[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25654-25663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-10078]



[[Page 25654]]

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

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 and Intent to Rescind Reviews 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 (ball bearings) from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the 
United Kingdom. The reviews cover 27 manufacturers/exporters. The 
period of review is May 1, 2006, through April 30, 2007.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
normal value by 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: May 7, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edythe Artman or Richard Rimlinger, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14\th\ Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3931 and (202) 482-4477, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 15, 1989, the Department published the antidumping duty 
orders on ball bearings from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the 
United Kingdom in the Federal Register (54 FR 20900). On June 29, 2007, 
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), we published a notice of 
initiation of administrative reviews of 163 companies subject to these 
orders. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part and Deferral of 
Administrative Review, 72 FR 35690 (June 29, 2007).
    On January 16, 2008, we extended the due date for the completion of 
these preliminary results of reviews from January 31, 2008, to April 
15, 2008. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, 
Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Extension of Time Limit for 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 73 FR 
2887 (January 16, 2008). On April 15, 2008, we extended the due date 
for the completion of the results from April 15, 2008, to April 30, 
2008. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, 
Japan, and the United Kingdom: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 73 FR 21311 (April 
21, 2008).
    For these administrative reviews, the period of review covered is 
May 1, 2006, through April 30, 2007. The Department is conducting these 
administrative reviews in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended (the Act).

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 these orders. For unfinished parts, such parts are 
included if they have been heat-treated or if 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 ``Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill'' regarding scope 
determinations, dated April 30, 2008, 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 2006-2007 reviews.

Intent to Rescind Reviews in Part

    We received a letter, dated June 21, 2007, from a company, Essex 
Nexans Europe SAS, on behalf its subsidiaries Essex Nexans SAS, Essex 
Nexans L&K GmbH, and Essex International Ltd., in which it stated that 
Essex Nexans and its subsidiaries did not manufacture, sell, or ship 
ball bearings of French, German, Italian, or U.K. origin to the United 
States during the period of review. We also received letters of no 
shipments from IKN GmbH and WWC Service-Center GmbH concerning ball 
bearings from France, Germany, Italy, or the United Kingdom. We have 
received no comments on the submissions from the three companies. 
Because we preliminarily find that Essex Nexans Europe SAS and its 
subsidiaries, IKN GmbH, and WWC Service-Center GmbH had no shipments of 
subject merchandise during the period of review, we intend to rescind 
the

[[Page 25655]]

administrative reviews with respect to these companies. If we continue 
to find at the time of our final results that they had no shipments of 
ball bearings from France, Germany, Italy, or the United Kingdom, we 
will rescind the reviews of these companies.

Selection of Respondents

    Due to the large number of companies in the reviews and the 
resulting administrative burden to review each company for which a 
request had been made and not withdrawn, the Department exercised its 
authority to limit the number of respondents selected for the reviews. 
Where it is not practicable to examine all known exporters/producers of 
subject merchandise because of the large number of such companies, 
section 777A(c)(2) of the Act, allows the Department to limit its 
examination to either a sample of exporters, producers, or types of 
products that is statistically valid, based on the information 
available at the time of selection, or exporters and producers 
accounting for the largest volume of subject merchandise from the 
exporting country that can be reasonably examined.
    Accordingly, in June 2007 we requested information concerning the 
quantity and value of sales to the United States from the 163 
exporters/producers listed in the initiation notice. We received 
responses from most of the exporters/producers in June and July of 
2007. A number of the companies indicated that they had no shipments of 
the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of 
review. A number of the companies indicated that they were affiliated 
with other companies for which we had initiated administrative reviews, 
and these companies and their affiliates reported their sales to the 
United States collectively. Some of the companies withdrew their 
requests for review prior to our selection of respondents for 
individual examination. Finally, three companies, Christian Feddersen 
GmbH & Co. KG, Lentz & Schmahl GmbH, and Societe Nexans, for which we 
initiated reviews subject to the orders on France, Germany, Italy, and 
the United Kingdom, did not respond to our questionnaire. Based on our 
analysis of the responses and our available resources, we chose to 
examine the sales of the following companies:
France:
    [ast] SKF France S.A. and SFK Aerospace France S.A.S. (SKF France)
Germany:
    [ast] Gebr[uuml]der Reinfurt GmbH & Co., KG (GRW)
    [ast] SKF GmbH (SKF Germany)
Italy:
    [ast] SKF RIV-SKF Officine di Villas Perosa S.p.A.; SKF Industrie 
S.p.A.; RFT S.p.A.; OMVP S.p.A. (collectively SKF Italy)
Japan:
    [ast] JTEKT Corporation (formerly known as Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd.) 
(JTEKT)
    [ast] NTN Corporation (NTN)
United Kingdom:
    [ast] 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)
See order-specific memoranda to Laurie Parkhill regarding respondent 
selection, dated August 14, 2007, for the detailed analysis of the 
selection process for each country-specific review.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Subsequent to our selection of respondents, two of the U.K. 
companies, Molins PLC and NSK Bearings Europe, and one of the 
Japanese companies, NSK Ltd., withdrew their requests for a review 
and we rescinded the reviews of these companies. See 72 FR 64577 
(November 16, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the responding companies which remain under review and which we did 
not select for individual examination, we have either calculated a 
simple average of the weighted-average margins of the two selected 
respondents in a review (Japan) or assigned the weighted-average margin 
of a sole selected respondent in a review (United Kingdom). Thus, based 
on our preliminary margin calculations, we have calculated a margin of 
10.30 percent for non-selected respondents from Japan. See Memorandum 
to Laurie Parkhill regarding the calculation of a simple-average margin 
for the Japan proceeding, dated April 30, 2008.
    For the U.K. review, while we have applied, for these preliminary 
results, the rate of 0.28 percent calculated for the sole respondent 
selected for individual examination, Barden/Schaeffler UK, to the 
company not individually examined, Rolls Royce, we invite comments from 
interested parties regarding the methodology to be used to determine 
the rate for the non-examined company. Specifically, we invite 
interested parties to comment on the rate to be applied to the non-
examined company, considering, but not limited to, the following 
factors: (a) the Department has limited its examination of respondents 
pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act; (b) section 735(c)(5) of 
the Act provides that, with some exceptions, the all-others rate in an 
investigation is to be calculated excluding any margins that are zero, 
de minimis, or based entirely on facts available; (c) the Statement of 
Administrative Action states that, with respect to the calculation of 
the all-others rate in such cases, ``the expected method will be to 
weight-average the zero and de minimis margins and margins determined 
pursuant to the facts available, provided that volume data is 
available. However, if this method is not feasible, or if it results in 
an average that would not be reasonably reflective of potential dumping 
margins for non-investigated exporters or producers, Commerce may use 
other reasonable methods.'' See Statement of Administrative Action 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, 
vol.1 (1994) at 870 (SAA) at 873.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we have verified 
information provided by Barden/Schaeffler UK in the administrative 
review of the order on ball bearings from the United Kingdom using 
standard verification procedures, including the examination of relevant 
sales and financial records and the selection and review of original 
documentation containing relevant information. Our verification results 
are outlined in the public version of our Barden/Schaeffler UK 
verification report, which is on file in the CRU, room 1117 of the main 
Department building.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    For the reasons discussed below, we determine that the use of 
adverse facts available (AFA) is appropriate for the preliminary 
results of reviews with respect to four companies.

A. Use of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
withholds information requested by the administering authority, fails 
to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the 
information and in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections 
(c)(1) and (e) of section 782, significantly impedes a proceeding under 
this title, or provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified as provided in 782(i), the administering authority shall use, 
subject to section 782(d) of the Act, facts otherwise available in 
reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(d) of the Act 
provides that, if the administering authority determines that a 
response to a request for information does not comply with the request, 
the

[[Page 25656]]

administering authority shall promptly inform the responding party and, 
to the extent practicable, provide an opportunity to remedy the 
deficient submission. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency 
within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to 
section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of the original and 
subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act 
provides that the Department ``shall not decline to consider 
information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary 
to the determination but does not meet all the applicable requirements 
established by the administering authority'' if the information is 
timely, can be verified, and is not so incomplete that it cannot be 
used, and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in 
providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the 
statute requires the Department to use the information, if it can do so 
without undue difficulties.
    As discussed above, in June 2007, we requested information 
concerning the quantity and value of sales to the United States from 
each of the exporters/producers listed in the initiation notice for the 
current reviews. Three companies, Christian Feddersen GmbH & Co. KG, 
Lentz & Schmahl GmbH, and Societe Nexans, did not respond to our 
request concerning their sales or exports of ball bearings from France, 
Italy, Germany and the United Kingdom. Because these companies did not 
respond to our request, we could neither consider them in our selection 
of respondents for individual examination nor complete any 
administrative reviews of the companies. Because these companies have 
failed to provide the information requested and thus have significantly 
impeded the respective proceedings, we find that we must base their 
margins on the use of facts otherwise available. See section 776(a) of 
the Act.
    Additionally, we find that it is appropriate to use facts otherwise 
available for certain U.S. sales made by SKF Germany for which SKF 
Germany was not the producer and for which the producer failed to 
provide cost-of-production (COP) information by the deadline for 
submission of the information. The Department's practice is to use the 
actual production costs of unaffiliated suppliers in lieu of the 
exporter's acquisition costs to calculate COP and constructed value and 
is extending this practice, where appropriate, to the reviews of the 
orders on ball bearings. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from 
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Rescission of 
Review in Part, 72 FR 58053 (October 12, 2007) (AFBs 17), and 
accompanying Decision Memorandum, at Comment 17. See also Notice of 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Final 
Determination to Revoke the Order in Part: Individually Quick Frozen 
Red Raspberries from Chile, 72 FR 70295 (December 11, 2007) (Final-
Raspberries from Chile).
    SKF Germany's supplier is an interested party because it is a 
producer of the subject merchandise. See sections 771(9)(A) and 771(28) 
of the Act. Further, section 771(28) of the Act states that, 
``{f{time} or purposes of section 773 of the Act, the term exporter or 
producer' includes both the exporter of the subject merchandise and the 
producer of the same subject merchandise to the extent necessary to 
accurately calculate the total amount incurred and realized for costs, 
expenses, and profits in connection with production and sales of that 
merchandise.'' Id. In addition, the SAA at 835 explains that ``the 
purpose of section 771(28) . . . is to clarify that where different 
firms perform the production and selling functions, Commerce may 
include the costs, expenses, and profits of each firm in calculating 
cost of production and constructed value.'' Id.
    On November 6, 2007, we determined that SKF Germany should report 
the actual COP for bearings it purchased from its largest supplier.\2\ 
Accordingly, on November 7, 2007, we requested that SKF Germany 
coordinate with its largest supplier and report the actual COP data for 
those bearings SKF Germany purchased during the period of review. On 
November 14, 2007, SKF Germany stated that it had conferred with its 
supplier and that, for reasons SKF designated as proprietary, its 
supplier would not be able to provide any cost data for the period of 
review. On November 28, 2007, we sent a letter to SKF Germany's 
supplier requesting that it coordinate with SKF Germany and report the 
actual COP data for those bearings purchased by SKF Germany during the 
period of review. The response deadline was January 3, 2008. We 
received no response by the deadline and no extension of the deadline 
was requested by any party. On January 8, 2008, we received an untimely 
submission from the supplier which did not include the actual COP for 
the period of review. On January 31, 2008, consistent with 19 CFR 
351.302(d) and 19 CFR 351.104(a)(2), we rejected the supplier's 
submission as untimely and informed it that we would not consider the 
information in our final results. On February 1, 2008, the supplier 
submitted a letter in which, although it acknowledged that it 
``neglected to submit the requested data by the due date or request an 
extension to do so,'' it requested that we reconsider our decision for 
rejecting its submission. See Letter to Laurie Parkhill, dated February 
1, 2008. On March 3, 2008, we responded to the supplier, reaffirming 
our decision to reject its COP data as untimely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill regarding the calculation 
of the cost of production and constructed value for merchandise 
produced by unaffiliated suppliers, dated November 6, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, if the 
Department finds that an interested party ``fails to provide such 
information by the deadlines for submission of the information or in 
the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of 
section 782, the administering authority and the Commission shall, 
subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in 
reaching the applicable determination under this title.'' Section 
782(c)(1) of the Act is not applicable because SKF Germany's supplier 
did not notify the Department that it would be unable to provide the 
COP information as requested in our November 28, 2007, letter. Further, 
sections 782(e) and (d) of the Act are not applicable because the 
requested information was not submitted by the established deadline. 
Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, because SKF 
Germany's supplier did not provide the relevant COP information by the 
established deadline, we find that use the facts otherwise available is 
warranted.
    In addition, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, if the 
Department finds that ``an interested party failed to cooperate by not 
acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information,'' an adverse inference may be used in determining the 
facts otherwise available. Because SKF Germany's supplier, which, as a 
producer of subject merchandise and an interested party in this 
proceeding, did not act to the best of its ability by failing to 
provide the COP information by the deadline, we preliminarily find that 
it is appropriate to make an adverse inference pursuant to section 
776(b) of the Act with respect to the bearings that SKF Germany 
purchased from that supplier and sold in the United States. Thus, for 
the sales of those bearings, we have applied an AFA rate in place of 
rates for those sales that, if we had the

[[Page 25657]]

cost information, would be based on the normal value of the bearings.

B. Application of Adverse Inferences for Facts Available

    In applying the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the 
Act provides that, if the administering authority 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 from the 
administering authority, in reaching the applicable determination under 
this title, the administering authority may use an inference adverse to 
the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise 
available. See, e.g., Final-Raspberries from Chile, 72 FR at 70297; 
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Circular Welded 
Carbon-Quality Line Pipe From Mexico, 69 FR 59892, 59896 (October 6, 
2004).
    Adverse inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does 
not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it 
had cooperated fully.'' See Notice of Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Notice of Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Notice of Intent to Revoke in 
Part: Certain Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile, 72 
FR 44112 (August 7, 2007) (Prelim- Raspberries from Chile) (unchanged 
in Final-Raspberries from Chile, 72 FR at 70297). See also SAA at 870. 
Further, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a 
respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse 
inference.'' See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 
27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). See also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United 
States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1380-84 (CAFC 2003).
    Because the non-responding companies Christian Feddersen GmbH & Co. 
KG, Lentz & Schmahl GmbH, and Societe Nexans - could have provided data 
concerning the quantity and value of their sales of subject merchandise 
to the United States during the period of review but did not do so, we 
determine that they have failed to cooperate by not acting to the best 
of their ability. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews, Rescission of Administrative Reviews in Part, and 
Determination to Revoke Order in Part: Antifriction Bearings and Parts 
Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United 
Kingdom, 69 FR 55574 (September 15, 2004) (AFBs 14). We informed them 
in our requests for information that, if they did not respond, we may 
proceed on the basis of the use of the facts available. Therefore, we 
conclude that the use of an adverse inference is warranted in applying 
the use of facts otherwise available to these companies.
    Furthermore, with respect to SKF Germany and its largest supplier, 
although we provided SKF Germany's supplier with notice informing it of 
the consequences of its failure to respond adequately to our request 
for its COP data (see our November 28, 2007, letter), it did not 
provide us with the relevant cost data in a timely manner. This 
constitutes a failure of the supplier to cooperate to the best of its 
ability to comply with a request for information by the Department 
within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. Further, because we 
rejected the supplier's submission as untimely, there is no information 
on the record for us to consider and, therefore, section 782(e) of the 
Act is not applicable. Based on the above, we have preliminarily 
determined that SKF Germany's largest supplier, as a producer of 
subject merchandise, failed to cooperate to the best of its ability 
and, therefore, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, 
an adverse inference is warranted. See Prelim-Raspberries from Chile, 
72 FR 44114 (unchanged in Final-Raspberries from Chile, 72 FR at 
70297). See also Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, Notice of Intent to Revoke in Part: Individually 
Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile, 71 FR 45000 (August 8, 2006) 
(unchanged in Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, and Final Determination to Revoke the Order In 
Part: Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile (72 FR 6524, 
February 12, 2007)).

C. Selection and Corroboration of Information Used as Facts Available

    As facts available with an adverse inference, we have selected the 
rates of 66.42 percent for France, 70.41 percent for Germany, 69.99 
percent for Italy, and 60.15 percent for the United Kingdom.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
corroborate, to the extent practicable, secondary information used for 
facts available by reviewing independent sources reasonably at its 
disposal. Information from a prior segment of the proceeding 
constitutes secondary information. See SAA at 870. The word 
``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that the 
secondary information to be used has probative value. Id. To 
corroborate secondary information, the Department will examine, to the 
extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of the information 
used. Unlike other types of information such as input costs or selling 
expenses, however, there are no independent sources for calculated 
dumping margins. The only source for margins is administrative 
determinations. Thus, with respect to an administrative review, if the 
Department chooses as facts available a calculated dumping margin from 
a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question the 
reliability of the margin for that time period. AFBs 14, 69 FR at 
55577. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to 
whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not 
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not 
appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and 
determine an appropriate margin. See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 
6814 (February 22, 1996), where the Department disregarded the highest 
dumping margin as best information available because the margin was 
based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting 
in an unusually high margin.
    We find that the rates we are using for these preliminary results 
have probative value. For France and Italy, we corroborated the highest 
rates calculated in the respective less-than-fair-value investigations. 
As there is no information on the record of these reviews that 
demonstrates that the rates selected are not appropriate AFA rates for 
the non-responsive firms, we preliminarily determine that the rates of 
66.42 percent and 69.99 percent for France and Italy, respectively, 
have probative value and, therefore, are appropriate rates for use as 
AFA. For the United Kingdom, while the highest rate calculated in the 
proceeding was 61.14 percent, in this review we have no transaction-
specific margins with which to corroborate this rate. We can 
corroborate 58.20 percent from the 1996/1997 review of the order 
(Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 
Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, 
and the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 33320, (June 18, 1998)) because it fell 
within the range of margins we calculated for this administrative 
review and, thus, we have selected this rate as the AFA rate for the 
United Kingdom.
    For Germany, the selected AFA rate of 70.41 percent is the highest 
rate ever

[[Page 25658]]

calculated for a company in any segment of this proceeding.\3\ Because 
the producer of certain merchandise SKF Germany sold to the United 
States did not provide us with the actual COP data for this review, we 
examined individual transactions made by SKF Germany of merchandise it 
purchased from the same supplier in the immediately preceding (2005-06) 
administrative review and the margins on those transactions in order to 
determine whether the rate of 70.41 percent was probative. See 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Stainless Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Korea, 72 FR 32074 (June 
11, 2007) (unchanged in Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of 
Korea, 72 FR 46035 (August 16, 2007)). We found a number of sales with 
dumping margins falling either above or below the rate of 70.41 
percent. Therefore, we preliminarily find that this rate is 
corroborated to the extent practicable. See Ta Chen Stainless Steel 
Pipe, Inc. vs. United States, 298 F.3d 1330, 1340 (CAFC 2002) 
(``Because Commerce selected a dumping margin within the range of Ta 
Chen's actual sales data, we cannot conclude that Commerce `overreached 
reality'.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The rate of 70.41 percent is the weighted-average margin we 
calculated for FAG during the original investigation. See 
Antidumping Duty Orders: Ball Bearings, Cylindrical Roller Bearings, 
and Spherical Plain Bearings and Parts Thereof From the Federal 
Republic of Germany, 54 FR 20900 (May 15, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For more detail concerning the selection of an AFA rate, see the 
country-specific Memoranda to Laurie Parkhill regarding corroboration 
of the respective AFA rates, dated April 30, 2008.

The SKF Group's Acquisition of Bearing Manufacturers

    On July 4, 2006, the SKF Group\4\ acquired Somecat S.p.A. (Somecat) 
in Italy and SNFA S.A.S.U. (SNFA) in France. Both Somecat and SNFA had 
been revoked previously from the antidumping duty orders covering ball 
bearings from Italy and France, respectively. See Antifriction Bearings 
(Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et 
al.; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Revocation of Orders in Part, 65 FR 49219, 49221 (August 11, 2000). 
During the course of these administrative reviews, we have reviewed the 
changes that have transpired since the acquisition of these companies 
during the period of review by the SKF Group with respect to ball 
bearings produced in Italy by Somecat and SKF Italy and ball bearings 
produced in France by SNFA and SKF France for purposes of determining 
whether it is appropriate to collapse these companies in our reviews of 
the respective antidumping duty orders covering this merchandise. 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1), we have preliminarily determined that 
SKF France and SNFA should not be collapsed for purposes of our 
antidumping analysis in this review; we have also preliminarily 
determined that Somecat and SKF Italy should be collapsed for purposes 
of our antidumping analysis in this review. Due to the business-
proprietary nature of these decisions, details are provided in country-
specific Memoranda to Laurie Parkhill regarding the collapsing of 
entities, dated April 30, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ SKF Italy and SKF France are part of the SKF Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department normally requests sales and cost data from the 
entities that the Department determines to collapse in a review. In 
this case, we have insufficient time to request, obtain, and analyze 
the necessary sales and cost data to collapse Somecat and SKF Italy 
fully at this stage of the administrative review. Therefore, we have 
not asked Somecat and SKF Italy to provide the necessary sales and cost 
data for this review but we expect to request Somecat and SKF Italy to 
provide the necessary data for both companies in the next 
administrative review.
    Effective on the publication date of these preliminary results, we 
will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation and collect a cash deposit of 
estimated antidumping duties on entries of merchandise produced or 
exported by Somecat at the weighted-average margin we have calculated 
for the preliminary results of review for SKF Italy.

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 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 14, 2006 - May 20, 2006; July 2, 2006 - July 8, 2006; October 22, 
2006 - October 28, 2006; December 10, 2006 - December 16, 2006; January 
21, 2007 - January 27, 2007; April 1, 2006 - April 7, 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.
    Consistent with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and the SAA at 823-
824, we calculated the CEP by deducting selling expenses associated 
with economic activities occurring in the United States, 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. Finally, we made an 
adjustment for profit allocated to these expenses in accordance with 
section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
    With respect to subject merchandise to which value was added in the 
United States prior to sale to unaffiliated U.S. customers, e.g., parts 
of bearings that were imported by U.S. affiliates of foreign exporters 
and then further processed into other products which were then sold to 
unaffiliated parties, we determined that the special rule for 
merchandise with value added after importation under section 772(e) of 
the Act applied to all firms that added value in the United States.
    Section 772(e) of the Act provides that, when the subject 
merchandise is imported by an affiliated person and the value added in 
the United States by the affiliated person is likely to exceed 
substantially the value of the subject merchandise, we shall determine 
the

[[Page 25659]]

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 the 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. See 19 CFR 351.402(c) for an 
explanation of our practice on this issue. Therefore, we preliminarily 
determine that the value added is likely to exceed substantially the 
value of the subject merchandise for SKF France, SKF Germany, SKF 
Italy, JTEKT, NTN, and Barden/Schaeffler UK. 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. For analysis of the further-manufactured sales, 
see the company-specific analysis memoranda, dated April 30, 2008. 
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 the calculation of NTN's dumping margin, we did not include any 
zero-priced transactions in our analysis and there was no other record 
evidence indicating that NTN received consideration for these 
transactions; we did include in our analysis 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. We 
also accounted for NTN's re-calculation of its inventory carrying costs 
incurred in Japan for NTN's EP and CEP sales that it submitted in its 
response to our supplemental questionnaire. Pursuant to a supplemental 
questionnaire, NTN provided us with factors that we used to recalculate 
the EP expenses, repacking, and inventory carrying costs.
    There were no other claimed or allowed adjustments to EP or CEP 
sales by other respondents.

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. 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 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, May, 
July, October, and December 2006 and January, April, and May 2007.
    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 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 2005-2006 reviews with respect to ball bearings 
produced in the respective countries and sold by the following firms: 
SKF France; SKF Germany, GRW (Germany); SKF Italy; JTEKT, NTN (Japan); 
Barden/Schaeffler UK. See AFBs 17, 72 FR at 58054. These reviews 
represent the last completed segment for each respondent selected for 
individual examination. Therefore, for the instant review, 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 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 respective home markets.
    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

[[Page 25660]]

sales and COP information provided by each respondent in its 
questionnaire responses.
    After calculating the COP and 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 SKF France, SKF Germany, GRW, SKF Italy, JTEKT, 
NTN, and Barden/Schaeffler UK, dated April 30, 2008. Based on this 
test, we disregarded below-cost sales with respect to SKF France, SKF 
Germany, GRW, SKF Italy, JTEKT, NTN, and Barden/Schaeffler UK.

Model-Match Methodology

    For all respondents, 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 Ball 
Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 54711 (September 16, 2005) (AFBs 15), and 
the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 2, 3, 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. Furthermore, 
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 accounted for 
NTN's re-calculation of its inventory carrying costs incurred in the 
home market for its home-market sales that it submitted in its response 
to our supplemental questionnaire.
    For JTEKT, consistent with prior reviews, 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, 
e.g., AFBs 14, and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 21, and 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, 72 FR 31271 (June 6, 2007) (Preliminary AFBs 17) at 72 FR 31275, 
unchanged in AFBs 17.
    In the two most recent administrative reviews of JTEKT, we examined 
the relationship between JTEKT and one of its affiliated home-market 
firms and determined that it was appropriate to collapse the two 
companies as one entity. See, e.g., AFBs 16 at Comment 18 and 
Preliminary AFBs 17, 72 FR at 31275, unchanged in AFBs 17. Upon 
examining the relationship between the two companies in this review, we 
have determined that it is appropriate to continue to collapse these 
two companies. See the preliminary analysis memorandum for JTEKT, dated 
April 30, 2008, for further details that include reference to JTEKT's 
business-proprietary information.
    Finally, with respect to JTEKT, consistent with our determination 
in AFBs 17 (see the final analysis memorandum for JTEKT, dated October 
4, 2007, at page 2), we revised its calculation of inventory carrying 
costs (ICCs) incurred in the home market so that the ICCs for home-
market sales are calculated on the same basis as the ICCs for U.S. 
sales. See the preliminary analysis memorandum for JTEKT, dated April 
30, 2008, for details of this recalculation.

[[Page 25661]]

    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.

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 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 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 first 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 
entitled ``Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Various Countries: 
2006/2007 Level-of-Trade Analysis,'' dated April 30, 2008, on file in 
the CRU, room 1117.

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, 
2006, through April 30, 2007:

                                 France
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                           Company                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Feddersen GmbH & Co. KG...........................       66.42
Lentz & Schmahl GmbH........................................       66.42
SKF France..................................................       11.17
Societe Nexans..............................................       66.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 Germany
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Company                              Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Feddersen GmbH & Co. KG...........................       70.41
GRW.........................................................        0.12
Lentz & Schmahl GmbH........................................       70.41
SKF Germany.................................................       12.41
Societe Nexans..............................................       70.41
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                  Italy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Company                              Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Feddersen GmbH & Co. KG...........................       69.99
Lentz & Schmahl GmbH........................................       69.99
SKF Italy (and Somecat).....................................        7.06
Societe Nexans..............................................       69.99
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                  Japan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Company                              Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aisin Seiki Company, Ltd....................................       10.30
Canon, Inc..................................................       10.30
JTEKT.......................................................        8.02
Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp........................................       10.30
Nippon Pillow Block Company Ltd.............................       10.30
NTN.........................................................       12.58
Sapporo Precision, Inc......................................       10.30
Toyota Motor Corp./Toyota Industries Corp...................       10.30
Yamazaki Mazak Trading Company..............................       10.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             United Kingdom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Company                              Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barden/Schaeffler UK........................................        0.28
Christian Feddersen GmbH & Co. KG...........................       58.20
Lentz & Schmahl GmbH........................................       58.20
Rolls Royce PLC.............................................        0.28
Societe Nexans..............................................       58.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 25662]]

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....................................                  June 11, 2008                  June 18, 2008
France............................................                  June 12, 2008                  June 19, 2008
Germany...........................................                  June 13, 2008                  June 20, 2008
Italy.............................................                  June 16, 2008                  June 23, 2008
Japan.............................................                  June 17, 2008                  June 24, 2008
United Kingdom....................................                  June 18, 2008                  June 25, 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 as described below. 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.
    For the responsive companies which were not selected for individual 
review, we will instruct CBP to apply the rates listed above to all 
entries of subject merchandise from such firms.
    For companies for which we are relying on total AFA to establish a 
dumping margin, we will instruct CBP to apply the assigned dumping 
margins to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR that were 
produced or exported by the companies.

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, 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

[[Page 25663]]

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 and Partial Termination of Administrative 
Reviews, 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.
    Effective the publication date of these preliminary results, we 
will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation and collect a cash deposit of 
estimated antidumping duties on entries of merchandise produced or 
exported by Somecat at the weighted-average margin we have calculated 
for the preliminary results of review for SKF Italy.

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: April 30, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-10078 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S