[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 67 (Thursday, April 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18033-18043]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-8568]


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

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, Partial Rescission of Administrative Reviews, 
and Notice of Intent to Revoke Orders in Part

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
Administrative reviews, partial rescission of Administrative Reviews, 
and notice of intent to revoke orders in part.

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

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, 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 35 manufacturers/
exporters. The period of review is May 1, 1998, through April 30, 1999.
    We are rescinding the reviews for 14 other manufacturers/exporters 
because the requests for reviews of these firms or types of bearings 
were withdrawn in a timely manner.
    We received four requests for revocation of various orders in part. 
We preliminarily intend to revoke two orders in part and do not 
preliminary intend to revoke two other orders in part (see Intent to 
Revoke and Intent Not to Revoke below).
    We have preliminary 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 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: April 6, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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), Georgia Creech (SNFA), Edythe Artman (SNR), 
Robin Gray, or Richard Rimlinger.

Germany
    Mark Ross (Torrington Nadellager), Farah Naim (SKF), Hermes Pinilla 
(FAG), Suzanne Brower (INA), Edythe Artman (SNR), Thomas Schauer (Paul 
Muller), Davina Hashmi (MPT), Robin Gray, or Richard Rimlinger.

Italy
    Minoo Hatten (SKF), Suzanne Brower (FAG), Georgia Creech (SNFA/
Somecat), or Robin Gray.


[[Page 18034]]


Japan
    J. David Dirstine (Nachi-Fujikoshi, Tsubaki, Koyo), Thomas Schauer 
(NTN, NSK), Lyn Johnson (NPBS, Nakai Bearing), Sergio Gonzalez (Asahi 
Seiko, IKS), Stacey King (IJK, Takeshita), Minoo Hatten (Nankai Seiko), 
Larry Tabash (Osaka Pump), George Callen (KYK), Robin Gray, or Richard 
Rimlinger.

Romania
    Suzanne Brower (TIE), J. David Dirstine (Koyo), or Robin Gray.

Singapore
    George Callen (NMB/Pelmec) or Robin Gray.

Sweden
    Georgia Creech (SKF) or Robin Gray.

United Kingdom
    Hermes Pinilla (FAG, Barden), Georgia Creech (SNFA), Edythe Artman 
(SNR), 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 (1999).

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 30, 1999, 
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, we published a notice of initiation 
of administrative reviews of these orders (64 FR 35124). The period of 
review (POR) is May 1, 1998, through April 30, 1999. 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 the requests we had received for review of Augusta 
Un'Azienda Finmeccanica (France), AVSA S.A.R.L. (France), Wyko Export 
(France), NTN (Germany), Wyko Export of Queen Cross (Germany), AVSA 
S.A.R.L. (Germany), Mannesmann Sachs AG (Germany), Meter S.p.A. 
(Italy), SNR Roulements (Italy), Augusta Un'Azienda Finmeccanica 
(Italy), Isuzu Motors (Japan), Wyko Export of Queen Cross (Sweden), NSK 
Bearings Europe Ltd./RHP Bearings Ltd. (United Kingdom), and Augusta 
Un'Azienda Finmeccanica (United Kingdom). 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 (HTSUS) 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 HTSUS 
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 HTSUS 
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 detailed discussion of the 
scope of the orders being reviewed, including a list of scope 
determinations, see Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
Romania, Sweden and the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews, 64 FR 35590 (July 1, 1999) (AFBs 9). In 
addition, see Memorandum from Laurie Parkhill to Richard W. Moreland, 
dated December 13, 1999, and on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), 
Main Commerce Building, Room B-099. This memorandum serves to exclude 
certain parts of a rotation prevention device, manufactured by Sanden 
International (U.S.A.) Inc., from the order on BBs from Japan. We have 
also determined that a fan center assembly, which is designed 
exclusively for and imported for use in the production of a V8 diesel 
engine produced by DMAX, Ltd., is not within the scope of the order on 
BBs from Japan. See Memorandum from Laurie Parkhill to Richard W. 
Moreland, dated March 13, 2000, and on file in the CRU, Room B-099.
    Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes above, written descriptions of the scope of these 
proceedings remain dispositive.
    These reviews cover the following firms and merchandise:

[[Page 18035]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Name of firm                         Merchandise
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 France
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF France (including all relevant   All.
 affiliates).
SNFA S.A. (SNFA France)............  Ball and Cylindrical.
Societe Nouvelle de Roulements (SNR  Ball and Cylindrical.
 France).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Germany
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG Kugelfischer George Schaefer AG  Ball and Cylindrical.
 (FAG Germany).
INA Walzlager Schaeffler oHG (INA).  All.
MPT Prazisionsteile GmbH Mittweida   Cylindrical
 (MPT).
Paul Mller GmbH and Co. KG (Paul     Ball.
 Mller).
SKF GmbH (including all relevant     All.
 affiliates) (SKF Germany).
Societe Nouvelle de Roulements (SNR  Ball and Cylindrical.
 Germany).
Torrington Nadellager GmbH           All.
 (Torrington).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Italy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG Italia, S.p.A. (including all    Ball and Cylindrical.
 relevant affiliates) (FAG Italy).
SKF-Industrie, S.p.A. (including     Ball.
 all relevant affiliates) (SKF
 Italy).
Somecat, S.p.A./SNFA Bearings Ltd.   Ball.
 (Somecat/SNFA).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Japan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd. (Asahi Seiko)  Ball.
Inoue Jukuuke Kogyo (IJK)..........  Ball.
Izumoto Seiko Co., Ltd. (IKS)......  Ball.
Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. (Koyo Japan)..  All.
Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp. (Nachi)......  Ball and Cylindrical.
Nakai Bearing......................  Ball
Nankai Seiko.......................  Ball.
Nippon Pillow Block Sales Company,   Ball.
 Ltd. (NPBS).
NSK Ltd. (NSK).....................  Ball and Cylindrical.
NTN Corp. (NTN)....................  All.
Osaka Pump.........................  Ball.
Takeshita Seiko (Takeshita)........  Ball.
Tottori Yamakai (KYK)..............  Ball.
Tsubaki-Nakashima Co., Ltd.          Ball.
 (formerly Tsubakimoto Precision)
 (Tsubaki).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Romania
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tehnoimportexport, S.A. (TIE)......  Ball.
S.C. Koyo Romania S.A. (Koyo         Ball.
 Romania).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Singapore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMB Singapore Ltd./Pelmec            Ball.
 Industries (Pte.) Ltd. (NMB/
 Pelmec).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Sweden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF Sverige (including all relevant  Ball and Cylindrical.
 affiliates) (SKF Sweden).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              United Kingdom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barden Corporation (Barden)........  Ball.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG (U.K.) Ltd. (FAG UK)...........  Ball and Cylindrical.
SNFA (U.K.) Bearings Ltd.            Ball.
 (including all relevant
 affiliates) (SNFA UK).
Societe Nouvelle de Roulements (SNR  Ball.
 UK).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the above, we have deferred initiation of 
administrative review of BBs from Japan that are produced by Muro 
Corporation (Muro). Muro requested deferral of the review pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.213(c), and there were no objections to the deferral, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(c)(1)(ii).

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, which are on file in the CRU, Room B-099.

Use of Facts Available

    In accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, we preliminarily 
determine that the use of facts available as the basis for the 
weighted-average dumping margin is appropriate for KYK with respect to 
BBs. This company did not respond to

[[Page 18036]]

our antidumping questionnaire fully and, consequently, we find that it 
has not provided ``information that has been requested by the 
administering authority.'' However, a third party has submitted 
information that indicates that KYK is in bankruptcy and is therefore 
unable to respond to the questionnaire fully. For this reason, we have 
preliminarily determined not to make an inference that is adverse to 
KYK's interest. Instead, we have used the average calculated margin for 
all of the Japanese firms involved in this administrative review of BBs 
from Japan (see Memorandum from Laurie Parkhill to Richard W. Moreland, 
dated March 29, 2000, and on file in the CRU, Room B-099). To 
substantiate the bankruptcy of this firm further, we are requesting 
assistance from the U.S. embassy in Tokyo. We will examine this matter 
further between our preliminary and final results of review and, if we 
are unable to confirm that the firm is in bankruptcy, we will 
reconsider our decision that KYK is unable to respond to the 
questionnaire fully.
    We preliminarily determine that, in accordance with section 776(a) 
of the Act, the use of facts available as the basis for the weighted-
average dumping margin is appropriate for Osaka Pump with respect to 
BBs. After reviewing the information submitted by Osaka Pump in 
response to our requests and after documenting our findings at 
verification in our report, we have concluded that the information we 
received from the company was not usable because it was too incomplete 
to serve as the basis for calculating a dumping margin; hence, we have 
determined that the use of facts available is warranted for Osaka Pump. 
At verification we found numerous deficiencies and discrepancies with 
the response. For example, the company had not reported its U.S. and 
home-market sales correctly, resulting in the omission of sales in both 
markets. In addition, we found numerous transaction-specific errors 
which undermine the reliability of the response as a whole. We explain 
and elaborate on these and numerous other findings in our verification 
report dated February 2, 2000, and on file in the CRU, Room B-099.
    As a result of Osaka Pump's failed verification, we have determined 
to apply facts available consistent with section 776(a)(2)(D) of the 
Act. In light of the factors we considered in making an adverse facts-
available determination in the 1994/1995 reviews of these proceedings, 
we have determined that making an adverse inference in applying facts 
available is appropriate. See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered 
Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
Romania, Sweden and the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 2081, 2088 (Jan. 15, 1997). First, 
Osaka Pump participated in the first three reviews of the order on BBs 
which indicates that it has experience with an antidumping proceeding. 
Second, Osaka Pump was in control of the data because the data was 
contained in its records. Therefore, we have concluded that Osaka Pump 
did not cooperate to the best of its ability.
    In accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, we are making an 
adverse inference in our application of the facts available. As adverse 
facts available we have applied the highest rate we have calculated for 
companies under review for this segment of the proceeding. This 
represents an adverse rate but is not the highest rate ever determined 
in this proceeding. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined to 
apply 18.49 percent, a rate we determined for Takeshita for this 
period, to Osaka Pump's exports to the United States during the POR. We 
discuss the corroboration of this rate below.
    We have found it necessary to use partial facts available in one 
instance. In this instance, we were unable to use a portion of a 
response in calculating the dumping margin. For TIE, we discovered a 
few (less than one percent) unreported transactions at verification. We 
have preliminarily determined that these unreported transactions 
constituted a failure by TIE to report all sales. Therefore, we have 
preliminarily applied adverse partial facts available to these 
transactions. As adverse partial facts available, we have used the 
weighted-average dumping margin of 39.61 percent, a rate we calculated 
for TIE in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation. For 
a discussion of our determination with respect to this matter, see 
Memorandum from Suzanne Brower to Laurie Parkhill, dated March 28, 
2000, and on file in the CRU, Room B-009.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to 
the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information used for 
facts available by reviewing independent sources reasonably at its 
disposal. Information from a prior segment of the proceeding or from 
another company in the same proceeding, such as that we are using here 
for Osaka Pump and TIE, constitutes secondary information. The 
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. 
316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong. (1994) (SAA), provides that to ``corroborate'' 
means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary 
information to be used has probative value. SAA at 870. As explained in 
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 
from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside 
Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of 
Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (Nov. 6, 1996), to 
corroborate secondary information, the Department will examine, to the 
extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of the information 
used.
    Unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling 
expenses, there are no independent sources from which the Department 
can derive calculated dumping margins; the only source for margins is 
administrative determinations. In an administrative review, if the 
Department chooses as total adverse facts available a calculated 
dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding or from the same 
segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question the 
reliability of the margin for that time period.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to 
whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not 
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not 
appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard 
the margin and determine an appropriate margin (see Fresh Cut Flowers 
from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
61 FR 6812 (Feb. 22, 1996), where the Department disregarded the 
highest dumping margin as best information available because the margin 
was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense 
resulting in an unusually high margin). There is no evidence of 
circumstances indicating that the margin we are using as facts 
available in this review are not appropriate. Therefore, the 
requirements of section 776(c) of the Act are satisfied.

Intent To Revoke and Intent Not To Revoke

    On May 28, 1999, four of the companies taking part in these reviews 
submitted requests for the revocation, in part, of an antidumping duty 
order. Torrington requested the revocation of the order covering CRBs 
from Germany as it pertained to its sales of these bearings. Somecat/
SNFA requested the revocation of the order covering BBs

[[Page 18037]]

from Italy as it pertained to its sales of these bearings. TIE 
requested the revocation of the order covering BBs from Romania as it 
pertained to the export of these bearings by TIE. Finally, SNFA France 
requested the revocation of the order covering BBs from France as it 
pertained to its sales of these bearings.
    Under section 751 of the Act, the Department ``may revoke, in whole 
or in part'' an antidumping duty order upon completion of a review. 
Although Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department 
must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a 
procedure for revocation that is set forth under 19 CFR 351.222. Under 
subsection 351.222(b)(2), the Department may revoke an antidumping duty 
order in part if it concludes that: (1) The company in question has 
sold the subject merchandise at not less than normal value for a period 
of at least three consecutive years; (2) it is not likely that the 
company will in the future sell the subject merchandise at less than 
normal value; and (3) the company has agreed to immediate reinstatement 
in the order if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent 
to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than normal 
value. Subsection 351.222(b)(3) states that, in the case of an exporter 
that is not the producer of subject merchandise, the Department 
normally will revoke an order in part under subsection 351.222(b)(2) 
only with respect to subject merchandise produced or supplied by those 
companies that supplied the exporter during the time period that formed 
the basis for the revocation.
    A request for revocation of an order in part must be accompanied by 
three elements. The company requesting revocation must do so in writing 
and submit the following statements with the request: (1) The company's 
certification that it sold the subject merchandise at not less than 
normal value during the current review period and that, in the future, 
it will not sell at less than normal value; (2) the company's 
certification that, during each of the three years forming the basis of 
the request, it sold the subject merchandise to the United States in 
commercial quantities; (3) the agreement to reinstatement in the order 
if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent to revocation, 
has sold the subject merchandise at less than normal value. See 19 CFR 
351.222(e)(1).
    Torrington has met the first and third criteria under subsection 
351.222(e)(1); however, it did not submit a certification regarding the 
selling of subject merchandise in commercial quantities during the 
three years forming the basis of the request. Thus, its request is 
incomplete. In addition, as a result of our preliminary margin 
calculations, Torrington had sales of CRBs below normal value during 
the current review period (see Preliminary Results below). Therefore, 
even if Torrington had submitted a complete request, it would not have 
satisfied the criterion under subsection 351.222(b)(2)(i) and we would 
have determined not to revoke the order as requested.
    The request from Somecat/SNFA meets all of the criteria under 
subsection 351.222(e)(1). However, as with Torrington above, this 
company had sales of the subject merchandise to which its request 
pertains below normal value during the current review period (see 
Preliminary Results below). Thus, it does not meet the criterion under 
subsection 351.222(b)(2)(i) and we do not intend to revoke the order, 
in part, on BBs from Italy.
    TIE's request meets all of the criteria under subsection 
351.222(e)(1). Thus, our analysis turns to whether this company can 
satisfy the criteria of subsection 351.222(b)(2). The Department first 
examines whether the requesting company sold the subject merchandise at 
not less than normal value to the United States in commercial 
quantities for three consecutive reviews. It then examines whether it 
is likely that the company would in the future sell the subject 
merchandise at less than normal value.
    Our preliminary margin calculations listed below show that TIE did 
not sell BBs at less than normal value during the current review 
period. Furthermore, TIE did not sell the subject merchandise at less 
than normal value in the two previous consecutive administrative review 
periods. See AFBs 9 and Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered 
Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
Romania, Sweden and the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 33320 (June 18, 1998) (AFBs 8). 
Thus, we preliminarily find that TIE had zero or de minimis dumping 
margins for three consecutive reviews.
    Second, based upon three consecutive reviews of zero or de minimis 
margins and in the absence of any other evidence on likelihood, the 
Department preliminarily determines that dumping is not likely to 
resume.
    Therefore, based on our findings and in accordance with subsection 
351.222(b)(3), we preliminarily intend to revoke the antidumping duty 
order covering BBs from Romania as it pertains to TIE's sales of 
merchandise from those suppliers which supplied TIE during the time 
period that formed the basis for the revocation. TIE has requested 
business proprietary treatment of the names of its suppliers. For a 
list of the suppliers to which this revocation applies, please see 
Memorandum from Suzanne Brower to the File, dated March 27, 2000. If 
these preliminary findings are affirmed in our final results, we will 
revoke this order, in part, and, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.222(f)(3), we will terminate the suspension of liquidation for any 
BBs from Romania that are produced by the specific suppliers and 
exported by TIE entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption 
on or after May 1, 1999, and will instruct Customs to refund any cash 
deposits for such entries.
    The request from SNFA France meets all of the criteria under 
subsection 351.222(e)(1). With regard to the criteria of subsection 
351.222(b)(2), our preliminary margin calculations show that SNFA 
France sold BBs at not less than normal value during the current review 
period (see rate below). In addition, SNFA France sold the subject 
merchandise at not less than normal value in the two previous 
consecutive administrative reviews. See AFBs 9 and AFBs 8. Thus, we 
preliminarily find that SNFA France had zero or de minimis dumping 
margins for three consecutive reviews. As in the case of TIE, we 
preliminarily determine that dumping is not likely to resume based upon 
the three consecutive reviews of zero or de minimis margins and in the 
absence of any other evidence on likelihood.
    Therefore, we preliminarily intend to revoke the antidumping duty 
order covering BBs from France as it pertains to the sales of these 
bearings by SNFA France. If these preliminary findings are affirmed in 
our final results, we will revoke this order, in part, and, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), we will terminate the suspension 
of liquidation for any BBs from France that are exported by SNFA France 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 
1, 1999, and will instruct Customs to refund any cash deposits for such 
entries.

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

    For the price to the United States, we used export price or 
constructed export price (CEP) as defined in sections 772(a)

[[Page 18038]]

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 10-16, 1998; 
August 9-15, 1998; October 4-10, 1998; December 27, 1998-January 2, 
1999; January 24-30, 1999; March 21-27, 1999. We reviewed all export-
price sales transactions during the POR.
    We calculated export price 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) accompanying 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 
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 we applied the 
special rule provided in section 772(e) of the Act (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 IKS and 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 purchaser. Based on this 
analysis, we determined that the estimated value added in the United 
States by all firms, with the exception of IKS and 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 determine that there was a sufficient 
quantity of sales remaining to provide a reasonable basis for 
comparison and that the use of these sales are 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.
    For IKS and NPBS, we determined that the special rule did not apply 
because the value added in the United States did not exceed 
substantially the value of the subject merchandise. Consequently, IKS 
and NPBS submitted complete section E responses which included the 
costs of the further processing performed by its U.S. affiliate. Since 
the majority of the IKS's and NPBS's products sold in the United States 
were further processed, we analyzed all sales. No other adjustments to 
export price 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 on the prices at 
which the foreign like products were first sold for consumption in the 
exporting country. With respect to MPT and Takeshita, normal value was 
based on constructed value because the merchandise sold in the United 
States was not comparable to the merchandise sold in the home market 
during the POR.
    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 
normal value in accordance with section 777A of the Act. When a firm 
had more than 2,000 home-market sales transactions on an order-specific 
basis, we used sales in sample months that corresponded to the sample 
weeks that we selected for U.S. CEP sales, sales in the one month prior 
to the POR, and sales in the month following the POR. The sample months 
were February, May, August, October, and December of 1998 and January, 
March, and May of 1999.
    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 we disregarded below-cost sales in accordance with section 
773(b) of the Act in the last completed review with respect to SKF 
France (BBs), SNR France (BBs), INA (all), SKF Germany (all), FAG 
Germany (BBs, CRBs), FAG Italy (BBs), SKF Italy (BBs), SKF Sweden 
(BBs), Koyo (BBs), Nachi (BBs, CRBs), NPBS (BBs), NSK (BBs, CRBs), NTN 
Japan (all), and Barden U.K. (BBs), we had reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product under 
consideration for the determination of normal value in these reviews 
may have been made at prices below the cost of production (COP) as

[[Page 18039]]

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.
    On September 20, 1999, the Department received allegations from SKF 
USA Inc. and INA USA Corporation that Torrington sold CRBs in Germany 
at prices below the COP. The parties requested that the Department 
initiate a cost investigation of Torrington's home-market sales of 
CRBs. Based on our analysis of the sales-below-cost allegations 
submitted by SKF USA Inc. and INA USA Corporation, we determined that 
the allegations provided reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that 
Torrington's home-market sales were made at prices below their COP. 
Therefore, we initiated an investigation of sales below COP for 
Torrington. See Memorandum to Richard W. Moreland, Request to Initiate 
Cost Investigation for Respondent Torrington Nadellager, October 25, 
1999, on file in the CRU, Room B-099.
    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, the 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 duty order in instances where a 
respondent 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 
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.
    We compared U.S. sales with sales of the foreign like product in 
the home market. 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 
export price, we made COS adjustments by deducting home-market direct 
selling expenses from and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to normal 
value. For comparisons to CEP, we made COS adjustments by deducting 
home-market direct selling expenses from normal value. We also made 
adjustments, when applicable, for home-market indirect selling expenses 
to offset U.S. commissions in export-price and CEP calculations.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based 
normal value, to the extent practicable, on sales at the same level of 
trade as the export price or CEP. If normal value 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 
constructed value as the basis for normal value when there were no 
usable sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market. We 
calculated constructed value 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 constructed value. In accordance with 
section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, 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.
    When appropriate, we made adjustments to constructed value 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 export 
price, we made COS adjustments by deducting home-market direct selling 
expenses from and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to normal value. 
For comparisons to CEP, we made COS adjustments by deducting home-
market direct selling expenses from normal value. We also made 
adjustments, when applicable, for home-market indirect selling expenses 
to offset U.S. commissions in export-price and CEP comparisons.
    When possible, we calculated constructed value at the same level of 
trade as the export price or CEP. If constructed value 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 normal value for sales at 
the same level of trade as the U.S. sales (either export price 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 normal-
value level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the home 
market. When normal value is based on constructed value, 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 from that of a U.S. sale and the

[[Page 18040]]

difference affected price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of 
consistent price differences between the sales on which normal value 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 from 
Antifriction Bearings Team regarding Level of Trade, dated March 27, 
2000, and on file in the CRU, 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; (4) whether each exporter has 
the authority to negotiate and sign contracts. (See Silicon Carbide, 59 
FR at 22587.)
    We have determined that the evidence of record demonstrates an 
absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to 
exports by TIE and Koyo Romania according to the criteria identified in 
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. For a discussion of the Department's 
preliminary determination that TIE and Koyo Romania are entitled to a 
separate rate, see Memorandum from Suzanne Brower to Laurie Parkhill, 
Assignment of Separate Rate for Tehnoimportexport: 1998-99 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Antifriction 
Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From 
Romania, dated February 25, 2000, and Memorandum from J. David Dirstine 
to Laurie Parkhill, Assignment of Separate Rate for S.C. Koyo Romania 
S.A.: 1998-99 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 
Thereof From Romania, dated February 23, 2000, which are on file in the 
CRU, Room B-099. Since TIE and Koyo Romania are preliminarily entitled 
to separate rates and are the only Romanian firms for which 
administrative reviews have 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 export 
price 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 export price based on the packed price to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from 
the price used to establish export price, where appropriate, for 
foreign inland freight, international freight, and U.S. brokerage and 
handling. To value foreign inland freight we used the freight rates 
listed in the attachment to the Memorandum from Suzanne Brower and J. 
David Dirstine to Laurie Parkhill, Antidumping Duty Order 
Administrative Review of Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered 
Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from Romania: Selection of the 
Surrogate Country in the 1998/99 Review (Surrogate-Country Memo), dated 
March 27, 2000, which is on file in the CRU, Room B-099. We used the 
actual reported expenses for international freight and U.S. brokerage 
and handling because the expenses were paid to market-economy suppliers 
and incurred in market-economy currencies.

Constructed Export Price--Romania

    For sales made by Koyo Romania, we used CEP as defined in sections 
772(b) of the Act. We used the actual reported expenses for 
international freight 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 a NME country, section 773(c)(1) of 
the Act provides that the Department shall determine normal value using 
a factors-of-production methodology if available information does not 
permit the calculation of normal value 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 a 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 country for these preliminary results.
    Accordingly, we calculated normal value 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

[[Page 18041]]

of surrogate countries, see the Surrogate-Country Memo.
    For purposes of calculating normal value, 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 1998 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 public documents 
attached to the Surrogate-Country Memo. We also reduced the steel-input 
factors to account for the scrap steel that was sold by the producers 
of the subject merchandise.
     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 energy, we used 1997 electricity rates, as adjusted, 
for Indonesia reported in the publication Energy, Prices and Taxes (2nd 
Quarter 1999). We based the value of natural gas on 1998 Indonesian 
prices as reported in Energy, Prices and Taxes (2nd Quarter 1999). See 
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Small Diameter Carbon 
and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Romania, 65 FR 
5594, 5599 (February 4, 2000) (Steel Pipe).
     For factory overhead, SG&A expenses, and profit, we could 
not find values for the bearings industry in Indonesia. Therefore, 
consistent with Steel Pipe, we used surrogate data from one or more of 
the 1997 financial statements of the following Indonesian companies: 
P.T. Jaya Pari Steel Ltd. Corporation, P.T. Jakarta Kyoei, and P.T. 
Krakatau. See attachments to the Surrogate-Country Memo for selected 
sources for valuing overhead, SG&A expenses, profit, and energy.
     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 as published in the U.N. Commodity Statistics 
1998. We adjusted these values to include freight costs incurred 
between the domestic suppliers and the AFB factories. To value freight 
costs, we used the sources used to value freight rates in Steel Pipe. 
For example, to value truck freight, we used an August 2, 1999, quote 
from P.T. Batam Samudra Transportation Company in Jakarta. In addition, 
to value rail rates, we used a December 1994 cable from the American 
Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia. See attachment to the Surrogate-Country 
Memo.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

    As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine the 
following weighted-average dumping margins (in percent) for the period 
May 1, 1998, through April 30, 1999:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Spherical
            Company                 Ball       Cylindrical      plain
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 France
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF...........................         11.43         (\2\)         14.83
SNFA..........................          0.00          0.06         (\3\)
SNR...........................          0.39          0.22         (\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Germany
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG...........................          7.22          8.16         (\3\)
INA...........................         18.56          4.42          0.44
MPT...........................         (\3\)          0.00         (\3\)
Paul Muller...................          0.00         (\3\)         (\3\)
SKF...........................          6.39          7.79          5.02
SNR...........................          5.92          2.46         (\3\)
Torrington Nadellager.........         (\2\)         61.60         (\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Italy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG...........................          2.04          1.24  ............
SKF...........................          4.81         (\3\)  ............
Somecat.......................          5.26         (\2\)  ............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Japan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asahi Seiko...................          0.68         (\3\)         (\3\)
IJK...........................         13.96         (\3\)         (\3\)
IKS...........................          9.99         (\3\)         (\3\)
Koyo..........................          5.39          0.92          0.00
KYK...........................          6.49         (\3\)         (\3\)
Nachi.........................          4.61          1.31         (\3\)
Nakai Bearing.................          4.55         (\3\)         (\3\)
Nankai Seiko..................          0.33         (\3\)         (\3\)
NPBS..........................          2.53         (\3\)         (\3\)
NSK Ltd.......................          3.08          2.31         (\3\)
NTN...........................          4.59          3.39          2.59
Osaka Pump....................         18.49         (\3\)         (\3\)
Takeshita.....................         18.49         (\3\)         (\3\)

[[Page 18042]]

 
Tsubaki.......................          9.72         (\3\)         (\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Romania
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Koyo..........................          0.00
TIE...........................          0.11  ............  ............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Singapore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMB/Pelmec....................          1.26  ............  ............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Sweden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF...........................          2.50         (\1\)  ............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             United Kingdom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barden Corporation............          2.78         (\1\)  ............
FAG (U.K.)....................         (\1\)         (\1\)  ............
SNFA..........................          0.00         (\3\)  ............
SNR...........................          0.22         (\3\)  ............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No shipments or sales subject to this review. The deposit rate
  remains unchanged 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 and will continue
  to get the all-others deposit rate from the less-than-fair-value
  investigation.
\3\ No request for review under section 751(a) of the Act.

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 21 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......................  May 15, 2000................  9:00 a.m..............  1412
Sweden..............................  May 16, 2000................  9:00 a.m..............  1412
Romania.............................  May 16, 2000................  2:00 p.m..............  1412
Germany.............................  May 17, 2000................  9:00 a.m..............  1412
Italy...............................  May 18, 2000................  9:00 a.m..............  1412
Singapore...........................  May 18, 2000................  2:00 p.m..............  1412
United Kingdom......................  May 19, 2000................  9:00 a.m..............  1412
France..............................  May 19, 2000................  2:00 p.m..............  1412
Japan...............................  May 22, 2000................  9:00 a.m..............  B-841A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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...................  May 4, 2000.......  May 11, 2000.
Sweden...........................  May 5, 2000.......  May 12, 2000.
Romania..........................  May 5, 2000.......  May 12, 2000.
Germany..........................  May 8, 2000.......  May 15, 2000.
Italy............................  May 9, 2000.......  May 16, 2000.
Singapore........................  May 9, 2000.......  May 16, 2000.
United Kingdom...................  May 10, 2000......  May 17, 2000.
France...........................  May 10, 2000......  May 17, 2000.
Japan............................  May 11, 2000......  May 18, 2000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 18043]]

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 export-price sales for these preliminary results, 
we divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference 
between normal value and export price) 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 export-price sales we have included the applicable 
export-price 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 
(see 19 CFR 351.212(a)).

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 export price and CEP deposit rates 
(using the export price 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. 
Finally, we divided the combined total dumping margins for both export 
price and CEP sales by the combined total value for both export price 
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 established in the final results 
of reviews; (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 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 Antifriction Bearings (Other Than 
Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et al: 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: March 30, 2000.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-8568 Filed 4-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P