[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8790-8798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-4443]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-427-801, A-428-801, A-475-801, A-588-804, A-485-801, A-559-801, A-
401-801, A-412-801]


Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and 
Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, 
Sweden, and the United Kingdom; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Partial Rescission of Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Partial Rescission of Administrative 
Reviews.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce is conducting administrative reviews of the 
antidumping duty orders on antifriction bearings (other than tapered 
roller bearings) and parts thereof from France, Germany, Italy,

[[Page 8791]]

Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The 
merchandise covered by these orders are ball bearings and parts 
thereof, cylindrical roller bearings and parts thereof, and spherical 
plain bearings and parts thereof. The reviews cover 21 manufacturers/
exporters. The period of review is May 1, 1997, through April 30, 1998.
    We are rescinding the reviews for thirteen other manufacturers/
exporters because the requests for reviews of these firms or types of 
bearings were withdrawn in a timely manner.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
normal value by various companies subject to these reviews. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of these 
administrative reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit comments in these proceedings are requested 
to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 23, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Please contact the appropriate case analysts 
for the various respondent firms as listed below, at Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733.

France. Lyn Johnson (SKF), Larry Tabash or Davina Hashmi (SNFA), J. 
David Dirstine (SNR), Robin Gray, or Richard Rimlinger.
Germany. Mark Ross (INA and Torrington Nadellager), Farah Naim or 
Davina Hashmi (SKF), Thomas Schauer (FAG), Robin Gray, or Richard 
Rimlinger.
Italy. Anne Copper or J. David Dirstine (SKF), Edythe Artman or Mark 
Ross (FAG), Minoo Hatten (Somecat), Robin Gray, or Richard Rimlinger.
Japan. J. David Dirstine (Koyo Seiko and Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp.), Thomas 
Schauer (NTN), Davina Hashmi (NPBS), Diane Krawczun (NSK Ltd.), Robin 
Gray, or Richard Rimlinger.
Romania. Suzanne Flood (Tehnoimportexport, S.A.) or Robin Gray.
Sweden. Davina Hashmi (SKF) or Richard Rimlinger.
United Kingdom. Suzanne Flood (Barden Corporation), Diane Krawczun 
(NSK/RHP), Hermes Pinilla (FAG), Lyn Johnson (SNFA), Robin Gray, or 
Richard Rimlinger.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act 
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the 
Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (1998).

Background

    On May 15, 1989, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(54 FR 20909) the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts 
thereof (BBs), cylindrical roller bearings and parts thereof (CRBs), 
and spherical plain bearings and parts thereof (SPBs) from France, 
Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and the United 
Kingdom. Specifically, these orders cover BBs, CRBs, and SPBs from 
France, Germany, and Japan, BBs and CRBs from Italy, Sweden, and the 
United Kingdom, and BBs from Romania and Singapore. On June 29, 1998, 
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, we published a notice of initiation 
of administrative reviews of these orders for the period May 1, 1997, 
through April 30, 1998 (the POR) (63 FR 35188). The Department is 
conducting these administrative reviews in accordance with section 751 
of the Act.
    Subsequent to the initiation of these reviews, we received timely 
withdrawals of review requests for Rofer LDA (France), Rodaindustria SA 
(France), Rodaindustria Vigo SA (France), Bucher Guyer (France), Alfa 
Team GmbH (Germany), D&R Technisher Grosshandel (Nurnberg) (Germany), 
D&R Technisher Grosshandel (Rednitzhembach) (Germany), Frolich & Dorken 
GmbH (Germany), RMV Walzlager Vetr. GmbH (Germany), Wyko Export 
(Germany), Minetti (Italy), Motovario (Italy), and NMB/Pelmec 
(Singapore). Because there were no other requests for review of the 
above-named firms, we are rescinding the reviews with respect to these 
companies in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d).

Scope of Reviews

    The products covered by these reviews are antifriction bearings 
(other than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof (AFBs) and 
constitute the following merchandise:
    1. Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof: These products include all AFBs 
that employ balls as the rolling element. Imports of these products are 
classified under the following categories: antifriction balls, ball 
bearings with integral shafts, ball bearings (including radial ball 
bearings) and parts thereof, and housed or mounted ball bearing units 
and parts thereof.
    Imports of these products are classified under the following 
Harmonized Tariff Schedules (HTS) subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00, 
4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.19.5010, 8431.20.00, 8431.39.0010, 
8482.10.10, 8482.10.50, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.05, 
8482.99.2580, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.6595, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 
8483.50.8040, 8483.50.90, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 
8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.60.80, 8708.70.6060, 8708.70.8050, 
8708.93.30, 8708.93.5000, 8708.93.6000, 8708.93.75, 8708.99.06, 
8708.99.31, 8708.99.4960, 8708.99.50, 8708.99.5800, 8708.99.8080, 
8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, and 8803.90.90.
    2. Cylindrical Roller Bearings, Mounted or Unmounted, and Parts 
Thereof: These products include all AFBs that employ cylindrical 
rollers as the rolling element. Imports of these products are 
classified under the following categories: antifriction rollers, all 
cylindrical roller bearings (including split cylindrical roller 
bearings) and parts thereof, and housed or mounted cylindrical roller 
bearing units and parts thereof.
    Imports of these products are classified under the following HTS 
subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00, 4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 
6909.19.5010, 8431.20.00, 8431.39.0010, 8482.40.00, 8482.50.00, 
8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.25, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.6530, 
8482.99.6560, 8482.99.70, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.50.8040, 
8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 
8708.93.5000, 8708.99.4000, 8708.99.4960, 8708.99.50, 8708.99.8080, 
8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, and 8803.90.90.
    3. Spherical Plain Bearings, Mounted and Unmounted, and Parts 
Thereof: These products include all spherical plain bearings that 
employ a spherically shaped sliding element and include spherical plain 
rod ends.
    Imports of these products are classified under the following HTS 
subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00, 4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 
6909.50.10, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.30, 8485.90.00, 8708.93.5000, 
8708.99.50, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, and 
8803.90.90.
    The size or precision grade of a bearing does not influence whether 
the bearing is covered by the order. For a further discussion of the 
scope of the

[[Page 8792]]

orders being reviewed, including recent scope determinations, see 
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 
Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden 
and the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 33320 (June 18, 1998) (AFBs VIII). 
Although the HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, the written descriptions of the scope of these proceedings 
remain dispositive.
    These reviews cover the following firms and merchandise:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Name of firm                         Merchandise
------------------------------------------------------------------------
France:
    11SKF France (including all relevant         All
     affiliates).
    SNFA S.A. (SNFA France)....................  All
    SNR........................................  All
Germany:
    SKF GmbH (including all relevant             All
     affiliates) (SKF Germany).
    Torrington Nadellager (Torrington/           BBs, CRBs
     Kuensenbeck).
    FAG........................................  All
    INA........................................  All
Italy:
    FAG Italia, S.p.A. (including all relevant   BBs, CRBs
     affiliates) (FAG Italy).
    SKF-Industrie, S.p.A. (including all         BBs
     relevant affiliates) (SKF Italy).
    Somecat, S.p.A. (Somecat)..................  BBs, CRBs
Japan:
    Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. (Koyo)................  All
    Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp. (Nachi)..............  All
    Nippon Pillow Block Sales Company, Ltd.      All
     (NPBS).
    NSK Ltd. (formerly Nippon Seiko K.K.)......  All
    NTN Corp. (NTN Japan)......................  All
Romania:
    Tehnoimportexport, S.A. (TIE)..............  BBs
Sweden:
    SKF Sverige (including all relevant          BBs, CRBs
     affiliates).
    (SKF Sweden)...............................
United Kingdom:
    Barden Corporation.........................  BBs, CRBs
    FAG (U.K.) Ltd.............................  BBs, CRBs
    NSK Bearings Europe, Ltd./RHP Bearings Ltd.  BBs, CRBs
     (NSK/RHP).
    SNFA (U.K.) Bearings Ltd...................  BBs, CRBs
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a letter dated July 1, 1998, the Torrington Group requested to 
be excused from responding to the Department's questionnaire in the 
review involving BBs from Germany. The Torrington Group stated that, 
during the POR, it imported into the United States only eight units 
covered by the order on BBs from Germany and all units were imported 
and obtained by the Torrington Company from Torrington Nadellager GmbH 
via an affiliated-party transaction. The Torrington Group stated 
further that after importation it loaned the eight units to an 
unaffiliated U.S. customer for examination, retrieved the units from 
the customer, and destroyed the units after retrieval. Given that the 
units in question were destroyed and there are no sales to review, we 
have not calculated dumping margins for these entries in this review 
involving BBs from Germany. See memorandum to Laurie Parkhill from 
Michael Panfeld, dated July 15, 1998, located in Import 
Administration's Central Records Unit, Room B-099, Main Commerce 
Building (hereafter, B-099). Because this merchandise was consumed by 
the affiliated importer and not resold in any form, we will liquidate 
these entries without regard to antidumping duties. (See, e.g., 
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 
Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, 
and the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative 
Reviews, 63 FR 6512, 6514 (February 9, 1998).)

Duty Absorption

    On May 29, 1998, and July 29, 1998, the Torrington Company 
requested that the Department determine with respect to all 
respondents, except Torrington Nadellager and SNFA UK, whether 
antidumping duties had been absorbed during the POR. On May 29, 1998, 
FAG Bearings Corp. requested that the Department determine for 
Torrington Nadellager whether antidumping duties had been absorbed 
during the POR. These requests were filed pursuant to section 751(a)(4) 
of the Act.
    Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides for the Department, if 
requested, to determine, during an administrative review initiated two 
years or four years after publication of the order, whether antidumping 
duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter subject to 
the order if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States 
through an importer who is affiliated with such foreign producer or 
exporter (see also 19 CFR 351.213(j)(1)). Section 751(a)(4) was added 
to the Act by the URAA.
    For transition orders as defined in section 751(c)(6)(C) of the 
Act, i.e., orders in effect as of January 1, 1995, section 
351.213(j)(2) of the Department's antidumping regulations provides that 
the Department will make a duty-absorption determination, if requested, 
for any administrative review initiated in 1996 or 1998. This approach 
ensures that interested parties will have the opportunity to request a 
duty-absorption determination prior to the time for sunset review of 
the order under section 751(c) of the Act on entries for which the 
second and fourth years following an order have already passed. Because 
these orders on AFBs have been in effect since 1989, they are 
transition orders in accordance with section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act; 
therefore, based on the policy stated above, the Department will 
consider a request for an absorption

[[Page 8793]]

determination during a review initiated in 1998. This being a review 
initiated in 1998 and a request having been made, we are making a duty-
absorption determination as part of these administrative reviews.
    The statute provides for a determination on duty absorption if the 
subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an affiliated 
importer. In these cases, all firms subject to the duty-absorption 
requests filed by the Torrington Company and FAG Bearings Corp., with 
the exception of TIE, SNFA France, and Somecat, sold AFBs through 
importers that are ``affiliated'' within the meaning of section 771(33) 
of the Act. Furthermore, we have preliminarily determined that there 
are dumping margins for the following firms with respect to the 
percentages of their U.S. sales, by quantity, indicated below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Percentage of
                                                               U.S.
                                                            affiliate's
             Name of firm                Class or kind      sales with
                                                              dumping
                                                              margins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
France:
  SKF................................  BBs                         17.88
  SNR................................  BBs                         10.18
                                       CRBs                        14.38
Germany:
  SKF................................  BBs                          3.20
                                       CRBs                        33.85
                                       SPBs                        22.03
  Torrington Nadellager..............  CRBs                         0.26
  FAG................................  BBs                         10.93
                                       CRBs                        26.83
  INA................................  BBs                          9.14
                                       CRBs                         9.25
                                       SPBs                         4.00
Italy:
  FAG................................  BBs                         10.38
  SKF................................  BBs                         20.73
Japan:
  Koyo...............................  BBs                         30.38
                                       CRBs                        47.46
  Nachi..............................  BBs                         48.39
                                       CRBs                         7.93
  NPBS...............................  BBs                         22.42
  NSK................................  BBs                          4.88
    .................................  CRBs                        16.25
  NTN................................  BBs                         39.38
                                       CRBs                        86.38
                                       SPBs                        60.68
Sweden:
  SKF................................  BBs                          4.17
                                       CRBs                       100.00
United Kingdon:
  Barden.............................  BBs                         19.43
  NSK/RHP............................  BBs                         34.25
                                       CRBs                        56.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case of SKF Sweden, the firm did not respond to our 
questionnaire with respect to its sales of CRBs and the dumping margin 
for all sales of CRBs were determined on the basis of adverse facts 
available (see Use of Facts Available below). Lacking other 
information, we find duty absorption on all U.S. sales of CRBs by SKF 
Sweden.
    With respect to the above companies, we rebuttably presume that the 
duties will be absorbed for those sales which were dumped. This 
presumption can be rebutted with evidence that the unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States will pay the ultimately assessed duty. 
However, there is no such evidence on the record. Under these 
circumstances, we preliminarily find that antidumping duties have been 
absorbed by the above-listed firms on the percentages of U.S. sales 
indicated. If interested parties wish to submit evidence that the 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States will pay the ultimately 
assessed duty, they must do so no later than 15 days after publication 
of these preliminary results.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information 
provided by certain respondents using standard verification procedures, 
including on-site inspection of the manufacturers' facilities, the 
examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of 
original documentation containing relevant information. Our 
verification results are outlined in the public versions of the 
verification reports located in the Central Records Unit, Main Commerce 
Building, Room B-099.

Use of Facts Available

    We preliminarily determine, in accordance with section 776(a) of 
the Act, that the use of facts available as the basis for the weighted-
average dumping margin is appropriate for SKF Sweden with respect to 
CRBs because this firm did not respond to our antidumping 
questionnaire. We find that this firm has not provided ``information 
that has been requested by the administering authority.'' Furthermore, 
we determine that, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, it is 
appropriate to make an inference adverse to the interests of this 
company because it did not cooperate to the best of its ability by not 
responding to our questionnaire.
    In certain situations, we found it necessary to use partial facts 
available. Partial facts available was applied in cases in which we 
were unable to use some portion of a response in calculating the 
dumping margin. For TIE (Romania), we had no factor value on the record 
to value steel tube. Therefore, we used the value of steel bar as the 
factor value for this input. In addition, we discovered at verification 
that, for a few transactions, TIE inadvertently reported factors-of-
production (FOP) information for a factory other than the actual 
producing factory. We determine that non-adverse partial facts 
available should be applied to these transactions for the following 
reasons: the sales with misreported FOP data account for a very small 
percentage of U.S. sales; we are satisfied with the accuracy of TIE's 
FOP data for other U.S. sales; the misreported FOP data accurately 
reflect the experience of the other factories in producing the same 
models; the misreported FOP data constitute an inadvertent error by TIE 
which could not reasonably be corrected at verification. As non-adverse 
partial facts available, we have used the information TIE reported as 
the FOP of the affected models. See Memorandum of January 29, 1999, 
from Suzanne Flood to Laurie Parkhill in Room B-099.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price--Market-Economy Countries

    For the price to the United States, we used export price (EP) or 
constructed export price (CEP) as defined in sections 772(a) and (b) of 
the Act, as appropriate. Due to the extremely large volume of 
transactions that occurred during the POR and the resulting 
administrative burden involved in calculating individual margins for 
all of these transactions, we sampled CEP sales in accordance with 
section 777A of the Act. When a firm made more than 2,000 CEP sales 
transactions to the United States for merchandise subject to a 
particular order, we reviewed CEP sales that occurred during sample 
weeks. We selected one week from each two-month period in the review 
period, for a total of six weeks, and analyzed each transaction made in 
those six weeks. The sample weeks are as follows: May 25-31, 1997; July 
13-19, 1997; October 19-25, 1997; November 23-29, 1997; January 25-31, 
1998; April 5-11, 1998. We reviewed all EP sales transactions during 
the POR.
    We calculated EP and CEP based on the packed f.o.b., c.i.f., or 
delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, 
the United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for discounts 
and rebates. We also made deductions for any movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and the Statement 
of Administrative Action (SAA) to the URAA (at 823-824), we calculated 
the CEP by deducting selling expenses associated with economic 
activities occurring in the United States, including commissions, 
direct selling expenses, indirect selling expenses, and

[[Page 8794]]

repacking expenses in the United States. When appropriate, in 
accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act, we also deducted the cost 
of any further manufacture or assembly, except where the special rule 
provided in section 772(e) of the Act was applied (see below). Finally, 
we made an adjustment for profit allocated to these expenses in 
accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
    With respect to subject merchandise to which value was added in the 
United States prior to sale to unaffiliated U.S. customers, e.g., parts 
of bearings that were imported by U.S. affiliates of foreign exporters 
and then further processed into other products which were then sold to 
unaffiliated parties, we determined that the special rule for 
merchandise with value added after importation under section 772(e) of 
the Act applied to all firms, except NPBS, that added value in the 
United States.
    Section 772(e) of the Act provides that, when the subject 
merchandise is imported by an affiliated person and the value added in 
the United States by the affiliated person is likely to exceed 
substantially the value of the subject merchandise, we shall determine 
the CEP for such merchandise using the price of identical or other 
subject merchandise if there is a sufficient quantity of sales to 
provide a reasonable basis for comparison and we determine that the use 
of such sales is appropriate. If there is not a sufficient quantity of 
such sales or if we determine that using the price of identical or 
other subject merchandise is not appropriate, we may use any other 
reasonable basis to determine the CEP.
    To determine whether the value added is likely to exceed 
substantially the value of the subject merchandise, we estimated the 
value added based on the difference between the averages of the prices 
charged to the first unaffiliated purchaser for the merchandise as sold 
in the United States and the averages of the prices paid for the 
subject merchandise by the affiliated person. Based on this analysis, 
we determined that the estimated value added in the United States by 
all firms, with the exception of NPBS, accounted for at least 65 
percent of the price charged to the first unaffiliated customer for the 
merchandise as sold in the United States. (See 19 CFR 351.402(c) for an 
explanation of our practice on this issue.) Therefore, we preliminarily 
determine that the value added is likely to exceed substantially the 
value of the subject merchandise. Also, for the companies in question, 
we determined that there was a sufficient quantity of sales remaining 
to provide a reasonable basis for comparison and that the use of such 
sales is appropriate. Accordingly, for purposes of determining dumping 
margins for the sales subject to the special rule, we have used the 
weighted-average dumping margins calculated on sales of identical or 
other subject merchandise sold to unaffiliated persons. No other 
adjustments to EP or CEP were claimed or allowed.

Normal Value--Market-Economy Countries

    Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and 
U.S. sales and absent any information that a particular market 
situation in the exporting country did not permit a proper comparison, 
we determined that the quantity of foreign like product sold by all 
respondents in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper 
comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United 
States pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Each company's quantity 
of sales in its home market was greater than five percent of its sales 
to the U.S. market. Therefore, in accordance with section 
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value (NV) on the prices at 
which the foreign like products were first sold for consumption in the 
exporting country.
    Due to the extremely large number of transactions that occurred 
during the POR and the resulting administrative burden involved in 
examining all of these transactions, we sampled sales to calculate NV 
in accordance with section 777A of the Act. When a firm had more than 
2,000 home market sales transactions for a particular foreign like 
product, we used sales in sample months that corresponded to the sample 
weeks we selected for U.S. CEP sales plus one month prior to the POR 
and one following the POR. The sample months were February, May, July, 
October, and November of 1997 and January, April, and May of 1998.
    We used sales to affiliated customers only where we determined such 
sales were made at arm's-length prices, i.e., at prices comparable to 
prices at which the firm sold identical merchandise to unaffiliated 
customers.
    Because the Department disregarded sales that failed the cost test 
provided for in section 773(b) of the Act in the last completed review 
with respect to SKF France (BBs), INA (All), SKF Germany (All), FAG 
Italy (BBs), SKF Italy (BBs), SKF Sweden (BBs), Koyo (BBs), Nachi (BBs 
and CRBs), NPBS (BBs), NSK (BBs and CRBs), NTN Japan (All), Barden U.K. 
(BBs), and NSK/RHP (BBs and CRBs), we had reasonable grounds to believe 
or suspect that sales of the foreign like product under consideration 
for the determination of NV in these reviews may have been made at 
prices below the cost of production (COP) as provided by section 
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) 
of the Act, we initiated COP investigations of sales by these firms in 
the home market.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed 
in producing the foreign like product plus selling, general and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses and all costs and expenses incidental to 
packing the merchandise. In our COP analysis, we used the home market 
sales and COP information provided by each respondent in its 
questionnaire responses. We did not conduct a COP analysis regarding 
merchandise subject to an antidumping order for a respondent that 
reported no U.S. sales or shipments of merchandise subject to that 
order.
    After calculating the COP, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of 
the Act, we tested whether home market sales of AFBs were made at 
prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial 
quantities and whether such prices permitted the recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time. We compared model-specific COPs to 
the reported home market prices less any applicable movement charges, 
discounts, and rebates.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less 
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities 
within an extended period of time. When 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices 
less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because they 
were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time 
pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act and because, based 
on comparisons of prices to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we also 
determined that these sales were at prices which would not permit 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in accordance 
with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Based on this test, we 
disregarded below-cost sales with respect to all of the above-mentioned 
companies and indicated merchandise except where there were no sales or 
shipments subject to review.

[[Page 8795]]

    We compared U.S. sales with sales of the foreign like product in 
the home market, as noted above. We considered all non-identical 
products within a bearing family to be equally similar. As defined in 
the questionnaire, a bearing family consists of all bearings which are 
the foreign like product that are the same in the following physical 
characteristics: load direction, bearing design, number of rows of 
rolling elements, precision rating, dynamic load rating, outer 
diameter, inner diameter, and width.
    Home market prices were based on the packed, ex-factory or 
delivered prices to affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers. When 
applicable, we made adjustments for differences in packing and for 
movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of 
the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in cost attributable 
to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant 
to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and for differences in 
circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, 
we made COS adjustments by deducting home market direct selling 
expenses and adding U.S. direct selling expenses. For comparisons to 
CEP, we made COS adjustments by deducting home market direct selling 
expenses from NV. We also made adjustments, when applicable, for home 
market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and 
CEP calculations.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the 
extent practicable, we based NV on sales at the same level of trade as 
the EP or CEP. If NV was calculated at a different level of trade, we 
made an adjustment, if appropriate and if possible, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(7) of the Act. (See Level of Trade section below.)
    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used CV as the 
basis for NV when there were no usable sales of the foreign like 
product in the comparison market. We calculated CV in accordance with 
section 773(e) of the Act. We included the cost of materials and 
fabrication, SG&A expenses, and profit in the calculation of CV. In 
accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, for all respondents 
except SNFA S.A. and Torrington Nadellager, we based SG&A expenses and 
profit on the amounts incurred and realized by each respondent in 
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in 
the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the home market. For 
Torrington Nadellager and SNFA S.A., pursuant to section 773(e)(2)(B) 
of the Act, we calculated profit for CV using an alternative 
methodology because the calculation of profit in accordance with 
section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act is not attainable from the information 
on the record. For SNFA S.A. we calculated profit for CV in accordance 
with 773(e)(2)(B)(i); for Torrington Nadellager we calculated profit 
for CV in accordance with 773(e)(2)(B)(iii). See analysis memoranda 
from case analysts to Robin Gray, dated January 26, 1999, in Room B-099 
for a description of the alternative CV-profit calculation 
methodologies.
    When appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance with 
section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for COS differences and 
level-of-trade differences. For comparisons to EP, we made COS 
adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses from and 
adding U.S. direct selling expenses to NV. For comparisons to CEP, we 
made COS adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses. 
We also made adjustments, when applicable, for home market indirect 
selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and CEP comparisons.
    When possible, we calculated CV at the same level of trade as the 
EP or CEP. If CV was calculated at a different level of trade, we made 
an adjustment, if appropriate and if possible, in accordance with 
sections 773(a)(7) and (8) of the Act. (See Level of Trade section 
below.)

Level of Trade

    To the extent practicable, we determined NV for sales at the same 
level of trade as the U.S. sales (either EP or CEP). When there were no 
sales at the same level of trade, we compared U.S. sales to home market 
sales at a different level of trade. The NV level of trade is that of 
the starting-price sales in the home market. When NV is based on CV, 
the level of trade is that of the sales from which we derived SG&A and 
profit.
    To determine whether home market sales are at a different level of 
trade than U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and 
selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer 
and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales were at a 
different level of trade and the differences affected price 
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price 
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-
market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we made a 
level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 
(November 19, 1997).
    For a company-specific description of our level-of-trade analysis 
for these preliminary results, see Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill, Level 
of Trade, January 26, 1999, on file in Room B-099.

Methodology for Romania

Separate Rates

    It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of subject 
merchandise subject to review in a non-market-economy (NME) country a 
single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently 
independent to be entitled to a separate rate. For purposes of this 
``separate rates'' inquiry, the Department analyzes each exporting 
entity under the test established in the Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 
56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as amplified in Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from 
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon 
Carbide). Under this test, exporters in NME countries are entitled to 
separate, company-specific margins when they can demonstrate an absence 
of government control over exports, both in law (de jure) and in fact 
(de facto).
    Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure 
absence of government control includes the following: (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) any other formal measures 
by the government decentralizing control of companies.
    De facto absence of government control with respect to exports is 
based on the following four criteria: (1) Whether the export prices are 
set by or subject to the approval of a government authority; (2) 
whether each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes 
independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing 
of losses; (3) whether each exporter has autonomy in making decisions 
regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether each exporter 
has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts. (See Silicon Carbide 
at 22587.) We have determined that the evidence of record demonstrates 
an absence of government control, both in

[[Page 8796]]

law and in fact, with respect to exports by TIE according to the 
criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. For a discussion 
of the Department's preliminary determination that TIE is entitled to a 
separate rate, see Memorandum from Suzanne Flood to Laurie Parkhill, 
dated January 20, 1999, ``Assignment of Separate Rate for 
Tehnoimportexport: 1997-98 Administrative Review of the Antidumping 
Duty Order on Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts Thereof From Romania'' (Separate Rate Memo), which 
is on file in Room B-099. Since TIE is preliminarily entitled to a 
separate rate and is the only Romanian firm for which an administrative 
review has been requested, it is not necessary for us to review any 
other Romanian exporters of subject merchandise.

Export Price--Romania

    For sales made by TIE, we based our margin calculation on EP as 
defined in section 772(a) of the Act because the subject merchandise 
was first sold before the date of importation by the exporter of the 
subject merchandise outside of the United States to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States.
    We calculated EP based on the packed price to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the price used 
to establish EP, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, bank 
charges and international freight (air and ocean). To value foreign 
inland freight we used the freight rates from the public version of the 
Factors of Production Memorandum from Disposable Lighters from the 
People's Republic of China (A-570-834) (Lighters from the PRC) (April 
27, 1995), which is on file in Room B-099. We used the actual reported 
expenses for international freight and bank charges because the 
expenses were paid to market-economy suppliers and incurred in market-
economy currencies. No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Normal Value--Romania

    For merchandise exported from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of 
the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using a 
factors-of-production methodology if available information does not 
permit the calculation of NV using home-market or third-country prices 
under section 773(a) of the Act. In every investigation or review we 
have conducted involving Romania, we have treated Romania as an NME 
country. None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such 
treatment in this review and, therefore, we have maintained our 
treatment of Romania as an NME for these preliminary results.
    Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.408. In accordance with section 773(c)(3) of the 
Act, the factors of production used in producing AFBs include, but are 
not limited to, hours of labor required, quantities of raw materials 
employed, amounts of energy and other utilities consumed, and 
representative capital cost, including depreciation.
    In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department 
valued the factors of production, to the extent possible, using the 
prices or costs of factors of production in market-economy countries 
which are at a level of economic development comparable to that of 
Romania and which are significant producers of comparable merchandise. 
We determined that Indonesia is at a level of economic development 
comparable to that of Romania. We also found that Indonesia is a 
producer of bearings. Therefore, we have selected Indonesia as the 
primary surrogate country. For a further discussion of the Department's 
selection of surrogate countries, see Memorandum To The File from 
Suzanne Flood, dated January 21, 1999, ``Surrogate-Country Selection: 
1997-98 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 
Thereof from Romania'' (Surrogate Memo), which is a public document on 
file in Room B-099.
    For purposes of calculating NV, we valued the Romanian factors of 
production as follows:
     Where direct materials used to produce AFBs were imported 
by the producers from market-economy countries, we used the import 
price to value the material input. To value all other direct materials 
used in the production of AFBs, i.e., those which were sourced from 
within Romania, we used the import value per metric ton of these 
materials into Indonesia as published in the 1997 United Nations Trade 
Commodity Statistics (UNTCS), which includes the most recent published 
data closest to the months during the POR. We made adjustments to 
include freight costs incurred between the domestic suppliers and the 
AFB factories, using freight rates obtained from the public version of 
the April 27, 1995, calculation memorandum of Lighters from the PRC. We 
also reduced the steel input factors to account for the scrap steel 
that was sold by the producers of the relevant bearings.
     For labor, section 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's 
regulations requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. We have 
used the regression-based wage rate on Import Administration's internet 
website at www.ita.doc.gov/import_admin/records/wages.
     For factory overhead, SG&A expenses, and profit, we could 
not find values for the bearings industry in Indonesia. Therefore, 
consistent with AFBs VIII, we used the percentages calculated from the 
1996 financial statements of the Indonesia company, P.T. Jaya Pari 
Steel Ltd. Corporation. See TIE Preliminary Analysis Memorandum from 
Suzanne Flood. We determined that amounts for energy usage for 
electricity and natural gas were included in the overhead calculations 
in these financial statements.
     To value packing materials, where materials used to 
package AFBs were imported into Romania from market-economy countries, 
we used the import price. To value all other packing materials, i.e., 
those sourced from within Romania, we used the import value per metric 
ton of these materials (adjusted with the wholesale-price-index 
inflator to place these values on an equivalent basis) as published in 
the Indonesian Foreign Trade Statistical Bulletin--Imports. We adjusted 
these values to include freight costs incurred between the domestic 
suppliers and the AFB factories. To value freight costs, we used 
freight rates obtained from the public version of the calculation 
memorandum in Lighters from the PRC.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

    As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine the 
weighted-average dumping margins (in percent) for the period May 1, 
1997, through April 30, 1998, to be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Company                       BBs      CRBs     SPBs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 France
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF..........................................     7.35    (\2\)     7.39

[[Page 8797]]

 
SNFA.........................................     0.41     0.21    (\2\)
SNR..........................................     2.91     1.91    (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Germany
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF..........................................     1.24     5.58     3.08
Torrington Nadellager........................    (\2\)     0.45    (\3\)
FAG..........................................     3.32     9.42    (\1\)
INA..........................................     7.51     3.97     0.93
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Italy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG..........................................     0.95    (\1\)  .......
SKF..........................................     3.42    (\3\)  .......
Somecat......................................     1.24    (\2\)  .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Japan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Koyo.........................................     6.81    11.73    (\1\)
Nachi........................................    11.19     1.51    (\1\)
NPBS.........................................     2.64    (\2\)    (\2\)
NSK Ltd......................................     0.74     4.31    (\2\)
NTN..........................................     0.59     0.71     1.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Romania
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIE..........................................     0.78  .......  .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Sweden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF..........................................     2.87    13.69  .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             United Kingdom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barden Corporation...........................     2.89    (\1\)  .......
FAG (U.K.)...................................    (\1\)    (\1\)  .......
NSK/RHP......................................    21.46    51.05  .......
SNFA.........................................     0.00    (\2\)  .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No shipments or sales subject to this review. Rate is from the last
  relevant segment of the proceeding in which the firm had shipments/
  sales.
\2\ No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has no
  individual rate from any segment of this proceeding.
\3\ No review.

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the 
date of publication of this notice. A general issues hearing, if 
requested, and any hearings regarding issues related solely to specific 
countries, if requested, will be held in accordance with the following 
schedule and at the indicated locations in the main Commerce Department 
building:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Case                                Date                          Time              Room No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Issues...........................  March 30, 1999..............  8:30 am....................        1412
Sweden...................................  March 31, 1999..............  8:30 am....................        1412
Romania..................................  March 31, 1999..............  2:00 pm....................        1412
Germany..................................  April 1, 1999...............  8:30 am....................        1412
Italy....................................  April 2, 1999...............  8:30 am....................        1412
United Kingdom...........................  April 5, 1999...............  8:30 am....................        1412
France...................................  April 5, 1999...............  2:00 pm....................        1412
Japan....................................  April 6, 1999...............  8:30 am....................        1412
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the 
respective case and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested 
parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the 
respective case briefs, may be submitted not later than the dates shown 
below for general issues and the respective country-specific cases. 
Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in these proceedings are 
requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue, 
and (2) a brief summary of the argument with an electronic version 
included.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Case                                Briefs due                        Rebuttals due
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Issues...........................  March 19, 1999...................  March 26, 1999.
Sweden...................................  March 22, 1999...................  March 29, 1999.
Romania..................................  March 22, 1999...................  March 29, 1999.
Germany..................................  March 23, 1999...................  March 30, 1999.
Italy....................................  March 24, 1999...................  March 31, 1999.
United Kingdom...........................  March 25, 1999...................  April 1, 1999.
France...................................  March 25, 1999...................  April 1, 1999.

[[Page 8798]]

 
Japan....................................  March 26, 1999...................  April 2, 1999.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will publish the final results of these 
administrative reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in any such written briefs or hearings. The Department will 
issue final results of these reviews within 120 days of publication of 
these preliminary results.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated, whenever possible, an 
exporter/importer-specific assessment rate or value for subject 
merchandise.

Export Price Sales

    With respect to EP sales for these preliminary results, we divided 
the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between normal 
value and EP) for each importer/customer by the total number of units 
sold to that importer/customer. We will direct the Customs Service to 
assess the resulting per-unit dollar amount against each unit of 
merchandise in each of that importer's/customer's entries under the 
relevant order during the review period.

Constructed Export Price Sales

    For CEP sales (sampled and non-sampled), we divided the total 
dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of 
those reviewed sales for each importer. When an affiliated party acts 
as an importer for EP sales we have included the applicable EP sales in 
this assessment-rate calculation. We will direct the Customs Service to 
assess the resulting percentage margin against the entered customs 
values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's entries 
under the relevant order during the review period. While the Department 
is aware that the entered value of sales during the POR is not 
necessarily equal to the entered value of entries during the POR, use 
of entered value of sales as the basis of the assessment rate permits 
the Department to collect a reasonable approximation of the antidumping 
duties which would have been determined if the Department had reviewed 
those sales of merchandise actually entered during the POR.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    To calculate the cash-deposit rate for each respondent (i.e., each 
exporter and/or manufacturer included in these reviews) we divided the 
total dumping margins for each company by the total net value for that 
company's sales of merchandise during the review period subject to each 
order.
    In order to derive a single deposit rate for each order for each 
respondent, we weight-averaged the EP and CEP deposit rates (using the 
EP and CEP, respectively, as the weighting factors). To accomplish this 
when we sampled CEP sales, we first calculated the total dumping 
margins for all CEP sales during the review period by multiplying the 
sample CEP margins by the ratio of total days in the review period to 
days in the sample weeks. We then calculated a total net value for all 
CEP sales during the review period by multiplying the sample CEP total 
net value by the same ratio. We then divided the combined total dumping 
margins for both EP and CEP sales by the combined total value for both 
EP and CEP sales to obtain the deposit rate.
    Entries of parts incorporated into finished bearings before sales 
to an unaffiliated customer in the United States will receive the 
respondent's deposit rate applicable to the order.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative 
reviews for all shipments of AFBs entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash-deposit rates for the 
reviewed companies will be the rates shown above except that, for firms 
whose weighted-average margins are less than 0.5 percent and therefore 
de minimis, the Department shall not require a deposit of estimated 
antidumping duties; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated 
companies not listed above, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be 
the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if 
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or 
the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) 
the cash-deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will 
continue to be the ``All Others'' rate for the relevant order made 
effective by the final results of review published on July 26, 1993 
(see Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Revocation in Part of an Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR 39729 (July 26, 
1993), and, for BBs from Italy, see Antifriction Bearings (Other Than 
Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et al: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Partial Termination 
of Administrative Reviews, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty 
Orders, 61 FR 66472 (December 17, 1996)). These rates are the ``All 
Others'' rates from the relevant LTFV investigations.
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
reviews.
    This notice also serves as a 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 Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: February 16, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-4443 Filed 2-22-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P