[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 195 (Friday, October 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62356-62364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26016]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 the 2009-2010 Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Intent To Rescind, in Part

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 September 1, 2009, through 
August 31, 2010. We have preliminarily determined that the mandatory 
respondent, Tianjin United Tire & Rubber International Co., Ltd. 
(``TUTRIC''), made sales of subject merchandise to the United States at 
prices below normal value (``NV''). Additionally, we also preliminarily 
determine that Weihai Zhongwei Rubber Co., Ltd. (``Weihai'') had no 
shipments during the POR, and therefore we intend to rescind the review 
with respect to Weihai. 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 7, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raquel Silva or Erin Begnal, 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) 482-1442, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 4, 2008, the Department published the antidumping duty 
order on OTR tires from the PRC.\1\ On September 1, 2010, the 
Department published a notice of opportunity to request an 
administrative review of the order for the period of review (``POR'') 
September 1, 2009, through August 31, 2010.\2\ Interested parties made 
requests for review between September 17, 2010, and September 30, 2010, 
on certain exporters. On October 28, 2010, the Department initiated the 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on OTR tires from 
the PRC for the 2009--2010 POR.\3\ On January 18, 2011, the Department 
exercised its authority to limit the number of respondents selected for 
individual examination pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. The 
Department selected the three largest exporters by volume as our 
mandatory respondents for this review: Qingdao Free Trade Zone Full 
World International Trading Co., Ltd. (``Full World''), Hebei 
Starbright Tire Co., Ltd. (``Starbright''), and TUTRIC. On January 19, 
2011, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to the 
three mandatory respondents. On March 18, 2011, the Department 
published in the Federal Register a partial rescission of review for 
eight exporters, including Full World and Starbright.\4\ Two

[[Page 62357]]

companies remain under review: TUTRIC and Weihai.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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 (September 4, 2008).
    \2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative 
Review, 75 FR 53635 (September 1, 2010).
    \3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 66349 (October 28, 2010).
    \4\ The other companies for which the review was rescinded in 
addition to Full World and Starbright include: Guizhou Tyre Co., 
Ltd., Guizhou Advance Rubber Co., Ltd. and Guizhou Tyre Import and 
Export Corporation; Hangzhou Zhongce Rubber Co., Ltd.; KS Holding 
Limited/KS Resources Limited; Laizhou Xiongying Rubber Industry Co., 
Ltd.; Qingdao Taifa Group Co., Ltd.; and Mai Shandong Radial Tyre 
Co., Ltd. See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the 
People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 14919 (March 18, 
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 1, 2011, the Department published in the Federal Register a 
notice extending the time limit for the preliminary results of review 
by the full 120 days allowed under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, to 
September 30, 2011.\5\ Between February 17, 2011, and September 2, 
2011, TUTRIC responded to the Department's original and supplemental 
questionnaires. Between August 31, 2011, and September 12, 2011, Titan 
Tire Corporation (``Petitioner'') and Bridgestone Americas, Inc. and 
Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC (collectively, 
``Bridgestone''), a domestic interested party, submitted pre-
preliminary comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the 
People's Republic of China: Extension of Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 31584 (June 1, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Review

    The POR is September 1, 2009, through August 31, 2010.

Scope of Order

    The products covered by the order are new pneumatic tires designed 
for off-the-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,\6\ combine harvesters,\7\ 
agricultural high clearance sprayers,\8\ industrial tractors,\9\ log-
skidders,\10\ agricultural implements, highway-towed implements, 
agricultural logging, and agricultural, industrial, skid-steers/mini-
loaders;\11\ (2) construction vehicles and equipment, including 
earthmover articulated dump products, rigid frame haul trucks,\12\ 
front end loaders,\13\ dozers,\14\ lift trucks, straddle carriers,\15\ 
graders,\16\ mobile cranes,\17\ 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-the-road 
counterbalanced lift trucks. The foregoing list of vehicles and 
equipment generally have in common that they are used for hauling, 
towing, lifting, and/or loading a wide variety of equipment and 
materials in agricultural, construction and industrial settings. Such 
vehicles and equipment, and the descriptions contained in the footnotes 
are illustrative of the types of vehicles and equipment that use 
certain OTR tires, but are not necessarily all-inclusive. While the 
physical characteristics of certain OTR tires will vary depending on 
the specific applications and conditions for which the tires are 
designed (e.g., tread pattern and depth), all of the tires within the 
scope have in common that they are designed for off-road 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Agricultural 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.
    \7\ Combine harvesters are used to harvest crops such as corn or 
wheat.
    \8\ Agricultural sprayers are used to irrigate agricultural 
fields.
    \9\ 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.
    \10\ A 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.
    \11\ Skid-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.
    \12\ Haul 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.
    \13\ Front 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.
    \14\ A 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.
    \15\ A straddle carrier is a rigid frame, engine-powered machine 
that is used to load and offload containers from container vessels 
and load them onto (or off of) tractor trailers.
    \16\ A 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.
    \17\ I.e., ``on-site'' mobile cranes designed for off-highway 
use.
    \18\ While 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,

[[Page 62358]]

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).

Intent To Rescind, in Part, the Administrative Review

    On January 10, 2011, Weihai submitted a letter stating that it had 
no shipments of OTR tires during the POR.\19\ The Department reviewed 
the CBP data it had obtained for respondent selection purposes, and 
found that Weihai was not listed as having entered subject merchandise 
during the POR.\20\ On February 7, 2011, the Department sent an inquiry 
to CBP regarding whether Weihai had any shipments of subject 
merchandise that entered during the POR and requesting that CBP inform 
the Department within ten days if Weihei had shipments of subject 
merchandise that entered during the POR.\21\ We did not receive a 
response from CBP within the allotted ten days. Therefore, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we intend to rescind the review 
with respect to Weihai because there is no evidence on the record to 
indicate that Weihai had sales of subject merchandise to the United 
States during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Letter from Weihai, ``Certification of no exports, 
sales or entries of the subject merchandise,'' dated January 10, 
2011.
    \20\ See Letter to All Interested Parties, ``2009-2010 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain New 
Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: 
CBP Data for Respondent Selection,'' dated November 12, 2010, at 
attachment 1.
    \21\ See CBP message number 1038304, dated February 7, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\22\ No interested party in this case has argued 
that we should do otherwise. Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the 
Act, designation as an NME country remains in effect until it is 
revoked by the Department. As such, we continue to treat the PRC as an 
NME in this segment of the proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See, e.g., Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 73 FR 52645 (September 10, 2008); and 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 ``Factor Valuations'' section below.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See the Department's Memorandum, ``Preliminary Results of 
the 2009-2010 Administrative Review of Certain 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, the Philippines, Indonesia, 
Thailand, Ukraine, and Peru are countries comparable to the PRC in 
terms of economic development.\24\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See the Department's Memorandum, ``Request for a List of 
Surrogate Countries for an Administrative Review of the Antidumping 
Duty Order on Certain Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires (``Tires'') From 
the People's Republic of China (``China''),'' dated February 24, 
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. 
Bridgestone provided comments on March 15, 2011, arguing that India is 
the appropriate surrogate country for use in this review. Additionally, 
the data submitted by Titan, Bridgestone and TUTRIC for our 
consideration as potential surrogate values are sourced from India. For 
these reasons, and because no party has argued for a different country, 
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 explained the 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 or 
separate-rate status certification (``SRC'').\25\ 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. On December 27, 2011, 
TUTRIC filed a timely response to the Department's SRC.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\  See 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.
    \26\ See Letter from TUTRIC, ``Separate Rate Certification in 
the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on New 
Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China,'' 
dated December 27, 2010 (``TUTRIC's SRC'') at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\27\ It is the Department's policy

[[Page 62359]]

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.\28\ 
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 a further separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine 
whether it is independent from government control.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See, 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)).
    \28\ Id.
    \29\ See, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TUTRIC submitted information indicating that it is partly owned by 
a PRC company. Therefore, the Department must analyze whether TUTRIC 
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.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\  See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The evidence provided by TUTRIC 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.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See TUTRIC's SRC at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\32\ 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. For TUTRIC, we 
determine that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary 
finding of de facto absence of government control based on record 
statements and supporting documentation showing the following: (1) 
TUTRIC sets its own export prices independent of the government 
authority; (2) TUTRIC retains the proceeds from its sales and makes 
independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of 
losses; (3) TUTRIC has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts 
and other agreements; and (4) TUTRIC has autonomy from the government 
regarding the selection of management.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\  See 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).
    \33\ See TUTRIC's SRC at 5-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The evidence placed on the record of this review by TUTRIC 
demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government control with 
respect to its exports of the merchandise under review, in accordance 
with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. 
Therefore, we are preliminarily granting TUTRIC separate-rate status.

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.\34\

    \34\ 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 TUTRIC, we preliminarily 
determine that invoice date is the most appropriate date of sale for 
TUTRIC. Nothing on the record rebuts the presumption that invoice date 
should be the date of sale.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether TUTRIC's sales of OTR tires to the United 
States were made at less than fair value, we compared export price 
(``EP'') to NV, as described in the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal Value'' 
sections of this notice, below, pursuant to section 771(35) of the Act.

U.S. Price

    The Department considers the U.S. prices of sales by TUTRIC to be 
EPs in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act because they were the 
prices at which the subject merchandise was first sold before the date 
of importation by the producer/exporter of the subject merchandise 
outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States. We calculated EPs based on prices to unaffiliated purchaser(s) 
in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the 
Act, where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price 
(gross unit price) for foreign inland freight and brokerage and 
handling.
    We valued foreign brokerage and handling using a price list of 
export procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods 
from India where foreign brokerage and handling were provided by PRC 
service providers or paid for in renminbi. The price list is compiled 
based on a survey case study of the procedural requirements for trading 
a standard shipment of goods by truck in India as reported in ``Doing 
Business 2010: India'' published by the World Bank.\35\ Where foreign 
inland truck freight was provided by PRC service providers or paid for 
in renminbi, we also based those charges on surrogate rates from India. 
See ``Factor Valuations'' section below for

[[Page 62360]]

further discussion of these surrogate values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    We compared NV to individual EP transactions in accordance with 
section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, as appropriate. Section 773(c)(1) of the 
Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using an FOP 
methodology if: (1) The merchandise is exported from an NME country; 
and (2) 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. When determining NV in an NME context, the 
Department will base NV on FOPs because the presence of government 
controls on various aspects of these economies renders price 
comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under our 
normal methodologies.\36\ Under section 773(c)(3) of the Act, FOPs 
include but are not limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) 
quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other 
utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital costs. The 
Department used FOPs reported by TUTRIC for materials, energy and 
labor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part, and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products 
From the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 19695, 19703 (April 17, 
2006) (unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part: 
Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China), 
71 FR 53079 (September 8, 2006)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOPs reported by TUTRIC for the POR. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(1), the Department will normally use publicly available 
information to find an appropriate surrogate value (``SV'') to value 
FOPs, but when a producer sources an input from a market economy and 
pays for it in market economy currency, the Department normally will 
value the factor using the actual price paid for the input if the 
quantities were meaningful and where the prices have not been distorted 
by dumping or subsidies.\37\ To calculate NV, we multiplied the 
reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available SVs 
(except as discussed below). In selecting the best available 
information for valuing FOPs in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of 
the Act, the Department's practice is to select, to the extent 
practicable, SVs which are non-export average values, contemporaneous 
with the POR, represent a broad-market average, are product-specific, 
and tax-exclusive.\38\ We therefore consider SVs based on the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data.\39\ As appropriate, we 
adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered 
prices. Specifically, we added to import SVs 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. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United 
States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Shakeproof Assembly Components Div of Ill Tool Works v. 
United States, 268 F. 3d 1376, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming 
the Department's use of market-based prices to value certain FOPs).
    \38\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical 
Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain 
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004) (unchanged in Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 
Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 
FR 71005 (December 8, 2004)).
    \39\ See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 
72139 (December 4, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 6; and Final Results of First New Shipper 
Review and First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 31204 
(June 11, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 1, 2011, the Department invited all interested parties to 
submit publicly available information to value FOPs for consideration 
in the Department's preliminary results of review.\40\ Petitioner, 
Bridgestone and TUTRIC each submitted publicly available information to 
value FOPs for the preliminary results between February 17, 2011, and 
September 8, 2011. A detailed description of all surrogate values used 
for TUTRIC can be found in the Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Letter to Interested Parties, ``2009-2010 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain New 
Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China,'' 
dated March 1, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the preliminary results, in accordance with the Department's 
practice, except where noted below, we used data from the Indian import 
statistics in the Global Trade Atlas (``GTA''), published by Global 
Trade Information Services, Inc. (``GTIS'') and other publicly 
available Indian sources to calculate SVs for TUTRIC's FOPs (i.e., 
direct materials, energy, and scrap materials) and certain movement 
expenses. The GTA reports import statistics, such as from India, in the 
original reporting currency and thus this data corresponds to the 
original currency value reported by each country. The record shows that 
data in the Indian import statistics, as well as those from the other 
Indian sources, are contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and 
tax-exclusive.\41\ In those instances where we could not obtain 
publicly available information contemporaneous to the POR with which to 
value factors, we adjusted the SVs using, where appropriate, the Indian 
Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as published in the International 
Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    \42\ See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks 
From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final 
Determination, 74 FR 9591, 9600 (March 5, 2009) (unchanged in 
Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 
Value, 74 FR 36656 (July 24, 2009)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the legislative history of the Omnibus Trade and 
Competitiveness Act of 1988, the Department continues to apply its 
long-standing practice of disregarding SVs if it has a reason to 
believe or suspect the source data may reflect subsidized prices.\43\ 
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.\44\ 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

[[Page 62361]]

Thailand may have benefitted from these subsidies. Accordingly, we 
disregarded GTA import data from Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand. 
Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME countries.\45\ Finally, 
imports that were labeled as originating from an ``unspecified'' 
country were excluded from the average value, because the Department 
could not be certain that they were not from either an NME country or a 
country with generally available export subsidies.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf. 
Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd 
Sess. (1988) (``OTCA 1988'') at 590, reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 
1547, 1623-24.
    \44\ See, e.g., Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing 
Duty Order on Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India, 75 FR 13257 
(March 19, 2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
4-5; Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia, 70 
FR 45692 (August 8, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at 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 17, 19-20; Final 
Results of 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 23.
    \45\ See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished or Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of the 2008-2009 Administrative Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 41148, 41154 (July 15, 2010) 
(unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished 
and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results 
of the 2008-2009 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 3086 
(January 19, 2011)).
    \46\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TUTRIC claimed that certain of its reported raw material inputs 
were sourced from an ME country and paid for in ME currencies. When a 
respondent sources inputs from an ME supplier in meaningful quantities, 
we use the actual price paid by respondent for those inputs, except 
when prices may have been distorted by dumping or subsidies.\47\ Where 
we found ME purchases to be of significant quantities (i.e., 33 percent 
or more), in accordance with our statement of policy as outlined in 
Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs,\48\ we used the 
actual purchase prices of these inputs to value the full input.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 
27366 (May 19, 1997).
    \48\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for 
Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717-18 (October 19, 2006) (``Antidumping 
Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, we valued certain of TUTRIC's inputs using the ME 
currency prices paid where the total volume of the input purchased from 
all ME sources during the POR exceeds or is equal to 33 percent of the 
total volume of the input purchased from all sources during the period. 
Where the quantity of the reported input purchased from ME suppliers 
was below 33 percent of the total volume of the input purchased from 
all sources during the POR, and were otherwise valid, we weight-
averaged the ME input's purchase price with the appropriate surrogate 
value for the input according to their respective shares of the 
reported total volume of purchases.\49\ Where appropriate, we added 
freight to the ME prices of inputs. For a detailed description of the 
actual values used for the ME inputs reported, see ``Analysis 
Memorandum for the Preliminary Results: Tianjin United Tire & Rubber 
International Co., Ltd. (``TUTRIC'')'', dated concurrently with this 
notice (``Prelim Analysis Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See id. at 61718.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the valuation of technically specified natural 
rubber (``TSNR''), Bridgestone suggested the Department use prices 
reported by the Indian Rubber Board (``IRB''), stating that the IRB 
reports prices for the specific type of TSNR used by TUTRIC and meets 
all of the Department's SV criteria in that the prices are period-wide, 
specific to the input, net of taxes and import duties, contemporaneous, 
and publicly available. Bridgestone further noted that the HTS 
categories for TSNR import data are basket categories that do not 
distinguish between grades, and therefore are not as specific to 
TUTRIC's input as the IRB's data.\50\ TUTRIC submitted sections from 
the IRB's Web site showing that the IRB issued subsidies and other 
benefits to domestic rubber growers covering the period of 2000 through 
2007.\51\ Bridgestone countered by asserting that the subsidies do not 
cover the POR, and that subsidies would affect domestic and imported 
rubber prices equally, as imports seek to compete in the domestic 
market.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See Letter from Bridgestone, ``Administrative Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order on New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires From 
China: Bridgestone's Initial Submission of Surrogate Values,'' dated 
April 18, 2011. See also Letter from Bridgestone, ``Administrative 
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Off-The-Road Tires From The 
People's Republic of China: Bridgestone's Initial Pre-Preliminary 
Comments,'' dated August 31, 2011 (``Bridgestone's Initial Pre-
Prelim Comments'').
    \51\ Letter from TUTRIC, ``First Surrogate Value Rebuttal 
Submission for TUTRIC in the Second Administrative Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order on New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the 
People's Republic of China,'' dated April 28, 2011.
    \52\ See Bridgestone's Initial Pre-Prelim Comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the preliminary results, we have determined to use Indian 
import data to value TUTRIC's TSNR, as we did in the previous two 
segments of the proceeding.\53\ Although the IRB provides data more 
specific to the type of TSNR TUTRIC uses in production, we are unable 
to identify the source of the prices listed on the IRB's Web site.\54\ 
Moreover, during the investigation, we rejected the IRB's data because 
we found the data to be ``quoted/indicative prices published on a 
particular day and do not necessarily reflect an actual sale of natural 
rubber.'' \55\ Because the Indian import data are known to be based on 
actual sales that are contemporaneous with the POR, tax-exclusive, and 
cover the input at issue, we find that they represent the best 
available information with which to value TSNR in this administrative 
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 64259 (October 19, 2010) (unchanged in 
Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic 
of China: Final Results of the 2008-2009 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 76 FR 22871 (April 25, 2011) (``Tires AR1 
Final'')); Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the 
People's Republic of China; Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 73 FR 
9278 (February 20, 2008) (unchanged in Certain New Pneumatic Off-
The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 
40485 (July 15, 2008) (``Tires LTFV Final'')).
    \54\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    \55\ See Tires LTFV Final, accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the valuation of Tyre cord B fabric (``NYCHFR'') 
and harness cloth (``HCLOTH''), TUTRIC submitted descriptions of NYCHFR 
as ``Nylon Tire Cord Fabric of High Tenacity Yarn;'' and of HCLOTH as 
``Nylon Tire Cord Fabric of High Tenacity Yarn made of nylon 6.'' 
TUTRIC reported both FOPs in kilograms. Bridgestone proposed using 
Indian import data corresponding to HTS category 56049000 \56\ to value 
both of these FOPs, which was also used in both previous segments of 
the proceeding and is reported in Rs/kg.\57\ TUTRIC proposed HTS 
categories 59021090 \58\ and 59021010,\59\ which are reported in square 
meters, but TUTRIC did not provide a conversion formula from kilograms 
to square meters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ ``Textile yarn, thread or cord covered or impregnated with 
rubber or plastic: Other Rubber Thread or Cord.''
    \57\ See Tires AR1 Final and Tires LTFV Final.
    \58\ ``Tire Cord Fabric of High Tenacity Yarn of Nylon, 
Polyamides, Polyesters or Viscose Rayon.''
    \59\ ``Tire Cord Fabric of High Tenacity Yarn of Nylon, 
Polyamides, Polyesters or Viscose Rayon.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the preliminary results, we have determined to use Indian 
import data corresponding to HTS category 56049000, which is not as 
specific to the input in question, but in the correct unit of measure. 
However, we intend to request that TUTRIC report a conversion factor 
for its NYCHFR and HCLOTH (from kg to square meters) subsequent to the 
issuance of these preliminary results in the event we determine a 
different HTS category (or categories) to be more representative of the 
input.
    We valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit average rate 
calculated from data on the infobanc Web site: http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this Web site contains 
inland freight truck rates between many large Indian cities. We valued 
coal using data

[[Page 62362]]

obtained for grade E coal reported in the 2007 edition of the Indian 
Minerals Yearbook published by the Indian Bureau of Mines. We valued 
water using the revised Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation 
water rates available at http://www.midcindia.com/water-supply. We 
calculated the SV for steam based upon the 2009-2010 financial 
statement of Hindalco Industries Limited. See Surrogate Value 
Memorandum.
    We valued electricity using the updated electricity price data for 
small, medium, and large industries, as published by the Central 
Electricity Authority, an administrative body of the Government of 
India, in its publication titled ``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 tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to small, 
medium, and large industries in India. Because the rates listed in this 
source became effective on a variety of different dates, we are not 
adjusting the average value for inflation. In other words, the 
Department did not inflate this value to the POR because the utility 
rates represent current rates, as indicated by the effective date 
listed for each of the rates provided.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See, e.g., Wire Decking from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 
32905 (June 10, 2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 733(c) of the Act, provides that the Department will value 
the FOPs in NME cases using the best available information regarding 
the value of such factors in a ME country or countries considered to be 
appropriate by the administering authority. The Act requires that when 
valuing FOPs, the Department utilizes, to the extent possible, the 
prices or costs of FOPs in one or more ME countries that are: (1) At a 
comparable level of economic development and (2) significant producers 
of comparable merchandise.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See section 773(c)(4) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Previously, the Department used regression-based wages that 
captured the worldwide relationship between per capita GNI and hourly 
manufacturing wages, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), to value the 
respondent's cost of labor in NME cases. However, on May 14, 2010, the 
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``CAFC''), in Dorbest Ltd. v. 
United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (``Dorbest''), 
invalidated 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). As a consequence of the CAFC's ruling 
in Dorbest, the Department no longer relies on the regression-based 
wage rate methodology described in its regulations.
    On June 21, 2011, the Department revised its methodology for 
valuing the labor input in NME antidumping proceedings.\62\ In Labor 
Methodologies, the Department determined that the best methodology to 
value the labor input is to use industry-specific labor rates from the 
primary surrogate country. Additionally, the Department determined that 
the best data source for industry-specific labor rates is Chapter 6A: 
Labor Cost in Manufacturing, from the International Labor Organization 
(ILO) Yearbook of Labor Statistics (``Yearbook'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-
Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR 
36092 (June 21, 2011) (``Labor Methodologies'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In these preliminary results, the Department calculated the labor 
input using the wage method described in Labor Methodologies. To value 
TUTRIC's labor input, the Department relied on data reported by India 
to the ILO in Chapter 6A of the Yearbook. The Department further finds 
the two-digit description under ISIC-Revision 3 (``25--Manufacture of 
Rubber and Plastics Products'') to be the best available information on 
the record because it is specific to the industry being examined, and 
is therefore derived from industries that produce comparable 
merchandise. Accordingly, relying on Chapter 6A of the Yearbook, the 
Department calculated the labor input using labor data reported by 
India to the ILO under Sub-Classification 25 of the ISIC-Revision 3 
standard, in accordance with Section 773(c)(4) of the Act. For these 
preliminary results, the calculated industry-specific wage rate is 
49.49 Rs per hour. Because this wage rate does not separate the labor 
rates into different skill levels or types of labor, the Department has 
applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor 
reported by TUTRIC.\63\ A more detailed description of the wage rate 
calculation methodology is provided in the Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, the Department used India's ILO data reported 
under Chapter 6A of Yearbook, which reflects all costs related to 
labor, including wages, benefits, housing, training, etc. Because the 
financial statements used to calculate the surrogate financial ratios 
include itemized detail of indirect labor costs, the Department made 
adjustments to the surrogate financial ratios as contemplated by Labor 
Methodologies.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum and Labor Methodologies, 76 
FR at 36094.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(4), the Department valued factory 
overhead, selling, general and administrative expenses and profit using 
non-proprietary information gathered from producers of identical or 
comparable merchandise in the surrogate country. The Department's 
practice is to disregard financial statements containing evidence that 
the company received subsidies that the Department has previously found 
to be countervailable, and where there are other reliable data on the 
record for purposes of calculating the surrogate financial ratios.\65\ 
For these preliminary results, we used the average of the ratios 
derived from the financial statements of two Indian producers of OTR 
tires: Falcon Tyres Ltd. (for the year ending on September 30, 2010) 
and TVS Srichakra Ltd. (for the year ending on March 31, 2010). We did 
not use financial statements from two other Indian producers, MRF 
Limited and JK Tyre and Industries Ltd., because they each contained 
evidence of receipt of a subsidy which the Department has found to be 
countervailable.\66\ Specifically, these two Indian producers received 
benefits under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme and the Sales 
Tax Deferred from Government of Karnataka program, respectively, both 
programs that the Department has previously determined to be 
countervailable.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See First Administrative Review of Steel Wire Garment 
Hangers From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 
27994 (May 13, 2011), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 2.
    \66\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    \67\ See, e.g., Commodity Matchbooks From India: Final 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 74 FR 54547 (October 
22, 2009) (finding the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme to be 
countervailable); Notice of Preliminary Results and Rescission, in 
Part, of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India, 71 FR 45037, 45043 
(August 8, 2006) (unchanged in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 
Sheet, and Strip from India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review, 72 FR 6530 (February 12, 2007)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TUTRIC reported that scrap compound, scrap bead, scrap cloth and 
scrap tire were recovered as by-products of the production of subject 
merchandise and successfully demonstrated that the scrap materials have 
commercial value. Therefore, we have granted a by-product offset for 
the quantities of the reported by-product, valued using Indian import 
data.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 62363]]

Currency Conversion

    Where appropriate, we made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, 
in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange 
rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the 
Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily find that the following weighted-average dumping 
margin exists for the period September 1, 2009, through August 31, 
2010:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent
                           Exporter                              margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tianjin United Tire & Rubber International Co., Ltd...........      7.35
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department will disclose calculations performed for these 
preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of 
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 
Interested parties may submit written comments no later than 30 days 
after the date of publication of these preliminary results of 
review.\69\ Rebuttals to written comments may be filed no later than 
five days after the written comments are filed.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c).
    \70\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice.\71\ Hearing requests should contain the 
following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone 
number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to 
be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in 
the briefs. 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 and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
    \72\ 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.\73\ 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.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See, 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.
    \74\ See 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance 
with the final results of this review. For assessment purposes, we 
calculated exporter/importer- (or customer) -specific assessment rates 
for merchandise subject to this review. Where appropriate, we 
calculated an ad valorem rate for each importer (or customer) by 
dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party by 
the total entered values associated with those transactions. For duty-
assessment rates calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess 
the resulting ad valorem rate against the entered customs values for 
the subject merchandise.
    Where appropriate, we calculated a per-unit rate for each importer 
(or customer) by dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales 
to that party by the total sales quantity associated with those 
transactions. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this basis, we 
will direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate against the 
entered quantity of the subject merchandise. Where an importer- (or 
customer) -specific assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 
percent), the Department will instruct CBP to assess that importer (or 
customer's) entries of subject merchandise without regard to 
antidumping duties. The Department intends to issue appropriate 
assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of 
the final results of this review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For TUTRIC, the 
cash deposit rate will be the 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 established in the Tires 
LTFV Final; 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 non-PRC 
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.
    We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review 
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 
CFR 351.213.


[[Page 62364]]


    Dated: September 30, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-26016 Filed 10-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P