[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 24 (Monday, February 5, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8931-8939]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-2981]


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

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 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 56 manufacturers/
exporters. The period of review is May 1, 1999, through December 31, 
1999, for certain orders and May 1, 1999, through April 30, 2000, for 
other orders.
    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 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 5, 2001.

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

[[Page 8932]]

Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733.

France

    Edythe Artman (SNFA), George Callen (SNR), Lyn Johnson (Alfateam--
Belgium, Alfa-Team--Germany, Bearing Discount Int.--Germany, Motion 
Bearings--Singapore, Yoo Shin Commercial Co--South Korea, Rodamientos 
Rovi--Venezuela, Rovi-Valencia--Venezuela, Rovi-Marcay--Venezuela, 
RIRSA--Mexico, DCD--Northern Ireland, EuroLatin Ex. Services--United 
Kingdom (collectively, Resellers)), Robin Gray, or Richard Rimlinger.

Germany

    George Callen (Cerobear), Hermes Pinilla (INA), Thomas Schauer 
(Torrington Nadellager), Lyn Johnson (Resellers), Robin Gray, or 
Richard Rimlinger.

Italy

    Lyn Johnson (Resellers) or Robin Gray.

Japan

    David Dirstine (NSK), Thomas Schauer (NTN), Lyn Johnson (Koyo), 
Robin Gray, or Richard Rimlinger.

Sweden

    Lyn Johnson (Resellers) or Robin Gray.

United Kingdom

    Thomas Schauer (Timken, RHP/NSK), Edythe Artman (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 (2000).

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 July 7, 2000, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), we published a notice of initiation 
of administrative reviews of these orders (65 FR 41942).
    On June 28, 2000, the International Trade Commission, pursuant to 
section 751(c) of the Act, determined that revocation of the orders on 
BBs from Romania and Sweden, CRBs from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
Sweden and the United Kingdom, and SPBs from Germany and Japan would 
not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. 
As a result of these determinations, the Department revoked the 
antidumping duty orders in question. The Department published the 
revocation notice for these orders in the Federal Register on July 11, 
2000, with an effective date of January 1, 2000 (65 FR 42667). 
Therefore, for the revoked orders, the period covered by these 
administrative reviews is May 1, 1999, through December 31, 1999. For 
the remaining orders subject to these administrative reviews the period 
covered is May 1, 1999, through April 30, 2000. 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 SKF (France), 
SKF (Germany), FAG (Germany), SNR (Germany), FAG (Italy), SOMECAT 
(Italy), Inoue Jikuuke Kogyo (Japan), Izumoto Seiko Co. (Japan), Koyo 
Romania (Romania), NMB/Pelmec (Singapore), SKF (Sweden), Barden (U.K.), 
SNR (U.K.), RHP-NSK (U.K.) with respect to CRBs only, and SNR (France) 
with respect to BBs only. We also received a timely withdrawal of the 
request that we had received for review of Muro Corporation (Japan) 
with respect to BBs only. 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 
CRBs (including split CRBs) 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 listing of scope 
determinations which pertain to the orders, see the ``Scope 
Determinations Memorandum'' (Scope Memo) from the Antifriction Bearings 
Team to Laurie Parkhill, dated January

[[Page 8933]]

30, 2001, and hereby adopted by this notice. The Scope Memo is in the 
Central Records Unit (CRU), Main Commerce Building, Room B-099, in the 
General Issues record (A-100-001) for the 99/00 reviews.
    Although the HTSUS item numbers above are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, written descriptions of the scope of these 
proceedings remain dispositive.

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 Torrington 
Nadellager (Germany) and Sapporo Precision Inc. (Japan). We also 
preliminarily determine that the use of facts available is appropriate 
with respect to five of the Resellers (Alfateam-Belgium, Alfa-Team-
Germany, Motion Bearings, Yoo Shin Commercial Company Ltd., and DCD) in 
the reviews of certain orders covering France, Germany, Italy, and 
Sweden. None of the above firms responded to our antidumping 
questionnaire fully (see the analysis memoranda to the file for these 
firms dated January 30, 2001) and, consequently, we find that they have 
not provided ``information that has been requested by the administering 
authority'' (Section 776(a)(1) of the Act).
    In accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, we are making an 
adverse inference in our application of the facts available. This is 
necessary because the above firms have not acted to the best of their 
ability in providing us with relevant information which is under their 
control. As adverse facts available for these firms, we have applied 
the highest rate we have calculated for any companies under review in 
any segment of the relevant proceedings (i.e., BBs and CRBs from 
Germany and BBs from France, Italy, Sweden, and Japan). We have 
selected these rates because they are sufficiently high as to 
reasonably assure that the firms named above do not obtain a more 
favorable result by failing to cooperate. Specifically, these rates are 
68.18 percent for BBs from France, 70.41 percent for BBs from Germany, 
61.60 percent for CRBs from Germany, 68.29 percent for BBs from Italy, 
13.55 percent for BBs from Sweden, and 73.55 percent for BBs from 
Japan.
    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 constitutes secondary 
information. The Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the 
URAA, H.R. Doc. 103-316, at 870 (1994) (SAA), provides that 
``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, 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 (November 6, 
1996) (Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, from Japan) to corroborate secondary information, the 
Department will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and 
relevance of the information used. However, unlike other types of 
information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no 
independent sources for calculated dumping margins. The only source for 
margins is administrative determinations. Thus, with respect to an 
administrative review, if the Department chooses as facts available a 
calculated dumping margin from a prior 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 (February 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). Further, in accordance with 
F.LII De Cecco Di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United States, No. 
99-1318 (CAFC June 16, 2000), we also examined whether information on 
the record would support the selected rates as reasonable facts 
available.
    We find that the above rates that we are using for these 
preliminary results do have probative value. We compared the selected 
margins to margins calculated on individual sales of the merchandise in 
question made by either companies covered by the instant reviews or 
companies covered by the previous administrative review. We found a 
substantial number of sales, made in the ordinary course of trade and 
in commercial quantities, with dumping margins near or exceeding the 
rates under consideration. (The details of this analysis are contained 
in the proprietary versions of the analysis memoranda for the covered 
firms dated January 30, 2001.) This evidence supports an inference that 
the selected rates might reflect the actual dumping margins for the 
firms in question.
    Furthermore, there is no information on the record that 
demonstrates that the rates selected are inappropriate total adverse 
facts-available rates for the companies in question. On the contrary, 
our existing record supports the use of these rates as the best 
indications of the export prices and dumping margins for these firms as 
explained in our January 30, 2001, memoranda. Therefore, we consider 
the selected rates to have probative value with respect to the firms in 
question in these reviews and to reflect appropriate adverse 
inferences.
    In accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, we have also applied 
partial facts available to NTN (Japan). NTN did not provide information 
concerning downstream sales for two affiliated resellers as we 
requested in our supplemental questionnaire. For sales made by these 
affiliated resellers, we preliminarily determine that NTN did not act 
to the best of its ability to attempt to report the downstream sales. 
In the case of one of the resellers, NTN claimed it did not provide the 
data because the amount of sales by that affiliate was small. Thus, 
there was no apparent attempt to obtain the data from the affiliated 
reseller. In the case of the other reseller, NTN stated that the 
affiliate was not able to provide the requested information.
    Because the reason NTN's affiliate did not provide the data is 
proprietary, please see the NTN preliminary analysis memorandum dated 
January 30, 2001, for more information. However, we find

[[Page 8934]]

that NTN did not explain why its affiliate could not submit the 
requested information or whether additional time to respond would have 
allowed the affiliate to provide the information. Therefore, because we 
have preliminarily determined that NTN did not act to the best of its 
ability, we have used adverse facts available for sales made by these 
two affiliates, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. As adverse facts 
available, for each model sold to these affiliates, we have replaced 
the price to the affiliated party with the highest home-market price of 
a product which NTN sold to other customers (e.g., unaffiliated 
customers) for the same model and at the same level of trade during the 
period of review. For models sold by these two affiliates that NTN did 
not sell to other customers, we have increased the net home-market 
price. To do so, we first calculated a ratio based on the weighted-
average difference in price between the highest price to other 
customers and the price to these affiliated resellers for all models 
which were sold to both types of customers. We then applied this ratio 
to the prices of models sold only to these affiliates to make an upward 
adjustment to those prices. This is the same methodology we used in 
applying facts available to NTN in the May 1, 1998, through April 30, 
1999, administrative reviews (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 and Revocation of Orders in 
Part, 65 FR 49219 (August 11, 2000) (AFBs 10), and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3).
    Finally, pursuant to section 776(a)(2) of the Act, we have applied 
partial facts available to Cerobear for its sales of BBs from Germany. 
Cerobear did not provide constructed-value information for cases in 
which there were no contemporaneous sales of particular models sold in 
the home market to match with identical or similar models it sold to 
the United States. We requested that Cerobear provide such information 
so that we can use it for the final results of this review. For these 
preliminary results, we have used as facts available the weighted-
average of the non-de minimis margins we calculated for Cerobear's 
sales of BBs to the United States where we were able to match U.S. 
price to either home-market price or constructed value.

Intent To Revoke and Intent Not To Revoke

    On May 31, 2000, three of the companies taking part in these 
reviews submitted requests for the revocation, in part, of an 
antidumping duty order. SNFA France requested the revocation of the 
order covering CRBs from France as it pertains to its sales of these 
bearings. SNFA U.K. requested the revocation of the order covering BBs 
from the United Kingdom as it pertains to its sales of these bearings. 
Finally, SNR requested the revocation of the order on BBs from France 
as it pertains 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), the Department may revoke an antidumping duty 
order in part if it concludes that: (i) The company in question has 
sold the subject merchandise at not less than normal value for a period 
of at least three consecutive years; (ii) it is not likely that the 
company will in the future sell the subject merchandise at less than 
normal value; and (iii) the company has agreed to immediate 
reinstatement in the order if the Department concludes that the 
company, subject 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 revocation.
    A request for revocation of an order in part must be accompanied by 
three elements. The company requesting the 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).
    The requests from SNFA U.K. and SNR meet the criteria under 
subsection 351.222(e)(1). However, the results of our preliminary 
margin calculations show that both firms had U.S. sales at less than 
normal value during the current review period (see rates below). Thus, 
these companies do not meet the criterion under subsection 
351.222(b)(2)(i) and we preliminarily determine not to revoke them from 
the order covering BBs from the United Kingdom and from France.
    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 this firm 
sold CRBs at not less than normal value during the current review 
period (see rate below). In addition, it sold CRBs at not less than 
normal value in the two previous reviews. See AFBs 10 and Antifriction 
Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from 
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Sweden and the United Kingdom; 
Finals Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Revocation or Orders in Part, 64 FR 35590 (July 1, 1999). Thus, we 
preliminarily find that SNFA France had zero or de minimis dumping 
margins for three consecutive reviews in which it sold in commercial 
quantities. Also, 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 CRBs 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 for SNFA France and, in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), we will terminate the suspension of liquidation 
for any of the merchandise in question that is entered or withdrawn 
from warehouse for consumption on or after May 1, 2000, and will 
instruct Customs to refund any cash deposits for such entries.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

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

[[Page 8935]]

and (b) of the Act, as appropriate. Due to the extremely large volume 
of transactions that occurred during the period of review 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 2-8, 1999; August 8-14, 1999; September 5-11, 1999; October 31-
November 6, 1999; January 2-8, 2000; and April 9-15, 2000. We reviewed 
all export-price sales transactions during the period of review.
    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 SAA, 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 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 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.
    No other adjustments to export price or CEP were claimed or 
allowed.

Normal Value

    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, with the exception of Timken Aerospace U.K. Ltd., 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 Timken Aerospace U.K. Ltd., we found that, although 
its home market was viable under section 773(a)(1) of the Act, the firm 
made no sales of foreign like product in its home market that we were 
able to compare to its U.S. sales. Therefore, we based normal value on 
constructed value.
    Due to the extremely large number of transactions that occurred 
during the period of review 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 month 
prior to the period of review, and sales in the month following the 
period of review. The sample months were April, May, August, September, 
and November of 1999 and January, April, and May of 2000.
    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, AFBs 10, with respect 
to SNR (BBs), Koyo (BBs), NSK (BBs and CRBs), and NTN (all), 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 provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, 
pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we conducted 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, 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

[[Page 8936]]

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 period of review 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 period of review, 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 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 January 30, 
2001, on file in the CRU, Room B-099.

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, 1999, through April 30, 2000 (for BBs), and for the period May 
1, 1999, through December 31, 1999 (for CRBs and SPBs):

[[Page 8937]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Spherical
                             Company                                   Ball         Cylindrical        plain
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     FRANCE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNFA............................................................             (3)            0.00  ..............
SNR.............................................................            2.92             (3)  ..............
Alfateam........................................................           66.18             (3)  ..............
Alfa-Team.......................................................           66.18             (3)  ..............
Bearing Discount Int............................................             (2)             (3)  ..............
Motion Bearings.................................................           66.18             (3)  ..............
Yoo Shin Commercial Co..........................................           66.18             (3)  ..............
Rodamientos Rovi................................................             (2)             (3)  ..............
Rovi-Valencia...................................................             (2)             (3)  ..............
Rovi-Marcay.....................................................             (2)             (3)  ..............
RIRSA...........................................................             (2)             (3)  ..............
DCD.............................................................           66.18             (3)  ..............
EuroLatin Ex. Services..........................................             (2)             (3)  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     GERMANY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cerobar GmbH....................................................            0.07            0.00             (3)
INA.............................................................           (\1\)            0.10           (\1\)
Torrington......................................................           70.41           61.60             (3)
Alfateam........................................................           70.41           61.60             (3)
Alfa-Team.......................................................           70.41           61.60             (3)
Bearing Discount Int............................................             (2)             (2)             (3)
Motion Bearings.................................................           70.41           61.60             (3)
Yoo Shin Commercial Co..........................................           70.41           61.60             (3)
Rodamientos Rovi................................................             (2)             (2)             (3)
Rovi-Valencia...................................................             (2)             (2)             (3)
Rovi-Marcay.....................................................             (2)             (2)             (3)
RIRSA...........................................................             (2)             (2)             (3)
DCD.............................................................           70.41           61.60             (3)
EuroLatin Ex. Services..........................................             (2)             (2)             (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      ITALY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfateam........................................................           68.29  ..............  ..............
Alfa-Team.......................................................           68.29  ..............  ..............
Bearing Discount Int............................................             (2)  ..............  ..............
Motion Bearings.................................................           68.29  ..............  ..............
Yoo Shin Commercial Co..........................................           68.29  ..............  ..............
Rodamientos Rovi................................................             (2)  ..............  ..............
Rovi-Valencia...................................................             (2)  ..............  ..............
Rovi-Marcay.....................................................             (2)  ..............  ..............
RIRSA...........................................................             (2)  ..............  ..............
DCD.............................................................           68.29  ..............  ..............
EuroLatin Ex. Services..........................................             (2)  ..............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      JAPAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Koyo............................................................           10.15            6.21            0.00
NSK Ltd.........................................................            4.65            5.89             (3)
NTN.............................................................           15.98           15.42            3.07
Sapporo.........................................................           73.55             (3)             (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     SWEDEN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfateam........................................................           13.55  ..............  ..............
Alfa-Team.......................................................           13.55  ..............  ..............
Bearing Discount Int............................................             (2)  ..............  ..............
Motion Bearings.................................................           13.55  ..............  ..............
Yoo Shin Commercial Co..........................................           13.55  ..............  ..............
Rodamientos Rovi................................................             (2)  ..............  ..............
Rovi-Valencia...................................................             (2)  ..............  ..............
Rovi-Marcay.....................................................             (2)  ..............  ..............
RIRSA...........................................................             (2)  ..............  ..............
DCD.............................................................           13.55  ..............  ..............
EuroLatin Ex. Services..........................................             (2)  ..............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 UNITED KINGDOM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSK/RHP Bearings................................................           15.70  ..............  ..............
SNFA............................................................            2.21  ..............  ..............
Timken..........................................................            1.11  ..............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.

[[Page 8938]]

 
\2\ No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has no individual rate from any segment of this
  proceeding.
\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......................  March 15, 2001.........  9:00 am................  B-841A
Sweden..............................  March 15, 2001.........  2:00 pm................  B-841A
Germany.............................  March 22, 2001.........  9:00 am................  6057
Italy...............................  March 22, 2001.........  2:00 pm................  6057
United Kingdom......................  March 23, 2001.........  9:00 am................  6057
France..............................  March 23, 2001.........  2:00 pm................  6057
Japan...............................  March 26, 2001.........  9:00 am................  6057
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 5, 2001......................  March 12, 2001.
Sweden................................  March 5, 2001......................  March 12, 2001.
Germany...............................  March 6, 2001......................  March 13, 2001.
Italy.................................  March 6, 2001......................  March 13, 2001.
United Kingdom........................  March 7, 2001......................  March 14, 2001.
France................................  March 7, 2001......................  March 14, 2001.
Japan.................................  March 8, 2001......................  March 15, 2001.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. 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 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. 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 unless the order has been revoked, 
effective January 1, 2000: (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

[[Page 8939]]

the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in 
this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value 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 less-than-fair-value 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 preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing these determinations in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 30, 2001.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-2981 Filed 2-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P