[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12170-12177]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-3361]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

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


Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, 
Japan, and the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting administrative 
reviews of the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts 
thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom. The 
merchandise covered by these orders are ball bearings and parts thereof 
(ball bearings) from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United 
Kingdom. The reviews cover 14 manufacturers/exporters. The period of 
review is May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005.
    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 and Border Protection (CBP) to 
assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit comments in these reviews are requested to 
submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief 
summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janis Kalnins or Richard Rimlinger , 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1392 and (202) 482-4477, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 15, 1989, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(54

[[Page 12171]]

FR 20900) the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings from France, 
Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom. On June 30, 2005, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), we published a notice of initiation 
of administrative reviews of these orders (70 FR 37749). On January 27, 
2006, we extended the due date for the completion of these preliminary 
results of reviews from January 31, 2006, to March 2, 2006 (71 FR 
4568). The list of companies for which we have conducted administrative 
reviews of the various orders on ball bearings are as follows:
France:
    * SKF France S.A. or Sarma (SKF France)
    * SNR Roulements or SNR Europe (SNR)
Germany:
    * Gebr[uuml]der Reinfurt GmbH & Co., KG (GRW)
    * INA-Schaeffler KG; INA Vermogensverwaltungsgesellschaft GmbH; INA 
Holding Schaeffler KG; FAG Kugelfischer Georg-Schaefer AG; FAG 
Automobiltechnik AG; FAG OEM und Handel AG; FAG Komponenten AG; FAG 
Aircraft/Super Precision Bearings GmbH; FAG Industrial Bearings AG; FAG 
Sales Europe GmbH; FAG International Sales and Service GmbH 
(collectively INA/FAG)
    * SKF GmbH (SKF Germany)
Italy:
    * FAG Italia S.p.A.; FAG Automobiltechnik AG; FAG OEM und Handel AG 
(collectively FAG Italy)
    * SKF Industrie S.p.A.; SKF RIV-SKF Officine di Villas Perosa 
S.p.A.; RFT S.p.A.; OMVP S.p.A. (collectively SKF Italy)
Japan:
    * Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. (Koyo)\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On February 3, 2006, Koyo filed a request for a changed-
circumstances review of the order on ball bearings from Japan with 
the Department. As Koyo explained, the request for such a review is 
precipitated by the merger of Koyo and an affiliated company that 
has resulted in the creation of JTEKT Corporation. Koyo requests 
that JTEKT Corporation be recognized as its successor-in-interest 
for antidumping-duty purposes. The Department is considering the 
request for the review separately from the ongoing administrative 
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * NSK Ltd. (NSK)
    * NTN Corporation (NTN)
    * Nachi-Fujikoshi Corporation (Nachi)
    * Nippon Pillow Block Co., Ltd. (NPB)
    * Sapporo Precision Inc. (Sapporo)
United Kingdom:
    * The Barden Corporation (UK) Limited; FAG (U.K.) Limited 
(collectively Barden/FAG)

Scope of Orders

    The products covered by the orders are ball bearings (other than 
tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof. These products include all 
antifriction bearings 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.
    Although the HTSUS item numbers above are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, the written descriptions of the scope of these 
orders remain dispositive.
    The size or precision grade of a bearing does not influence whether 
the bearing is covered by one of the orders. These orders cover all the 
subject bearings and parts thereof (inner race, outer race, cage, 
rollers, balls, seals, shields, etc.) outlined above with certain 
limitations. With regard to finished parts, all such parts are included 
in the scope of the these orders. For unfinished parts, such parts are 
included if they have been heat-treated or heat treatment is not 
required to be performed on the part. Thus, the only unfinished parts 
that are not covered by these orders are those that will be subject to 
heat treatment after importation. The ultimate application of a bearing 
also does not influence whether the bearing is covered by the orders. 
Bearings designed for highly specialized applications are not excluded. 
Any of the subject bearings, regardless of whether they may ultimately 
be utilized in aircraft, automobiles, or other equipment, are within 
the scope of these orders.
    For a listing of scope determinations which pertain to the orders, 
see the Scope Determination Memorandum (Scope Memorandum) from the 
Antifriction Bearings Team to Laurie Parkhill, dated March 2, 2006. The 
Scope Memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), main 
commerce building, room B-099, in the General Issues record (A-100-001) 
for the 04/05 reviews.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act), we have 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 the selection of original documentation 
containing relevant information. Specifically, we conducted 
verifications of NTN, Nachi, FAG Italy, SNR, NSK, SKF Germany, SKF 
Italy, SKF France, and Koyo. 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 Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails 
to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner 
requested, significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping 
statute, or provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified, the Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) and (e) 
of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination. Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department 
shall not decline to consider submitted information if that information 
is necessary to the determination but does not meet all of the 
requirements established by the Department provided that all of the 
following requirements are met: (1) the information is submitted by the 
established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the 
information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable 
basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested 
party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and 
(5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.
    In addition, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the 
Department finds that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information,'' the Department may use information that is adverse to 
the interests of that party as facts otherwise available.

[[Page 12172]]

    We found at verification that Nachi reported the physical 
characteristics for a number of models incorrectly. See Nachi 
Verification Report dated February 9, 2006, at pages 4-5. As explained 
in the verification report, we found that Nachi reported incorrect 
physical characteristics for 16 of the 40 models we examined at 
verification.
    Each time we selected additional models for verification, we found 
additional models with incorrectly reported physical characteristics. 
Because of this, we must conclude that the errors were systemic in 
nature. Accordingly, we determine that it is appropriate to use the 
facts available to account for the fact that Nachi misreported its 
physical characteristics for a substantial proportion of its models. 
Because the correct physical characteristics appeared on Nachi's 
technical drawings and in its catalogs that we examined at 
verification, we find that Nachi's failure to report the critical 
information accurately indicates that the company did not act to the 
best of its ability in reporting the information. Moreover, because 
Nachi did not act to the best of its ability in reporting these 
characteristics, it is appropriate to use adverse inferences in 
addressing the errors in the characteristics Nachi reported in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act.
    The matching of U.S. and home-market models is at the core of our 
antidumping analysis because it determines which sales we use as the 
basis for normal value. In order to conduct an accurate model match we 
must be satisfied that the physical characteristics the respondent 
reports for its sales are accurate. Because we found at verification 
that Nachi reported incorrect physical characteristics for a 
substantial proportion of its models, however, we are not satisfied 
that we can make accurate comparisons of similar merchandise using 
Nachi's reported physical characteristics. Moreover, we cannot be 
certain that, for any of the U.S. sales for which we would not find a 
match using Nachi's reported physical characteristics, we would not 
find a similar match had Nachi reported its physical characteristics 
correctly. Accordingly, we can have no confidence in the normal values 
we would identify (or, in the case of constructed value, do not 
identify) using Nachi's reported physical characteristics and, 
therefore, we cannot calculate accurate dumping margins for those U.S. 
sales.
    Because we identify matches of identical U.S. and home-market 
models on the basis of control number rather than physical 
characteristics, the verification finding has no impact on the 
identical matches we found for Nachi. As a result, we can calculate 
margins for Nachi's U.S. sales for which we found an identical product 
sold in the home market. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that it 
is appropriate to limit the application of adverse facts available to 
non-identical (i.e., similar and constructed-value) matches.
    As adverse facts available, we have selected the highest margin we 
have determined for Nachi in any previous segment of this proceeding 
and applied this rate to all U.S. sales for which we found no identical 
match. This rate is 48.69 percent which we established for Nachi in 
Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Antifriction 
Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from 
Japan, 54 FR 19101 (May 3, 1989). Furthermore, as required by section 
776(c) of the Act, we were able to corroborate this margin with respect 
to Nachi. For a detailed explanation of how we corroborated this margin 
with respect to Nachi, see the March 2, 2006, analysis memorandum for 
Nachi for the preliminary results.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used export price (EP) or 
constructed export price (CEP) as defined in sections 772(a) and (b) of 
the Act, as appropriate. Due to the extremely large volume of 
transactions that occurred during the 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 
10,000 CEP sales transactions to the United States of 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 30 - June 5, 2004; August 22 - August 28, 2004; September 5 - 
September 11, 2004; October 31 - November 6, 2004; February 6 - 
February 12, 2005; February 27 - March 5, 2005. We reviewed all EP 
sales transactions the respondents made during the period of review.
    We calculated EP and CEP based on the packed F.O.B., C.I.F., or 
delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, 
the United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for discounts 
and rebates. We also made deductions for any movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and the Statement 
of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act (URAA), H. Doc. No. 103-316 at 823-824, we calculated 
the CEP by deducting selling expenses associated with economic 
activities occurring in the United States, which includes commissions, 
direct selling expenses, and U.S. repacking expenses. In accordance 
with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted those indirect 
selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the 
United States and the profit allocated to expenses deducted under 
section 772(d)(1) in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of 
the Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we computed 
profit based on the total revenues realized on sales in both the U.S. 
and home markets, less all expenses associated with those sales. We 
then allocated profit to expenses incurred with respect to U.S. 
economic activity based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to total 
expenses for both the U.S. and home markets. 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. 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 
except NPB.
    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 sold by the exporter or producer to an unaffiliated 
customer if there is a sufficient quantity of sales to provide a 
reasonable basis for comparison and we determine that the

[[Page 12173]]

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 further-manufacturing firms, except NPB, 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 for these firms the value added is 
likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise. 
Also, for these firms, 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 is appropriate. See analysis 
memoranda for Barden/FAG, INA/FAG, Koyo, Nachi, NSK, NTN, SKF France, 
SKF Germany, and SKF Italy, dated March 2, 2006. 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 NPB, 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, this firm submitted 
complete responses to our further-manufacturing questionnaire which 
included the costs of the further processing performed by its U.S. 
affiliates. Because the majority of its products sold in the United 
States were further processed, we analyzed all sales. No other 
adjustments to EP or CEP were claimed or allowed.
    Nachi reported certain sales to U.S. customers as EP sales. We 
treated the sales in question as CEP sales. Due to the business-
proprietary nature of this matter see our preliminary analysis 
memorandum for Nachi dated March 2, 2006, for further details.
    For NTN, we calculated a direct selling expense for NTN's EP sales, 
attributable to NTN's U.S. affiliate's provision of technical support 
and other selling-support functions to NTN's EP customer. We identified 
and extracted the value of these expenses, captured in NTN's 
calculation of indirect selling expenses for CEP sales, and allocated 
this value over NTN's EP sales to this customer. In addition, we 
revised NTN's calculation of inventory carrying costs incurred in the 
home market for NTN's EP and CEP sales by applying the inventory 
carrying cost factor calculated by NTN to the total cost of manufacture 
value it reported for each model instead of the gross unit price of 
each sale in the U.S. sales list.
    For NTN we recalculated indirect selling expenses incurred in the 
home market for NTN's CEP sales because we found that certain expenses, 
such as welfare, the reserve for retirement, and the reserve for 
bonuses, were not captured by NTN in its calculation of indirect 
selling expenses. Also, NTN reported commissions in the home market but 
did not report indirect selling expenses for its EP sales. In order to 
apply the calculation of a commission offset, where applicable, we 
calculated indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market for 
NTN's EP sales using the information NTN provided with respect to its 
calculation of indirect selling expenses for NTN's CEP sales. In 
addition, we corrected certain product characteristics with respect to 
certain United States models which NTN had reported incorrectly in its 
sales databases.
    Further, we corrected reported errors in the sales quantities and 
billing adjustments for a number of NTN's reported CEP sales. We 
deducted early payment discounts which NTN did not report with respect 
to NTN's CEP sales to certain U.S. customers. We corrected a rebate 
factor, which NTN misreported, with respect to NTN's CEP sales to a 
certain U.S. customer. We included unreported terminal charges 
associated with NTN's air shipments to the United States in the 
calculation of our deduction for ocean and air freight expenses. We 
recalculated NTN's re-packing expenses for NTN's reported CEP sales 
because we found the methodology used by NTN to allocate such expenses 
contained a number of distortions and did not distinguish between the 
packing requirement for different customer categories.
    Finally, we have determined that NTN's allocation of international 
and inland freight expenses based on the value of the shipped product 
causes substantial distortions and could otherwise mask dumping. See 
the Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill entitled ``Administrative Review of 
the Antidumping Duty Order on Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof; 
Examination of Allocation Basis Used in the Calculation of Freight 
Expenses,'' dated March 2, 2006. We recalculated the expenses in 
question for NTN using a weight-based allocation for purposes of this 
administrative review. With respect to other respondents in these 
administrative reviews that used a value-based methodology to allocate 
freight expenses, we recognize that no longer accepting value-based 
freight-expense allocation methodologies is a significant change in 
practice. Moreover, we do not have all of the data (e.g., the per-unit 
weight of the bearings) we would need to reallocate these respondents' 
freight expenses. Therefore, we have not reallocated other respondents' 
freight expenses in the current reviews. For future reviews of these 
orders, we will not accept value-based methodologies for the allocation 
of inland freight or international freight expenses except in 
situations where the freight charges are, in fact, incurred on a value, 
not weight or volume, basis (e.g., marine insurance).

Home-Market Sales

    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 product was first sold for consumption in the 
exporting country in the usual commercial quantities and in the 
ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same 
level of trade as the EP or CEP sales.
    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 10,000 home-market sales transactions on a 
country-specific basis, we used sales in sample months that 
corresponded to the sample weeks which we selected for U.S. CEP sales, 
sales in a month prior

[[Page 12174]]

to the period of review, and sales in the month following the period of 
review. The sample months were February, June, August, September, and 
November of 2004 and February, March, and May of 2005.
    The Department may calculate normal value based on a sale to an 
affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the 
affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made to 
parties not affiliated with the exporter or producer, i.e., sales at 
arm's-length prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). We excluded sales to 
affiliated customers for consumption in the home market that we 
determined not to be at arm's-length prices from our analysis. To test 
whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices, the Department 
compared the prices of sales of comparable merchandise to affiliated 
and unaffiliated customers, net of all rebates, movement charges, 
direct selling expenses, and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and 
in accordance with our practice, when the prices charged to an 
affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the 
prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise comparable to 
that sold to the affiliated party, we determined that the sales to the 
affiliated party were at arm's-length prices. See Antidumping 
Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 
FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). We included in our calculation of normal 
value those sales to affiliated parties that were made at arm's-length 
prices.

Cost of Production

    We disregarded below-cost sales in accordance with section 773(b) 
of the Act in the last completed review with respect to ball bearings 
sold by Barden/FAG, FAG Italy, GRW, INA/FAG, Koyo, NSK, NPB, Nachi, 
NTN, SKF France, SKF Germany, SKF Italy, and SNR. See Antifriction 
Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Final Results Of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, 
70 FR 54711 (September 16, 2005) (AFBs 15). Therefore, we have 
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.
    After calculating the COP, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of 
the Act, we tested whether home-market sales of the foreign like 
product 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. See the Department's 
analysis memoranda for Barden/FAG, FAG Italy, GRW, INA/FAG, Koyo, NSK, 
NPB, Nachi, NTN, SKF France, SKF Germany, SKF Italy, and SNR, dated 
March 2, 2006. Based on this test, we disregarded below-cost sales with 
respect to all of the above-mentioned companies.

Model-Match Methodology

    We compared U.S. sales with sales of the foreign like product in 
the home market. Specifically, in making our comparisons, we used the 
following methodology. If an identical home-market model was reported, 
we made comparisons to weighted-average home-market prices that were 
based on all sales which passed the COP test of the identical product 
during the relevant month. We calculated the weighted-average home-
market prices on a level of trade-specific basis. If there were no 
contemporaneous sales of an identical model, we identified the most 
similar home-market model. To determine the most similar model, we 
limited our examination to models sold in the home market that had the 
same bearing design, load direction, number of rows, and precision 
grade. Next, we calculated the sum of the deviations (expressed as a 
percentage of the value of the U.S. characteristics) of the inner 
diameter, outer diameter, width, and load rating for each potential 
home-market match and selected the bearing with the smallest sum of the 
deviations. If two or more bearings had the same sum of the deviations, 
we selected the model that was sold at the same level of trade as the 
U.S. sale and was the closest contemporaneous sale to the U.S. sale. If 
two or more models were sold at the same level of trade and were sold 
equally contemporaneously, we selected the model that had the smallest 
difference-in-merchandise adjustment. Finally, if no bearing sold in 
the home market had a sum of the deviations that was less than 40 
percent, we concluded that no appropriate comparison existed in the 
home market and we used the constructed value of the U.S. model as 
normal value. For a full discussion of the model-match methodology for 
these reviews, see AFBs 15.

Normal Value

    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 19 CFR 351.411 and for 
differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, 
we made circumstance-of-sale 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 circumstance-of-sale 
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 EP and 
CEP calculations.
    For NTN we did not accept its claim for an elimination of so-called 
sample

[[Page 12175]]

sales and high-profit sales in the home market from the calculation of 
normal value because NTN did not demonstrate that these sales were made 
outside the ordinary course of trade. We corrected certain product 
characteristics with respect to certain home-market models which NTN 
had reported incorrectly in its sales databases. We recalculated NTN's 
packing expenses for reported home-market sales because we found the 
methodology it used to allocate such expenses contained a number of 
distortions and did not distinguish between packing requirements for 
different customer categories.
    Further, we revised NTN's calculation of inventory carrying costs 
incurred in the home market for its home-market sales by applying the 
inventory carrying cost factor it calculated to the total cost of 
manufacture value it reported for each model instead of the gross unit 
price of each sale in the home market. We revised the financial-
expenses factor with respect to COP and constructed-value information 
NTN reported to capture foreign-exchange gains/losses on transactions 
and foreign-exchange gains/losses on translations of asset and 
liability accounts stated in foreign currencies into domestic currency 
as well as hedging expenses associated with the foreign-exchange and 
currency options contracts NTN used. Further, based on our findings at 
verification and consistent with AFBs 15, we denied NTN's claim for 
other discounts in the home market that NTN granted on a model-specific 
basis to certain customers for specific periods but allocated 
incorrectly over sales of all models to the same customers and a 
similar claim for which NTN had allocated its discounts over sales that 
had occurred outside the period of time for which NTN had granted the 
adjustment to such customers. Finally, as discussed above with respect 
to NTN's U.S. sales, we re-calculated NTN's inland-freight expenses to 
reflect the basis on which they were incurred (i.e., weight basis).
    For NPB, we recalculated credit expenses in the home market because 
NPB discounted some of the promissory notes it received for its home-
market sales and reported the average discount rate the company paid 
with respect to these transactions.
    For Koyo and consistent with AFBs 15 at Comment 11, we denied 
certain negative home-market billing adjustments that Koyo granted on a 
model-specific basis but reported on a broad customer-specific basis 
because we found that the allocation of these adjustments resulted in 
its allocation over sales of models for which Koyo had not granted an 
adjustment and over sales that had occurred outside the period of time 
for which Koyo had granted the adjustment to the customer. For a more 
detailed discussion of the individual changes, please see the 
Department's company-specific analysis memorandum dated March 2, 2006.
    We have also examined the business relationship between Koyo and 
one of its home- market affiliated suppliers and have determined that 
it is appropriate to collapse these companies as one entity. Our 
decision to collapse these companies was based on our conclusion that a 
potential exists for Koyo to manipulate prices and production. Due to 
the business-proprietary nature of this matter, see the decision 
memorandum to Laurie Parkhill regarding Koyo and its affiliated 
supplier, dated March 2, 2006, for further details. We will be 
obtaining additional information from Koyo to implement this decision 
fully prior to our final results of these administrative reviews.
    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 EP 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)(A) of the Act. See Level of Trade 
section below.

Constructed Value

    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, 
U.S. packing 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, 19 CFR 351.410, and 19 
CFR 351.412 for circumstance-of-sale differences and level-of-trade 
differences. For comparisons to EP, we made circumstance-of-sale 
adjustments by deducting home-market direct selling expenses from and 
adding U.S. direct selling expenses to constructed value. For 
comparisons to CEP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by 
deducting home-market direct selling expenses from constructed value. 
We also made adjustments, when applicable, for home-market indirect 
selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and CEP comparisons.
    When possible, we calculated constructed value at the same level of 
trade as the EP 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.

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 EP or CEP). When 
there were no sales at the same level of trade, we compared U.S. sales 
to home-market sales at a different level of trade. The 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, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997).
    Where the respondent reported no home-market levels of trade that 
were equivalent to the CEP level of trade and where the CEP level of 
trade was at a less advanced stage than any of the home-market levels 
of trade, we were unable to determine a level-of-trade adjustment based 
on the respondent's home-market sales of the foreign like product. 
Furthermore, we have no other information that provides an appropriate 
basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment. For

[[Page 12176]]

respondents' CEP sales, to the extent possible, we determined normal 
value at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale to the unaffiliated 
customer and made a CEP-offset adjustment in accordance with section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The CEP-offset adjustment to normal value was 
subject to the offset cap, calculated as the sum of home-market 
indirect selling expenses up to the amount of U.S. indirect selling 
expenses deducted from CEP (or, if there were no home-market 
commissions, the sum of U.S. indirect selling expenses and U.S. 
commissions).
    For a company-specific description of our level-of-trade analyses 
for these preliminary results, see Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill from 
Antifriction Bearings Team Regarding Level of Trade, dated March 2, 
2006, on file in the CRU, room B-099.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

    As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine that the 
following percentage weighted-average dumping margins on ball bearings 
and parts thereof exist for the period May 1, 2004, through April 30, 
2005:

                                 FRANCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Company                         Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF France..........................................               12.56
SNR.................................................               12.79
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 GERMANY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Company                              Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG/INA.............................................                4.03
GRW.................................................                1.21
SKF Germany.........................................                7.35
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                  ITALY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Company                              Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAG Italy...........................................                2.52
SKF Italy...........................................               16.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                  JAPAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Company                              Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Koyo................................................               17.85
NSK.................................................                6.62
NTN.................................................               13.32
Nachi...............................................               28.33
NPB.................................................               25.91
Sapporo.............................................                9.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             UNITED KINGDOM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Company                              Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barden/FAG..........................................                0.23
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to these reviews within five days of the date of publication of this 
notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
the date of publication of this notice. A general-issues hearing, if 
requested, and any hearings regarding issues related solely to specific 
countries, if requested, will be held at the main Department building 
at times and locations to be determined.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate 
if one is requested must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration within 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice. Requests should contain the following: (1) 
the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of 
participants; (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 
351.310(c).
    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 reviews. 
Parties who submit case briefs 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. Parties are also encouraged to 
provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table 
of statutes, regulations, and cases cited.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Case                    Briefs due         Rebuttals due
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Issues..................       April 3, 2006      April 10, 2006
Germany.........................       April 4, 2006      April 11, 2006
Italy...........................       April 5, 2006      April 12, 2006
United Kingdom..................       April 6, 2006      April 13, 2006
France..........................       April 7, 2006      April 14, 2006
Japan...........................      April 10, 2006      April 17, 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will issue the final results of these administrative 
reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
such written briefs or at the hearings, if held, not later than 120 
days after the date of publication of this notice.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP 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 (or customer)-specific assessment rate or value for 
merchandise subject to these reviews.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of 
subject merchandise during the period of review produced by companies 
included in these preliminary results of reviews for which the reviewed 
companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United 
States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 
entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate 
company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this 
clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

Export-Price Sales

    With respect to EP sales, for these preliminary results, we divided 
the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between normal 
value and EP) for each exporter's importer or customer by the total 
number of units the exporter sold to that importer or customer. We will 
direct CBP 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 CBP to assess 
the resulting percentage margin against the entered customs values for 
the subject merchandise on each of that importer's entries under the

[[Page 12177]]

relevant order during the review period. See 19 CFR 351.212(b).

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    In order to derive a single weighted-average margin for each 
respondent, we weight-averaged the EP and CEP weighted-average deposit 
rates (using the EP and CEP, respectively, as the weighting factors). 
To accomplish this when we sampled CEP sales, we first calculated the 
total dumping margins for all CEP sales during the review period by 
multiplying the sample CEP margins by the ratio of total days in the 
review period to days in the sample weeks. We then calculated a total 
net value for all CEP sales during the review period by multiplying the 
sample CEP total net value by the same ratio. Finally, we divided the 
combined total dumping margins for both EP and CEP sales by the 
combined total value for both EP and CEP sales to obtain the deposit 
rate.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative 
reviews for all shipments of ball bearings and parts thereof 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 these reviews, a 
prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigations but the 
manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (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, 39730 (July 26, 1993). For ball bearings 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, 66521 
(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.

Notification to Importer

    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. These preliminary results of 
administrative reviews are issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 2, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-3361 Filed 3-7-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S