OPINION AND ORDER

RESTANI, Judge:

This matter is before the court on plaintiff OTR Wheel Engineering, Inc.'s ("OTR Wheel" or "Plaintiff") motion for judgment upon the agency record pursuant to USCIT Rule 56.2. Plaintiff, an importer of certain pneumatic off-the-road ("OTR") tires from the People's Republic of China ("PRC"), challenges the U.S. Department of Commerce's ("Commerce" or "Secretary") final scope ruling regarding an antidumping ("AD") duty order and countervailing duty order covering certain pneumatic OTR tires from the PRC. Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders ("CVD") on Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Final Scope Ruling — OTR Wheel Engineering, Inc., available at Pl.'s Rule 56.2(c)(3) App. of Admin. R. ("Pl.'s App."), Ex. F (Apr. 26, 2011) ("Final Scope Ruling"). For the reasons stated below, the court remands Commerce's findings for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BACKGROUND

In September 2008, Commerce placed antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain new pneumatic OTR tires from the PRC.1 Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 73 Fed.Reg. 51,627, 51,627 (Dep't Commerce Sept. 4, 2008) ("CVD Order"); Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order: Notice of Amended Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 73 Fed.Reg. 51,624, 51,624 (Dep't Commerce Sept. 4, 2008) ("AD Order") (collectively "the orders"). The scope of these orders2 was stated as follows:

AD Order, 73 Fed.Reg. at 51,624-25 (footnotes with definitions omitted). The orders also listed types of tires which were excluded from the scope:

Id. at 51,625. In February 2011, OTR Wheel filed a scope ruling request, asking that Commerce find Trac Master and Traction Master tires imported by OTR Wheel fall within the scope exclusion for "tires of a kind used on ... vehicles for turf, lawn and garden ... applications." Scope Ruling Request: OTR Wheel Engineering, Inc. — Lawn & Garden Tires, available at Pl.'s App., Ex. A, at 4 (Feb. 11, 2011) (quoting AD Order, 73 Fed.Reg. at 51,625). OTR Wheel argued that the plain language of the scope was dispositive in excluding OTR Wheel's Trac Master and Traction Master tires. Id. Bridgestone Americas, Inc. and Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC (collectively "Bridgestone") filed comments opposing OTR Wheel's exclusion request.

In April 2011, Commerce released its Final Scope Ruling, finding that the tires were not excluded from the orders. Final Scope Ruling at 8. Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1), Commerce stated that it found the description of the merchandise contained in the petition, the initial investigation, and the determinations of the Secretary of Commerce and the ITC to be dispositive. Id. at 6. By drafting the scope orders during the original investigation to replace the word "use" with the phrase "designed for use," Commerce made clear that end-use was not determinative. Id. Commerce then looked at data from the Tire and Rim Association ("TRA") and the ITC's injury determinations to determine the general purpose of the tires. Commerce found that tires with R-1 and R-4 type treads were used for farming, light industrial service, and highway mowing. Id. at 7. Because the tires in question had R-1 and R-4 type treads, Commerce determined that such tires were not excluded from the scope of the order. Id. at 7-8. Commerce found it unnecessary to conduct a formal proceeding to consider the additional factors contained in 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2). Id. at 5.3 For its part, OTR Wheel does not argue that its tires fall outside the general scope of the orders, merely that they are within an exclusion for turf, lawn, and garden applications.

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2). Commerce's final scope determination is upheld unless it is found "to be unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).

DISCUSSION

In determining if a product is within the scope of an order, "`the scope of a final order may be clarified, [but] it can not be changed in a way contrary to its terms.'" Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087, 1097 (Fed.Cir.2002) (quoting Smith Corona Corp. v. United States, 915 F.2d 683, 686 (Fed.Cir.1990)). "[B]ecause the descriptions of subject merchandise contained in [Commerce's] determinations must be written in general terms," it is often difficult to determine "whether a particular product is included within the scope of an antidumping or countervailing duty order." 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(a); see also Duferco Steel, 296 F.3d at 1096.

OTR Wheel argues that if the exclusionary language in the orders does not clearly exclude its merchandise, it is at least ambiguous as to whether it excludes OTR Wheel's Trac Master and Traction Master tires from the scope.4 It argues further that Commerce improperly determined that the tires were not excluded based on industry descriptions of tires, which Commerce found dispositive under 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1). Pl.'s Rule 56.2 Mot. for J. on the Agency R. ("Pl.'s Mot.") 11. Specifically, OTR Wheel argues that Commerce erred because it gave improper weight to tread type, failed to consider tire size, and took statements made in the ITC injury determinations out of context. Id. at 11-14.

Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(d),5 "in considering whether a particular product is included within the scope of an order or a suspended investigation, [Commerce] will take into account ... [t]he descriptions of the merchandise contained in the petition, the initial investigation, and the determinations of [Commerce] (including prior scope determinations) and the [ITC]." 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1). Only "[w]hen the above criteria are not dispositive ... will [Commerce] further consider: (i) The physical characteristics of the product; (ii) The expectations of the ultimate purchasers; (iii) The ultimate use of the product; (iv) The channels of trade in which the product is sold; and (v) The manner in which the product is advertised and displayed." 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2).

In its Final Scope Ruling, Commerce determined that the record evidence demonstrated that OTR Wheel's Trac Master and Traction Master tires were not specifically designed for turf, lawn, and garden applications because of the tread types of the tires. Final Scope Ruling at 7. All OTR Wheel tires at issue have R-1 and R-4 type treads.6 Commerce reviewed the "TRA's 2011 Yearbook regarding agricultural and industrial tires, and lawn and garden tires, and found no instance where the TRA designated R-1 and R-4 [tread type] tires for service for lawn and garden applications." Id. After noting that the orders covered tires ranging from eight to fifty-four inches in rim diameter and that the tires at issue were from eight to twelve inches in rim diameter, Commerce turned to the ITC's Preliminary Injury Determination Pricing Data, which referenced Hi-Traction Lug R-1 tread type tires stating:

Final Scope Ruling at 7 (quoting Certain Off-the-Road Tires From China, USITC Pub. No. 3943, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-448, 731-TA-117 (Aug. 2007) at V-3, available at http://www.usitc.gov/publications/701_731/ pub3943.pdf (last visited June 19, 2012) ("Preliminary Injury Determination")).7 As to ITC's statements about Industrial Tractor Lug R-4 tread type tires in ITC's pricing data Commerce noted:

Final Scope Ruling at 7 (quoting Preliminary Injury Determination at V-3). OTR Wheel states that "R-4 tires are traditionally, but not universally, designed for use on tractors, light industrial equipment or on vehicles with highway mowing capabilities," Pl.'s Mot. 3-4, 17, but Commerce discounted OTR Wheel's evidence that its products are advertised for use on lawn and garden vehicles as relevant to end-use, not design.8 The petition was not included in the record before Commerce or the record before this court. Commerce did not provide an analysis of descriptions of merchandise in the petition9 or of other statements in the determinations of the Secretary or the ITC.10

"If the determination can be made based on section (k)(1), a scope ruling will issue without a full evaluation of the criteria in (k)(2)." Tak Fat Trading Co. v. United States, 396 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed.Cir.2005). For a(k)(1) determination to be dispositive, the permissible sources examined by Commerce "must be controlling of the scope inquiry in the sense that they definitively answer the scope question." Sango Int'l L.P. v. United States, 484 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed.Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). "[A]ntidumping and countervailing duty orders are specific to a particular kind or class of merchandise and, therefore, unless otherwise specified, they must necessarily be interpreted in the context of the industry in which the merchandise at issue is manufactured, bought and sold." ArcelorMittal Stainless Belg. N.V. v. United States, Slip Op. 11-82, 2011 WL 2713872, at *1 (CIT July 12, 2011) (finding that "4.75 mm" is not one definite measurement because, in the context of the industry, purchasers routinely accept variance in measurement).11 Because the exclusionary provision of the orders does not unambiguously define "tires of a kind designed for use on... vehicles for turf, lawn and garden ... applications," AD Order, 73 Fed.Reg. at 51,625, Commerce relied on external documents to try to determine if OTR Wheel products were excluded, but it did not limit itself to the documents listed in 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1). Neither did Commerce formally reach the 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2) factors. In any case, the documents Commerce cited do not provide substantial evidence for its scope determination.

Both parties rely on the TRA 2011 Yearbook, yet it is unclear what it says about industry understanding of the tires at issue. OTR Wheel identifies evidence in the TRA 2011 Yearbook as an indication that "Trac Master and Traction Master tires are tires of a kind designed for use on vehicles with turf, lawn and garden applications." Pl.'s Mot. at 11 (internal quotation marks omitted). OTR Wheel alleges that its tires fall within the size of "Lawn and Garden" tires in TRA 2011 Yearbook Section 6 ("Industrial Section") and are smaller than some of the tires in TRA 2011 Yearbook Section 5 ("Agricultural Section"). Id. at 11 (citing Pl.'s App. Ex. E at 6-24 — 6-31). OTR Wheel contends that Commerce "inexplicably disregarded or ignored" this evidence, and "accord[ed] disproportionate weight to the fact that Plaintiff's tires happen to share a common `R-1' and `R-4' tread type with some of the tires covered by the" orders. Pl.'s Mot. at 11, 13, 16-18. The Industrial Section of the TRA 2011 Yearbook contains a sub-section defining "Tires for Utility Vehicles and Lawn and Garden Tractors." All of OTR Wheel's tires fall within the tire size designations of this section,12 but the sub-section does not specify whether tires under this section contain either an R-1 or R-4 type tread. Pl.'s App. Ex. E, at 6-24 — 27.

The Agricultural Section of the TRA 2011 Yearbook does not contain a subsection on lawn and garden tires and, unlike the Industrial Section, which does not address tire tread type, lists R-1 or R-4 tread type tires as for service on "agricultural tractor[s]," combine harvester[s]," "agricultural high clearance sprayer[s]," and "industrial tractor[s]." Pl.'s App. Ex. E, at 5-01. Although the TRA 2011 Yearbook might support a conclusion that some tires containing R-1 and R-4 tread types have been designed for use on other than turf, lawn and garden vehicles, the Yearbook also provides some evidence that tires of the size (and possibly the tread type) created by OTR Wheel are designed for use on turf, lawn, and garden vehicles. Taken as a whole and without further context, the TRA 2011 Yearbook does not provide substantial support for a scope decision as to OTR Wheel's tires.

OTR Wheel contends that "Commerce's reference to the ITC Final [Injury Determination] is misleading because that particular ITC reference to tread types was taken entirely out of context."13 Pl.'s Mot. at 14. OTR Wheel asserts that the ITC's discussion focused on the pricing of in-scope product categories to the exclusion of product categories excluded from the scope. Pl.'s Mot. at 14-15. Commerce counters that the ITC references are merely descriptions of R-1 and R-4 tread type tires generally and that such definitions were not limited to certain R-1 and R-4 tread type tires included within the scope of the orders. Def.'s Resp. at 17.

Preliminarily, Commerce has not explained if the absence of the explanatory footnotes regarding R-1 and R-4 tread type tires from the Final Injury Determination has any significance. Next, the Preliminary Injury Determination focuses on "Hi-Traction Lug R-1" and "Industrial Tractor Lug R-4" tires of certain sizes. Preliminary Injury Determination at V-3. The referenced "Industrial Tractor Lug R-4" size tire does not seem consistent with the dimensions of OTR Wheel's tires. That is, the descriptions of these tires seem applicable to tires of specific usage, size, and tread type, rather than generally fitting to all R-1 and R-4 tread type tires. Thus, the materials cited from ITC's injury investigation fail to provide useful evidence that all R-1 and R-4 tread type tires of a size imported by OTR Wheel are not excluded from the scope of the orders by the turf, lawn, and garden exception.14

It is not enough that OTR Wheel's tires are agricultural or industrial tires generally within the scope of the order: OTR Wheel's tires must not be designed for use on turf, lawn, and garden vehicles in order to be included. Although evidence cited by Commerce may indicate that some tires containing R-1 and R-4 tread types are designed for general agricultural and industrial use, Commerce's evidence does not indicate that other R-1 and R-4 tread type tires are not designed more specifically for use on turf, lawn, and garden vehicles. Commerce's determination lacks substantial evidence that all tires with R-1 and R-4 tread types are included within the scope of the order. The sources used by Commerce under its purported (k)(1) analysis are not "`controlling' of the scope inquiry in the sense that they definitively answer the scope question." Sango Int'l, 484 F.3d at 1379. The industry standards and ITC injury investigation materials relied upon by Commerce do not provide substantial support for determining whether tires of this particular size and tread type are excluded as turf, lawn, or garden tires.15 It seems quite unlikely that Commerce can confine itself to a limited § 351.225(k)(1) analysis here and reach a supported conclusion for the question of whether Plaintiff's products are designed for use in vehicles for turf, lawn, or garden applications. What are turf, lawn, and garden applications? How does the industry view tires that are relatively small, but have somewhat aggressive treads? These seem to be the types of questions that require a more reaching (k)(2) analysis. Thus, unless there is some dispositive feature of the petition and prior determinations that were overlooked by Commerce, it shall proceed with a full inquiry.16

CONCLUSION

Although OTR Wheel has asked this court to "remand this matter to Commerce with instructions to exclude Plaintiff's `Trac Master' and `Traction Master' tires from the scope of the subject Tires Orders," Pl.'s Mot. 24, Commerce has not yet properly completed its analysis under 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k). The court hereby remands the matter to Commerce for further evaluation pursuant to the procedures set forth in 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k).