[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31271-31278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-10913]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

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


Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, 
Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Intent to Rescind Review in 
Part

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, Singapore, and the United 
Kingdom. The merchandise covered by these orders are ball bearings and 
parts thereof (ball bearings) from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
Singapore, and the United Kingdom. The reviews cover 21 manufacturers/
exporters. The period of review is May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006.
    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: June 6, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yang Jin Chun 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-
5760 and (202) 482-4477, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 15, 1989, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(54 FR 20900-10) the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings from 
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom. On 
July 3, 2006, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), we published a 
notice of initiation of administrative reviews of these orders (71 FR 
37892). On October 16, 2006, we announced the rescission of the reviews 
with respect to certain firms for which we received timely withdrawals 
of the requests to review these firms (71 FR 60688). On January 18, 
2007, we extended the due date for the completion of these preliminary 
results of reviews from January 31, 2007, to March 19, 2007 (72 FR 
2261). On March 23, 2007, we extended the due date for the completion 
of these preliminary results from March 19, 2007, to April 2, 2007 (72 
FR 13743). On April 5, 2007, we extended the due date for the 
completion of these preliminary results from April 2, 2007, to May 31, 
2007 (72 FR 16764).
    On August 28, 2006, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), the International Trade Commission 
determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on ball 
bearings from Singapore would not be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of material injury. See Certain Bearings from China, et al.: 
Investigation Nos. 731-TA-344, et al. (Second Review) (USITC 
Publication 3876, August 28, 2006). As a result of this determination, 
the Department revoked the antidumping duty order on ball bearings from 
Singapore, effective as of July 11, 2005. See Antifriction Bearings and 
Parts Thereof from France and Singapore: Revocation of Antidumping Duty 
Orders, 71 FR 54468 (September 15, 2006). Therefore, the period covered 
by the administrative review of the order on ball bearings from 
Singapore is May 1, 2005, through July 10, 2005. For the remaining 
orders subject to these administrative reviews, the period of review 
covered is May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006. The Department is 
conducting these administrative reviews in accordance with section 751 
of the Act.
    The list of companies for which we are currently conducting 
administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings 
are as follows:
France:
    * SKF France S.A. or SFK Aerospace France S.A. (SKF France)
    * SNR Roulements or SNR Europe (SNR)
Germany:
    * Gebr[uuml]der Reinfurt GmbH & Co., KG (GRW)
    * Schaeffler KG (formerly known as 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)) 
(Schaeffler Germany)
    * SKF GmbH (SKF Germany)
Italy:
    * Schaeffler Italia S.r.l. (formerly known as FAG Italia S.p.A.; 
FAG Automobiltechnik AG; FAG OEM und Handel AG (collectively FAG 
Italy)) (Schaeffler 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:
    * Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd. (Aisin Seiki)
    * Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd. (Asahi Seiko)
    * Canon Inc. (Canon)
    * JTEKT Corporation (formerly known as Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd.) 
(JTEKT)
    * Mori Seiki Co., Ltd. (Mori Seiki)
    * Nachi-Fujikoshi Corporation (Nachi)
    * Nankai Seiko Co., Ltd. (Nankai Seiko)
    * Nippon Pillow Block Co., Ltd. (NPB)
    * NSK Ltd. (NSK)
    * NTN Corporation (NTN)
    * Osaka Pump Co., Ltd. (Osaka Pump)
    * Sapporo Precision Inc. (Sapporo)
    * KYK Corporation Ltd. (formerly known as Tottori Yamakai Bearing 
Seisakusho, Ltd.) (KYK)
Singapore:
    * NMB Singapore Ltd. and Pelmec Industries (Pte.) Ltd. (NMB/Pelmec)
United Kingdom:
    * The Barden Corporation (UK) Limited; Schaeffler (UK) Ltd. 
(formerly known as the Barden Corporation (UK) Ltd.; FAG (UK) Ltd. 
(collectively Barden/FAG)) (collectively Barden/Schaeffler UK)

Intent to Rescind Review in Part

    In a September 18, 2006, submission, KYK stated that its 
predecessor-in-interest, Tottori Yamakai Bearing Seisakusho Ltd., used 
the trade name ``KYK'' and produced finished bearings in Japan from 
1952 until it went bankrupt in 2000. KYK stated that, since emerging 
from bankruptcy in 2002, it has not resumed production operations in 
Japan and that all of the subject merchandise that KYK sold during the

[[Page 31272]]

period of review was of Chinese origin. We have received no comments on 
this submission. Because we preliminarily find that KYK had no 
shipments of subject merchandise during the period of review, we intend 
to rescind the administrative review with respect to this company. If 
we continue to find that KYK had no shipments of Japanese-made ball 
bearings at the time of our final results of administrative review, we 
will rescind our review for KYK.

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 (HTS) subheadings: 3926.90.45, 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, 8482.99.35, 
8482.99.2580, 8482.99.6595, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.40, 
8483.30.80, 8483.50.90, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 
8708.60.50, 8708.60.80, 8708.93.30, 8708.93.6000, 8708.99.06, 
8708.99.3100, 8708.99.4000, 8708.99.4960, 8708.99.58, 8708.99.8015, 
8708.99.8080, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, and 
8803.90.90.
    As a result of recent changes to the HTS, effective February 2, 
2007, the subject merchandise is also classifiable under the following 
additional HTS item numbers: 8708.30.50.90, 8708.40.75.00, 
8708.50.79.00, 8708.50.8900, 8708.50.91.50, 8708.50.99.00, 
8708.70.6060, 8708.80.65.90, 8708.93.75.00, 8708.94.75, 8708.95.20.00, 
8708.99.55.00, 8708.99.68, 8708.99.81.80.
    Although the HTS 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 from the Antifriction Bearings 
Team to Laurie Parkhill, dated May 29, 2007, which is on file in the 
Central Records Unit (CRU) of the main Commerce building, room B-099, 
in the General Issues record (A-100-001) for the 2005-2006 reviews.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of 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 Aisin Seiki, 
Mori Seiki, Schaeffler Germany, and SKF Italy. Our verification results 
are outlined in the public versions of the verification reports, which 
are on file in the CRU, room B-099.

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 U.S. 
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(c)(2) 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 29, 2005 - June 4, 2005; July 17, 2005 - July 23, 2005; October 23, 
2005 - October 29, 2005; November 27, 2005 - December 3, 2005; January 
8, 2006 - January 14, 2006; March 19, 2006 - March 25, 2006. 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

[[Page 31273]]

Act applied to all firms that added value in the United States except 
Aisin Seiki, Asahi Seiko, and 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 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 accounted for at least 65 
percent of the price charged to the first unaffiliated customer for the 
merchandise as sold in the United States, except as discussed below. 
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 the 
analysis memoranda for Canon, Barden/Schaeffler UK, JTEKT, Mori Seiki, 
Nachi, NSK, NTN, Sapporo, Schaeffler Germany, Schaeffler Italy, SKF 
France, SKF Germany, SKF Italy, and SNR dated May 29, 2007. 
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 Asahi Seiko and 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. For Aisin Seiki, we 
determined that the special rule did not apply because, even though the 
value added in the United States exceeded substantially the value of 
the subject merchandise, the remaining non-further-manufactured sales 
were not of a sufficient quantity to provide a reasonable basis for 
comparison. Consequently, these firms submitted complete responses to 
our further-manufacturing questionnaire which included the costs of the 
further processing performed by their U.S. affiliates. Because the 
majority of their products sold in the United States were further 
processed, we analyzed all sales.
    For NTN, we removed all zero-priced transactions from our analysis 
and there was no other record evidence indicating that NTN received 
consideration for these transactions although we did include the so-
called ``sample'' sales where NTN did receive compensation. In 
addition, based on NTN's response to our supplemental questionnaire, we 
calculated a direct selling expense for NTN's EP sales, attributable to 
the provision of technical support and other selling-support functions 
to NTN's EP customer by NTN's U.S. affiliate. Furthermore, we accounted 
for NTN's re-calculation of its re-packing expense with respect to its 
reported CEP sales to capture differences in expenses associated with 
packing materials, packing labor, and packing labor overhead inherent 
in packing requirements with respect to different customer categories.
    In addition, we revised NTN's calculation of inventory carrying 
costs incurred in Japan for NTN's EP and CEP sales by applying the 
factor NTN calculated for inventory carrying costs to the total cost of 
manufacture value it reported for each bearing model.

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)(1) of the Act. With the exception of 
Aisin Seiki, 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, with the 
exception of Aisin Seiki, 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. Aisin Seiki did not make sales 
to any other market so we based normal value on constructed value (CV).
    Due to the extremely large number of home-market 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 to the period of review, and sales in the month 
following the period of review. The sample months were February, June, 
July, October, and November 2005 and January, March, and May 2006.
    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, we 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

    In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we disregarded below-
cost sales in the 2004-2005 reviews with respect to ball bearings sold 
by Asahi

[[Page 31274]]

Seiko, Barden/FAG, FAG Italy, GRW, JTEKT, Nachi, NPB, NSK, NTN, 
Schaeffler Germany, SKF France, SKF Germany, SKF Italy, and SNR and in 
the 2003-2004 reviews with respect to ball bearings sold by Nankai 
Seiko, NMB/Pelmec, and Osaka Pump. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof 
from France, et al.: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 71 FR 40064, 40065-66 (July 14, 2006) (AFBs 16), and 
Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, et al.: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 54711, 54712 
(September 16, 2005) (AFBs 15). These represent reviews for the last 
completed segments for the firms indicated above. 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. 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 
analysis memoranda for Asahi Seiko, Barden/Schaeffler UK, GRW, JTEKT, 
Nachi, Nankai Seiko, NMB/Pelmec, NPB, NSK, NTN, Osaka Pump, Schaeffler 
Germany, Schaeffler Italy, SKF France, SKF Germany, SKF Italy, and SNR 
dated May 29, 2007. Based on this test, we disregarded below-cost sales 
with respect to all of the above-mentioned companies.
    We received allegations from Timken US Corporation (Timken), the 
petitioner, that Aisin Seiki, Canon, and Mori Seiki sold ball bearings 
in the home market at prices below the COP. Timken requested that the 
Department initiate a cost investigation of these three respondents' 
home-market sales of ball bearings. We found that Timken's COP 
allegations did not provide reasonable bases upon which to initiate the 
COP investigations of these three respondents. Therefore, we declined 
to initiate the COP investigations of these three respondents. See the 
Memoranda to Laurie Parkhill concerning Timken's COP allegations on 
Aisin Seiki, Canon, and Mori Seiki dated January 10, 2007, January 11, 
2007, and January 24, 2007, respectively.

Model-Match Methodology

    For all respondents except Aisin Seiki, 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 CV of the U.S. model as normal value. For a 
full discussion of the model-match methodology for these reviews, see 
AFBs 15 at Comments 2, 3, 4, and 5 and Antifriction Bearings and Parts 
Thereof from France, et al.: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 25538, 25542 (May 13, 
2005).

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's sales of samples in the home market, we have determined 
that these sales were made outside the ordinary course of trade and 
have excluded them from our calculation of normal value. We did not 
accept NTN's claim for an elimination of so-called 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. Furthermore,

[[Page 31275]]

we accounted for NTN's re-calculation of its packing expense for 
reported home-market sales to capture differences in expenses 
associated with packing materials inherent in packing requirements with 
respect to different customer categories.
    In addition, we revised NTN's calculation of inventory carrying 
costs incurred in the home market for its home-market sales by applying 
the factor for inventory carrying costs it calculated to the total cost 
of manufacture value it reported for each bearing model.
    For JTEKT, consistent with Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof 
From France, et al.: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews, Rescission of Administrative Reviews in Part, and 
Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 69 FR 55574 (September 15, 
2004), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 
21, AFBs 15 at Comment 10, and AFBs 16 at Comment 22, we denied certain 
negative home-market billing adjustments that JTEKT granted on a model-
specific basis but reported on a broad customer-specific basis. See the 
analysis memorandum for JTEKT dated May 29, 2007, for a more detailed 
discussion.
    In the last administrative review, we examined the relationship 
between JTEKT and one of its affiliated home-market firms and 
determined that it is appropriate to collapse these two companies as 
one entity. See AFBs 16 at Comment 18. In this review, we have examined 
the business relationship between JTEKT and its affiliate and 
determined that it is appropriate to continue to collapse these two 
companies as one entity based on additional facts we obtained in this 
administrative review.
    JTEKT and its affiliate at issue are in a parent-subsidiary 
relationship in which JTEKT controls its subsidiary's decision-making 
bodies that decide on the subsidiary's business policy, finance, and 
operations because JTEKT owns more than 40 percent of its subsidiary's 
shares and JTEKT sells a significant portion of ball bearings 
manufactured by its subsidiary under an agreement that dates back to 
1963. This parent-subsidiary relationship is established under Japan's 
Ministry of Finance Ordinance No. 59, Article 8(3) and 8(4) (hereafter 
Ordinance No. 59). JTEKT discloses the financial information of its 
subsidiary under certain circumstances in accordance with the Tokyo 
Stock Exchange's Rules on Timely Disclosure of Corporate Information by 
Issuer of Listed Security and the Like, Article 2-2-(3). JTEKT develops 
products with this subsidiary. This subsidiary also markets itself as a 
company associated with JTEKT and JTEKT's other subsidiaries.
    In its November 15, 2006, comment, Timken refers to the 
Department's decision in AFBs 16 to collapse JTEKT and its subsidiary 
after considering several factors and Timken supports the continued 
collapsing of JTEKT and its subsidiary. Timken argues that a majority-
share ownership or a company's ability to ``compel'' another company to 
share the other company's information with the company is not a 
necessary prerequisite to collapse two companies. JTEKT opposes our 
decision to collapse it with its subsidiary, arguing that JTEKT is not 
the parent of its subsidiary under the Commercial Code of Japan, 
Article 211-2, para. 3 (Law No. 48 of March 9, 1899) (hereafter Article 
211-2), which requires that a company own the majority share of another 
company to be a parent company of the other company. JTEKT argues that 
Ordinance No. 59 is for financial purposes only. Therefore, JTEKT 
claims, it cannot compel its subsidiary to share the subsidiary's 
confidential production and sales information with it.
    While Article 211-2 is silent on other circumstances in which JTEKT 
may be the parent company of another company, Ordinance No. 59 sets 
forth other specific circumstances in which JTEKT is the parent company 
of its subsidiary at issue and, therefore, controls its subsidiary's 
decision-making bodies that decide on the subsidiary's business 
policies, finance, and operations. The parent-subsidiary relationship 
and the business activities between these two companies confirm that 
JTEKT controls its subsidiary's decision-making bodies in view of their 
business, financial, and operational relationship. Therefore, we 
preliminarily find that JTEKT can compel its subsidiary to share its 
subsidiary's production and sales information with JTEKT.
    We continue to find that these two companies have intertwined 
operations and that a potential exists for JTEKT to manipulate prices 
and production of its subsidiary supplier, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.401(f)(2). Therefore, for purpose of these preliminary results, we 
continue to collapse these two companies for this review. See the 
analysis memorandum for JTEKT dated May 29, 2007, for further details 
that include reference to JTEKT's business-proprietary information.
    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 the Level of 
Trade section below.

Actual Costs

    Where the sale to an exporter or a reseller is of finished subject 
merchandise, the Department's practice is to rely on the COP or CV of 
the producer. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries From 
Chile, 70 FR 6618 (February 8, 2005), and the accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 3, and Notice of Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Individually Quick Frozen Red 
Raspberries from Chile, 72 FR 6524 (February 12, 2007), and the 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 8. Pursuant to 
section 773(e)(1) of the Act, CV shall be based upon the cost of 
materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind employed in 
producing the merchandise. See the Constructed Value section below.
    In our original questionnaire dated July 10, 2006, we instructed 
respondents that, if they met the requirement for providing COP or CV 
information, they were to respond to Question 8 of Appendix V of the 
questionnaire by July 31, 2006. In Question 8, we sought information 
concerning each respondent's total sales of bearings manufactured by 
unaffiliated suppliers, the suppliers' identities, and whether each 
respondent produced bearings that were the same as the bearings it 
purchased from the unaffiliated suppliers during the period of review. 
We requested this information to determine whether to require 
individual respondents to report their unaffiliated suppliers' actual 
COP or CV data. We clarified this request following questions from 
respondents. See the Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill, Office Director, 
entitled ``Sales of Merchandise Under Review Supplied by an 
Unaffiliated Producer in the 2005-2006 Review of the Antidumping Duty 
Order on Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, 
Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom,'' dated July 27, 2006.
    After analyzing the information we received from certain 
respondents in response to Question 8, we required Schaeffler Italy and 
SKF Germany to report COP/CV information for certain

[[Page 31276]]

of their unaffiliated suppliers. See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill 
entitled ``Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, 
Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Calculation of the Cost of 
Production and Constructed Value for Merchandise Produced by 
Unaffiliated Suppliers,'' dated September 7, 2006. (Since the issuance 
of the memorandum, we have rescinded the reviews of two other companies 
for which we made a similar determination.) In that same memorandum, we 
also stated that companies that had not responded to Question 8 would 
be required to report CV information of their unaffiliated suppliers if 
we were to determine that the calculation of their dumping margin 
necessitated the use of CV for normal value. We made the memorandum 
available to all respondents in these reviews.
    We received actual-cost information for the bearings SKF Germany 
and Schaeffler Italy had purchased from the respective suppliers we 
identified in our September 7, 2006, memoranda to the file entitled 
``Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Germany: SKF Germany's Sales of 
Merchandise Produced by Unaffiliated Suppliers'' and ``Ball Bearings 
and Parts Thereof from Italy: FAG Italy's Sales of Merchandise Produced 
by Unaffiliated Suppliers.'' Three of the respondents in the Japan 
review, Aisin Seiki, Canon, and Mori Seiki, did not respond to Question 
8 in a timely manner. Aisin Seiki, Canon, and Mori Seiki notified us in 
their original questionnaire responses dated October 4, 2006, October 
3, 2006, and September 27, 2006, respectively, that they had purchased 
all of their bearings from Japanese producers but did not report 
actual-cost information. Over the course of the review, we requested 
information from Aisin Seiki, Canon, and Mori Seiki about their 
purchases and cost information. They responded that, although they had 
asked their unaffiliated suppliers to provide the information, the 
unaffiliated suppliers refused to provide the actual-cost information 
for virtually all models these resellers sold.
    On March 30, 2007, we requested that all manufacturers that 
produced bearings in Japan and sold bearings to Aisin Seiki, Canon, and 
Mori Seiki, either directly or through an affiliated sales company, 
provide actual-cost information for such bearings. See letters to 
certain manufacturers from Laurie Parkhill dated March 30, 2007, in the 
file containing business-proprietary information in the Japan 
proceeding. These manufacturers submitted the required information and 
we used it, where necessary, in our margin calculations for the three 
firms. Where Aisin Seiki, Canon, and Mori Seiki did not purchase 
bearings directly from the manufacturers or an affiliated sales company 
but obtained the bearings from another unaffiliated party in the sales 
chain or where Aisin Seiki, Canon, and Mori Seiki purchased bearings 
from manufacturers or their affiliates but these suppliers did not 
produce the bearings, we used the prices at which the three firms 
acquired the bearings at issue, as needed, for our margin calculations. 
For Aisin Seiki, Canon, and Mori Seiki, we had all necessary actual or 
acquisition costs to complete our margin calculations.

Constructed Value

    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used CV as the 
basis for normal value when there were no usable sales of the foreign 
like product in the comparison market or, in the case of Aisin Seiki, 
where the company did not have a viable home or third-country market. 
We calculated CV 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 CV. 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 (with the 
exception of Aisin Seiki, which we describe below) 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 CV 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 CV. For comparisons to CEP, we made 
circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-market direct 
selling expenses from CV. We also made adjustments, when applicable, 
for home-market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in 
EP and CEP comparisons.
    When possible, we calculated CV at the same level of trade as the 
EP or CEP. If CV was calculated at a different level of trade, we made 
an adjustment, if appropriate and if possible, in accordance with 
sections 773(a)(7) and (8) of the Act.
    We calculated G&A expenses and interest expenses by obtaining rates 
for these items from Aisin Seiki's unconsolidated financial statements 
and applying them to the total costs, G&A, and interest expense of the 
bearing models Aisin Seiki sold to the United States. Because Aisin 
Seiki did not have a viable comparison market, in accordance with 
section 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, we calculated selling expenses and 
profit for Aisin Seiki's CV based on the weighted-average selling 
expenses and profit we calculated for the other exporters or producers 
subject to the review in connection with sales of the foreign like 
product, in the ordinary course of trade, in the foreign country. See 
the analysis memorandum for Aisin Seiki dated May 29, 2007, for a more 
detailed discussion of our calculation of CV for Aisin Seiki.

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 CV, the level of trade is that of the 
sales from which we derived SG&A and profit.
    To determine whether home-market sales are at a different level of 
trade than U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and 
selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer 
and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales were at a 
different level of trade 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 calculate 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

[[Page 31277]]

appropriate basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment. For 
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 so-called 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 entitled ``Antifriction Bearings and Parts 
Thereof from Various Countries - 2005/2006 Level-of-Trade Analysis,'' 
dated May 29, 2007, 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 from various countries exist for the period May 1, 
2005, through April 30, 2006:

                                 FRANCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Company                         Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF France..........................................                8.99
SNR.................................................               13.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 GERMANY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Company                              Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRW.................................................                0.35
Schaeffler Germany..................................                3.03
SKF Germany.........................................               11.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                  ITALY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Company                              Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schaeffler Italy....................................                1.60
SKF Italy...........................................                8.83
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                  JAPAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Company                              Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aisin Seiki.........................................                6.48
Asahi Seiko.........................................                1.28
Canon...............................................               10.50
JTEKT...............................................               15.85
Mori Seiki..........................................                1.93
Nachi...............................................               11.46
Nankai Seiko........................................                3.01
NPB.................................................               26.89
NSK.................................................                3.66
NTN.................................................                7.76
Osaka Pump..........................................                4.76
Sapporo.............................................                7.63
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                SINGAPORE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Company                              Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMB/Pelmec..........................................               12.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             UNITED KINGDOM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Company                              Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barden/Schaeffler UK................................                0.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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......................................                  July 2, 2007                  July 9, 2007
Germany.............................................                  July 3, 2007                 July 10, 2007
Italy...............................................                  July 5, 2007                 July 12, 2007
Singapore and United Kingdom........................                  July 5, 2007                 July 12, 2007
France..............................................                  July 6, 2007                 July 13, 2007
Japan...............................................                  July 9, 2007                 July 16, 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. We will issue instructions to CBP 
15 days after publication of the final results of these reviews.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 
of Antidumping Duties). 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 Assessment of Antidumping Duties.

[[Page 31278]]

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 
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, with the exception of ball bearings and parts thereof 
from Singapore for which the Department revoked the order effective 
July 11, 2005, 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 further 
notice.

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: May 29, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-10913 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S