ‘‘authorities’’ 

(i.e., State-owned commercial banks) 

within the meaning of sections 771(5)(B) 

and 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act, and provides 

benefits within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act equal to the 

difference between what the recipients 

paid on loans from government-owned 

banks and the amount they would have 

paid on comparable commercial loans. 

In our initial questionnaire to the GOC, 

we noted our intention to rely on our 

findings in the investigation regarding 

the countervailability of this program. 

We noted: ‘‘However, if there were any 

changes to the operation of the program 

since it was last reviewed, please 

answer all relevant appendices.’’ As 

noted above, the GOC did not respond 

to this questionnaire and thus no 

information has been placed on the 

record of this review that would cause 

us to change our findings from the 

investigation. Therefore we are 

continuing to find government policy 

lending countervailable. 

In its response to the Department’s 

initial questionnaire, Starbright 

provided a loan spreadsheet indicating 

it had received a loan under this 

program during the POR from a Stateowned commercial bank. Using a 

benchmark interest rate, we compared 

Starbright’s actual interest payments 

during the POR to the State-owned 

commercial bank to the payments it 

would have been required to make on 

‘‘comparable commercial loans.’’ In 

doing so, we made adjustments for 

inflation, following the standard PRC 

loan methodology used in the 

investigation. In calculating the 

benchmark for ‘‘comparable commercial 

loans,’’ we relied on the same regression 

analysis used in the investigation for 

calculating PRC lending rates absent the 

distortive effects of government 

interference in the banking sector, 

revised only to reflect data 

contemporaneous with the POR. We 

divided the total benefit amount by 

Starbright’s total sales during the POR, 

and determined a countervailable 

subsidy rate of 0.20 percent ad valorem. 

3. Government Provision of Rubber for 

Less Than Adequate Remuneration 

We preliminarily find the government 

provision of natural and synthetic 

rubber inputs to Starbright to be 

countervailable. In the investigation we 

found the provision of rubber to be 

specific within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act, because the 

rubber is provided to a limited number 

of industries. See OTR Final IDM at 9– 

12. As discussed above, due to the 

GOC’s failure to respond to our initial 

questionnaire, the Department is unable 

to determine the extent of government 

control over the producers of rubber 

purchased by Starbright. Also as noted 

above, we find that an adverse inference 

is warranted, and, as such, we conclude 

that all domestic producers from whom 

Starbright purchased natural and 

synthetic rubber are ‘‘public entities’’ 

and therefore ‘‘authorities’’ within the 

meaning of section 771(5)(B) of the Act. 

Without GOC participation, the 

Department is unable to determine the 

extent of GOC ownership of, and 

involvement in, the domestic market for 

natural and synthetic rubber, and we are 

unable to determine the extent of 

domestic price distortion caused 

through GOC involvement in the 

production of rubber. Therefore, we are 

also determining as AFA that a world 

benchmark is warranted pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.511(a)(2)(ii). Using average 

purchase prices by month and type of 

rubber, we calculated benefit amounts 

equal to the differences between what 

Starbright paid for the domestically 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 64275 

19The Department is finding the provision of land 

for LTAR countervailable, see section ‘‘Programs 

Previously Determined to be countervailable,’’ 

however the Department does not find provision of 

Land for LTAR countervailable as a result of a 

company’s FIE status. 

sourced rubber and these benchmarks, 

multiplied by the relevant quantities at 

LTAR. We calculated separate 

benchmarks for natural and synthetic 

rubber on a quarterly basis. We added 

amounts for ocean freight, inland 

freight, and VAT and import duties, 

calculated in accordance with the 

standard PRC VAT and duty rates for 

these products, before comparing these 

benchmarks to the delivered prices paid 

by Starbright. We then divided the total 

amount of these benefits by Starbright’s 

total sales during the POR and 

preliminarily determined a 

countervailable subsidy rate of 1.44 

percent ad valorem. 

B. New Subsidy Programs Initiated in 

the Review 

Provision of Carbon Black and Nylon 

Cord for LTAR 

Bridgestone alleged that the GOC 

provides producers of nylon cord and 

carbon black with numerous subsidies 

and preferences, causing distortion in 

the markets for those two products, and 

that the GOC otherwise exerts 

considerable control on the market for 

carbon black and nylon cord through 

SOEs. Bridgestone further alleged that 

the provision of carbon black and nylon 

cord by SOEs constitutes a financial 

contribution, that Starbright receives a 

benefit to the extent that it purchases 

carbon black and nylon cord from SOEs 

at LTAR, and that this subsidy is 

specific because the tire industry is the 

predominant user of these inputs in the 

PRC. As discussed above, under the 

‘‘Application of Facts Available, and Use 

of Adverse Inferences’’ section, the GOC 

did not respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire regarding these programs. 

Accordingly, we are applying AFA for 

parts of our decision with respect to 

these programs. Based on AFA, we 

determine that the producers of the 

nylon cord and carbon black purchased 

by Starbright are owned or otherwise 

controlled by the GOC and therefore are 

‘‘public entities’’ and ‘‘authorities’’ 

within the meaning of section 771(5)(B) 

of the Act. Moreover, without GOC 

participation, the Department is unable 

to determine the extent of GOC 

ownership of, and involvement in, the 

domestic market for nylon cord and 

carbon black, and we are unable to 

determine the extent of domestic price 

distortion caused through GOC 

involvement in the production of these 

two products. Therefore, we are also 

determining as AFA that a world 

benchmark is warranted pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.511(a)(2)(ii). Finally, we find 

that the provision of nylon cord and 

carbon black is specific within the 

meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(II) of 

the Act because, according to 

information included in the allegations, 

uncontested by respondents, the tire 

industry is the predominant user of both 

those products. 

In determining the benefit, we have 

relied on benchmarks calculated from 

the Global Trade Atlas (GTA) for both 

products. While Bridgestone and Titan 

provided possible benchmark data for 

nylon cord reported by Chemical 

Markets Associates, Inc., we are unable 

to use this data because it covers only 

one month of the POR, or covers months 

not in the POR. Using the GTA data, we 

calculated monthly average unit value 

benchmarks for each product based on 

exports from all countries other than 

China. We added amounts for ocean 

freight, inland freight, and VAT and 

import duties, calculated in accordance 

with the standard PRC VAT and duty 

rates for these products in order to 

derive delivered prices. Using average 

purchase prices by month, we 

calculated benefit amounts equal to the 

differences between what Starbright 

paid for the domestically sourced nylon 

cord and carbon black and these 

benchmarks, multiplied by the relevant 

quantities at LTAR. We then summed 

the benefits calculated in this manner to 

derive a total benefit amount under each 

program. After dividing the total benefit 

amounts by total sales, we determined 

countervailable subsidy rates of 2.32 

percent and 9.10 percent ad valorem for 

nylon cord and carbon black, 

respectively. 

C. VAT and Import Duty Exemptions on 

Imported Material 

As noted above, because the GOC did 

not respond to our questionnaire, which 

contained several questions aimed at 

evaluating whether VAT and import 

duty exemptions received by Starbright 

on materials imported under bond were 

countervailable, we have determined it 

is appropriate to find that all such 

exemptions are countervailable under 

19 CFR 351.519(a). The program 

provides a financial contribution 

pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the 

Act in the form of revenue foregone by 

the GOC, and is specific as an export 

subsidy pursuant to section 771(5A)(B) 

of the Act, as only exporters can qualify. 

To calculate the amount of the benefit, 

we calculated the total amount of VAT 

and duties that would otherwise have 

been paid on the exempted material, 

using the VAT and duty rates for the 

different types of material reported by 

Starbright. We then divided this total 

benefit amount by total export sales in 

order to determine a countervailable 

subsidy rate of 9.71 percent ad valorem. 

D. Programs Determined To Be Not 

Used 

1. Loan Forgiveness For SOEs. 

2. Foreign Currency Retention 

Scheme. 

3. Preferential Tax Policies For 

Enterprises With Foreign Investment 

(Two Free, Three Half Income Tax 

Program). 

4. Preferential Tax Policies For 

Export-Oriented Foreign Invested 

Enterprises (FIEs). 

5. Corporate Income Tax Refund 

Program For Reinvestment Of FIE Profits 

In Export-Oriented Enterprises. 

6. Tax Benefits For FIEs In 

Encouraged Industries That Purchase 

Domestic Origin Machinery. 

7. VAT Rebate For FIE Purchases Of 

Domestically Produced Equipment. 

8. Funds For Outward Expansion Of 

Industries In Guangdong Province. 

9. Export Interest Subsidy Funds For 

Enterprises Located In Guangdong And 

Zhejiang Provinces. 

10. Grants To Loss-Making SOEs. 

11. Exemption For SOEs From 

Distributing Dividends To The State. 

12. Preferential Tax Policies For 

Advanced Technology FIEs. 

13. Preferential Tax Policies For 

Knowledge Or Technology Intensive 

FIEs. 

14. Preferential Tax Policies For High 

Or New Technology FIEs. 

15. Preferential Tax Policies For 

Research And Development By FIEs. 

16. Provincial Support In 

Antidumping Proceedings. 

17. Grants To The Tire Industry For 

Electricity. 

18. Discounted Loans For ExportOriented Enterprises. 

19. Stamp Tax Exemption on Share 

Transfers under the Non-Tradeable 

Share Reform (NTSR) Program. 

20. State Key Technology Renovation 

Project Fund. 

21. Special Fund for Environmental 

Protection of 2004. 

22. Provision of Land for LTAR to 

FIEs.19

23. Tax Subsidies to FIEs in Specially 

Designated Geographic Areas. 

24. Local Income Tax Exemption and 

Reduction Program for ‘‘Productive’’ 

FIEs. 

25. Tax and Tariff Exemption for FIEs 

and Certain Domestic Enterprises Using 

Imported Equipment in Encouraged 

Industries. 

26. Provincial/Municipal Technology 

Programs. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

64276 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 

27. Municipal Major Technical 

Innovation Program. 

Preliminary Results of Administrative 

Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(4)(i), we have calculated an 

individual subsidy rate for Starbright for 

the POR. We preliminarily determine 

the total countervailable subsidy to be 

30.87 percent ad valorem. 

Assessment Rates/Cash Deposits 

If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of this 

review, 15 days after publication of the 

final results of this review the 

Department will instruct CBP to 

liquidate shipments of OTR Tires by 

Starbright entered or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption from 

December 17, 2007 through December 

31, 2008, at 30.87 percent ad valorem of 

the entered value. In keeping with the 

Agreement on Subsidies and 

Countervailing Measures of the World 

Trade Organization, shipments entered, 

or withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after April 15, 2008, 

and on or before September 4, 2008, the 

period between the expiration of 

‘‘provisional measures’’ and the 

publication of the final affirmative 

injury determination of the U.S. 

International Trade Commission, will be 

liquidated without regard to 

countervailing duties. 

The Department will also instruct 

CBP to collect cash deposits of 

estimated countervailing duties at the 

rate of 30.87 percent ad valorem of the 

entered value on shipments of the 

subject merchandise produced by 

Starbright, entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the date of publication of the final 

results of this review. We will instruct 

CBP to continue to collect cash deposits 

for non-reviewed companies at the 

applicable company-specific or allothers rate established in the 

investigation. 

Producer/exporter Net subsidy rate 

(percent) 

Hebei Starbright Tire 

Co., Ltd. .................... 30.87 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to this segment 

of the proceeding within five days of the 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, 

interested parties may submit written 

comments in response to these 

preliminary results. Unless the time 

period is extended by the Department, 

case briefs are to be submitted within 30 

days of the date of publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register. See 19 

CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited 

to issues raised in case briefs, may be 

filed not later than five days after the 

date of the filing of case briefs. Parties 

who submit briefs in this proceeding 

should provide a summary of the 

arguments not to exceed five pages and 

a table of statutes, regulations, and cases 

cited. Copies of case briefs and rebuttal 

briefs must be served on interested 

parties in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.303(f). 

Interested parties may request a 

hearing within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. Unless 

otherwise specified, the hearing, if 

requested, will be held two days after 

the scheduled date for submission of 

rebuttal briefs. The Department will 

publish a notice of the final results of 

this administrative review within 120 

days from the publication of these 

preliminary results. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results 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. 2010–26283 Filed 10–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Order No. 1712] 

Reorganization/Expansion of ForeignTrade Zone 196 Under Alternative Site 

Framework Fort Worth, TX 

Pursuant to its authority under the ForeignTrade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the ForeignTrade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the 

following Order: 

Whereas, the Board adopted the 

alternative site framework (ASF) in 

December 2008 (74 FR 1170, 01/12/09; 

correction 74 FR 3987, 01/22/09) as an 

option for the establishment or 

reorganization of general-purpose zones; 

Whereas, the Alliance Corridor, Inc., 

grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 196, 

submitted an application to the Board 

(FTZ Docket 18–2010, filed 3/16/2010) 

for authority to reorganize under the 

ASF with a service area that includes 

the Alliance Corridor area of Denton 

and Tarrant Counties, Texas, adjacent to 

the Alliance Customs and Border 

Protection user fee airport, FTZ 196’s 

existing Sites 1–4 would be categorized 

as magnet sites and the grantee proposes 

an initial usage-driven site (Site 5); 

Whereas, notice inviting public 

comment was given in the Federal 

Register (75 FR 14127–14128, 3/24/ 

2010) and the application has been 

processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and 

the Board’s regulations; and, 

Whereas, the Board adopts the 

findings and recommendations of the 

examiner’s report, and finds that the 

requirements of the FTZ Act and 

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and 

that the proposal is in the public 

interest; 

Now, therefore, the Board hereby 

orders: 

The application to reorganize FTZ 196 

under the alternative site framework is 

approved, subject to the FTZ Act and 

the Board’s regulations, including 

Section 400.28, to the Board’s standard 

2,000-acre activation limit for the 

overall general-purpose zone project, to 

a five-year ASF sunset provision for 

magnet sites that would terminate 

authority for Sites 2, 3 and 4 if not 

activated by October 31, 2015, and to a 

three-year ASF sunset provision for 

usage-driven sites that would terminate 

authority for Site 5 if no foreign-status 

merchandise is admitted for a bona fide 

customs purpose by October 31, 2013. 

Signed at Washington, DC, October 7, 

2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, Alternate Chairman, ForeignTrade Zones Board. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26275 Filed 10–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XZ14 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Navy Training 

Conducted at the Silver Strand 

Training Complex, San Diego Bay 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an 

application from the U.S. Navy (Navy) 

for an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization (IHA) to take marine 

mammals, by harassment, incidental to 

conducting training exercises at the 

Silver Strand Training Complex (SSTC) 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES