[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33159-33165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13565]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-427-801, A-428-801, A-475-801]


Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, and Italy: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 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 from France, Germany, and Italy for the period May 1, 2010, 
through April 30, 2011. We have preliminarily determined that sales 
have been made below normal value by certain companies subject to these 
reviews. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results.

DATES: Effective Date: June 5, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hermes Pinilla, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3477.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 15, 1989, the Department published the antidumping duty 
orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from France (54 FR 20902), 
Germany (54 FR 20900), and Italy (54 FR 20903) in the

[[Page 33160]]

Federal Register. On June 28, 2011, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.221(b), we published a notice of initiation of administrative 
reviews of 89 companies subject to these orders. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request 
for Revocation in Part, 76 FR 37781 (June 28, 2011).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On July 16, 2011, we revoked the antidumping duty orders 
with respect to ball bearings and parts thereof from Japan and the 
United Kingdom. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan and 
the United Kingdom: Revocation of Antidumping Duty Orders, 76 FR 
41761 (July 15, 2011). In the Federal Register notice we indicated 
that, as a result of the revocation, the Department is discontinuing 
all unfinished administrative reviews immediately and will not 
initiate any new administrative reviews of the orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 18, 2012, we issued a notice of extension of the 
deadline for completion of the preliminary results of reviews from 
January 31, 2012, to April 2, 2012. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof 
From France, Germany, and Italy: Extension of Time Limit for 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 77 FR 
2511 (January 18, 2012). On March 21, 2012, we issued a second notice 
of extension of the deadline for completion of the preliminary results 
of reviews from April 2, 2012, to May 30, 2012. See Ball Bearings and 
Parts Thereof From France, Germany, and Italy: Extension of Time Limit 
for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 77 
FR 16537 (March 21, 2012).
    The period of review is May 1, 2010, through April 30, 2011. The 
Department is conducting these administrative reviews in accordance 
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of the Orders

    The products covered by the orders are ball 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 Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 
3926.90.45, 4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.19.50.10, 8414.90.41.75, 
8431.20.00, 8431.39.00.10, 8482.10.10, 8482.10.50, 8482.80.00, 
8482.91.00, 8482.99.05, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.25.80, 8482.99.65.95, 
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, 
8708.93.60.00, 8708.99.06, 8708.99.31.00, 8708.99.40.00, 8708.99.49.60, 
8708.99.58, 8708.99.80.15, 8708.99.80.80, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 
8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, 8803.90.90, 8708.30.50.90, 8708.40.75.70, 
8708.40.75.80, 8708.50.79.00, 8708.50.89.00, 8708.50.91.50, 
8708.50.99.00, 8708.70.60.60, 8708.80.65.90, 8708.93.75.00, 8708.94.75, 
8708.95.20.00, 8708.99.55.00, 8708.99.68, and 8708.99.81.80.
    Although the HTSUS item numbers above are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, the written descriptions of the scope of the 
orders remain dispositive.
    The size or precision grade of a bearing does not influence whether 
the bearing is covered by one of the orders. The 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 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 the 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 the orders.
    For a list of scope determinations which pertain to the orders, see 
the ``Memorandum to Minoo Hatten'' regarding scope determinations for 
the 2010/2011 reviews, dated concurrently with this notice, which is on 
file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) of the main Commerce building, 
room 7046.

Selection of Respondents for Individual Examination

    Due to the large number of companies in these reviews and the 
resulting administrative burden of examining each company for which a 
request was made and not withdrawn, the Department exercised its 
authority to limit the number of respondents selected for individual 
examination in these 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, on July 6, 2011, we requested information concerning 
the quantity and value of sales to the United States from the 89 
exporters/producers for which we had initiated reviews. We received 
responses from most of the exporters/producers subject to the reviews; 
some companies withdrew their requests for review.\2\ Based on our 
analysis of the responses and our available resources, we chose to 
examine the sales of certain companies. See Memoranda to Laurie 
Parkhill, dated August 8, 2011, for a detailed analysis of the 
selection process for each country-specific review. We selected the 
following companies for individual examination:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See ``Rescission of Reviews in Part'' section below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Country                              Company
------------------------------------------------------------------------
France.................................  Eurocopter S.A.S.
                                         NTN-SNR Roulements S.A. (NTN-
                                          SNR) (formerly SNR Roulements
                                          S.A./SNR Europe).
Germany................................  Volkswagen Zubehor GmbH,
                                          Volkswagen AG, myonic GmbH
                                          (myonic).
Italy..................................  SKF Italy.
                                         Schaeffler Italia S.r.l.
                                          (formerly FAG Italia
                                          S.p.A.).\3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rescission of Reviews in Part

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d), the Department will rescind 
an administrative review in part ``if a party that requested a review 
withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of the publication of 
notice of initiation of the requested review.'' Subsequent to the 
initiation of these reviews, we received timely withdrawals of the 
requests we had received for the reviews as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We initiated on WBP Pump Bearing GmbH & Co. KG as well.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Country                              Company
------------------------------------------------------------------------
France.................................  Eurocopter S.A.S., Kongskilde
                                          Limited, SKF France.

[[Page 33161]]

 
Germany................................  Audi AG, Kongskilde Limited,
                                          Schaeffler KG, Schaeffler
                                          Technologies GmbH & Co. KG,
                                          SKF GmbH, Volkswagen AG,
                                          Volkswagen Zubehor GmbH.
Italy..................................  Eurocopter S.A.S., Kongskilde
                                          Limited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rates for Respondents Not Selected for Individual Examination

    Generally we have looked to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which 
provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an 
investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents 
not selected for individual review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act 
instructs that we are not to calculate an all-others rate using any 
zero or de minimis margins or any margins based on total facts 
available. Accordingly, the Department's usual practice has been to 
average the rates for the selected companies excluding zero, de 
minimis, and rates based entirely on facts available. See Ball Bearings 
and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United 
Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Rescission of Reviews in Part, 73 FR 52823, 52824 (September 11, 2008), 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 16 (AFBs 
2008). Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act also provides that, where all 
margins are zero, de minimis, or based on total facts available, we may 
use ``any reasonable method'' for assigning the rate to non-selected 
respondents. One method that section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act 
contemplates as a possible method is ``averaging the estimated weighted 
average dumping margins determined for the exporters and producers 
individually investigated.''
    In these reviews, we have calculated zero or de minimis weighted-
average dumping margins for all companies selected as mandatory 
respondents. In previous cases, the Department has determined that a 
``reasonable method'' to use when, as here, the rates of the 
respondents selected for individual examination are zero or de minimis 
is to apply to those companies not selected for individual examination 
the average of the most recently determined rates that are not zero, de 
minimis, or based entirely on facts available (which may be from a 
prior review or new shipper review). See AFBs 2008 and accompanying 
Issue and Decision Memorandum at Comment 16. If any such non-selected 
company had its own calculated rate that is contemporaneous with or 
more recent than such prior determined rates, however, the Department 
has applied such individual rate to the non-selected company in the 
review in question, including when that rate is zero or de minimis. Id. 
However, all prior rates for this proceeding were calculated using the 
Department's zeroing methodology. The Department has stated that it 
will not use its zeroing methodology in administrative reviews with 
preliminary determinations issued after April 16, 2012. See Antidumping 
Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted Average Dumping Margin and 
Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 
77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012) (Final Modification for Reviews). 
Therefore, we will not apply any rates calculated in prior reviews to 
the non-selected companies in these reviews. Based on this, and in 
accordance with the statute, we determine that a reasonable method for 
determining the weighted-average dumping margins for the non-selected 
respondents in these reviews is to average the weighted-average dumping 
margins calculated for the mandatory respondents or to assign the rate 
calculated for the sole mandatory respondent, where applicable.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we have verified 
information provided by NTN-SNR. We conducted this verification 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 verification report,\4\ which 
is on file electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). 
Access to IA ACCESS is available in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 
of the main Department of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Memorandum to file from Yang Jin Chun and Sandra Stewart 
entitled, ``Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France: 
Verification Report for NTN-SNR Roulement S.A.'s Sales,'' dated 
February 27, 2012 (NTN-SNR's verification report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the home market sales verification of NTN-SNR, we requested 
that the company present specific information and source documentation 
substantiating the rebates that it claims it granted to certain 
customers. The company was not able to do so. Thus, for the preliminary 
results, we denied an offset for all customer-specific rebates NTN-SNR 
reported. See NTN-SNR's verification report and preliminary analysis 
memorandum for further discussion.

Targeted Dumping Allegations

    The Department received targeted dumping allegations from the 
petitioner concerning NTN-SNR, myonic, Schaeffler Italia S.r.l, and SKF 
Italy. Specifically, the petitioner states that it conducted its own 
targeted dumping analysis of the U.S. sales of these companies using 
the Department's targeted dumping methodology. Based on its own 
analysis, the petitioner argues that the Department should conduct 
targeted dumping analyses and employ average-to-transaction comparisons 
without offsets should the Department find targeted dumping. NTN-SNR, 
Schaeffler Italia S.r.l, and SKF Italy argue that the Department does 
not have the statutory authority to apply a targeted dumping analysis 
in an administrative review. Myonic argues that the petitioner's 
targeted dumping allegation does not provide sufficient grounds for 
using a comparison methodology different than the Department's standard 
comparison methodology, i.e., comparing monthly weighted-average normal 
values to monthly weighted-average export prices, because the value of 
targeted dumping alleged by the petitioner is immaterial. See myonic's 
May 3, 2012, comments at 2.
    NTN-SNR, myonic, Schaeffler Italia S.r.l, and SKF Italy contend 
that the Department should use an average-to-average comparison 
methodology or, if it does use an average-to-transaction comparison 
methodology, it should not apply zeroing but should grant offsets for 
non-dumped comparisons.
    For purposes of these preliminary results the Department did not 
conduct a targeted dumping analysis. In calculating the preliminary 
weighted-average dumping margins for the mandatory respondents, the 
Department applied the calculation methodology adopted in Final 
Modification for Reviews. In particular, the Department compared 
monthly weighted-average export prices (EPs) (or constructed export 
prices (CEPs)) with monthly weighted-average normal values and granted 
offsets for non-dumped comparisons in the calculation of the weighted-
average dumping margins. Application of this methodology in these 
preliminary results affords parties an opportunity to meaningfully 
comment on the Department's implementation of this recently adopted 
methodology in the context of this administrative review. The 
Department intends to continue to consider,

[[Page 33162]]

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(c), whether another method is appropriate in 
these administrative reviews in light of the parties' pre-preliminary 
comments and any comments on the issue that parties may include in 
their case and rebuttal briefs.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used EP or CEP as defined in 
sections 772(a) and (b) of the Act, as appropriate.
    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. See 19 CFR 351.401(c) and 351.102(b)(38). We also made 
deductions for any movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    Certain companies received freight revenues or packing revenues 
from the customer for certain U.S. sales. In Certain Orange Juice from 
Brazil: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 46584 (August 11, 2008) (OJ Brazil), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7, and in 
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 6857 
(February 11, 2009) (PRC Bags), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 6, the Department determined to treat such 
revenues as an offset to the specific expenses for which they were 
intended to compensate. Accordingly, we have used the revenues of the 
particular respondents as an offset to their respective expenses.
    Consistent with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we calculated 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 
sections 772(d)(1) and (2) 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) of the Act 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 NTN-SNR, because it reported inland freight, 
international freight, and packing expenses applicable to its U.S. 
sales on the basis of value, we recalculated these expenses on the 
basis of weight. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, et 
al.: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 71 
FR 12170, 12173 (March 9, 2006), unchanged in Ball Bearings and Parts 
Thereof From France, et al.: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 40064 (July 14, 2006) (AFBs 16), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. See also Ball 
Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, et al.: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Administrative and Changed-Circumstances Reviews, 76 FR 
22372 (April 21, 2011), unchanged in Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof 
From France, et al.: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative and 
Changed-Circumstances Reviews, 76 FR 52937 (August 24, 2011) (AFBs 21).
    SKF Italy imported subject merchandise and further processed it in 
the United States before selling it to an unaffiliated purchaser. 
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 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 Italy. Also, for SKF Italy, 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 the analysis of the decision not to require 
further-manufactured data, see the Department's company-specific 
preliminary analysis memoranda dated concurrently with this notice. 
Accordingly, for purposes of determining dumping margins for the sales 
subject to the special rule, we have used the weighted-average dumping 
margin calculated on sales of identical and other subject merchandise 
sold to unaffiliated persons.
    No other adjustments to EP or CEP sales were claimed by the 
respondents. For further descriptions of our analyses, see the company-
specific preliminary analysis memoranda dated concurrently with this 
notice.

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.
    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 were 
made at arm's-length prices. See 19 CFR

[[Page 33163]]

351.403(c). We excluded from our analysis sales to affiliated customers 
for consumption in the home market that we determined not to have been 
made at arm's-length prices. To test whether sales to affiliated 
parties 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. See company-
specific preliminary analysis memoranda dated concurrently with this 
notice.

Cost of Production

    In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, in the last completed 
segment of the relevant country-specific proceeding we disregarded 
below-cost sales for NTN-SNR, Schaeffler Italia S.r.l., SKF Italy, and 
myonic. Therefore, for the instant reviews, we have reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that sales by all of the above companies 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 respective home markets.
    We examined the cost data for NTN-SNR, Schaeffler Italia S.r.l., 
SKF Italy, and myonic and determined that our quarterly cost 
methodology is not warranted and, therefore, we have applied our 
standard methodology of using annuals costs based on the reported data, 
adjusted as described below.
    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 general and administrative 
expenses, and financial expenses. In our COP analysis, we used the home 
market sales and COP information provided by each respondent in its 
questionnaire responses or, in the case of Schaeffler Italia S.r.l., 
additional COP information provided by its largest supplier.
    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, selling and packing 
expenses.
    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 the below-cost sales of that product 
because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities 
within an extended period of time. When 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product during the period of review were 
at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales 
because they were made in substantial quantities within an extended 
period of time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act and 
because, based on comparisons of prices to weighted-average COPs for 
the period of review, we determined that these sales were at prices 
which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period 
of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Based on 
this test, we disregarded below-cost sales made by myonic, Schaeffler 
Italia S.r.l., SKF Italy, and NTN-SNR. See the relevant company-
specific preliminary analysis memoranda dated concurrently with this 
notice.

Model Match Methodology

    For all respondents, where possible, we compared the monthly, 
weighted-average U.S. sales to the monthly, weighted-average sales of 
the foreign like product in the home market. Specifically, in making 
our comparisons, if an identical home market model was reported, we 
made comparisons to monthly weighted-average home market prices that 
were based on all sales which, where appropriate, passed the COP test 
of the identical product during the relevant month. We calculated the 
monthly weighted-average home market prices on a level of trade-
specific basis and a manufacturer 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. model'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 with the smallest difference-
in-merchandise adjustment.
    Finally, if no model 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. For a full 
discussion of the model match methodology we have used in these 
reviews, see 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), and Ball 
Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, et al.: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 54711 (September 16, 
2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 2, 
3, and 5.

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. Where companies received freight or packing revenues from the 
home-market customer, we offset these expenses in accordance with OJ 
Brazil and PRC Bags as discussed above. 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

[[Page 33164]]

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.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based 
normal value, to the extent practicable, on sales at the same level of 
trade as the EP or CEP. If normal value was calculated at a different 
level of trade, we made an adjustment, if appropriate and if possible, 
in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See ``Level of 
Trade'' section below.

Constructed Value

    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used 
constructed value as the basis for normal value when there were no 
usable sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market. We 
calculated constructed value in accordance with section 773(e) of the 
Act. We included the cost of materials and fabrication, selling, 
general & administrative (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 selling 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 home market sales from which we derived the adjustments for 
SG&A and profit.
    To determine whether home market sales were 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 home market sales were at a 
different level of trade from that of U.S. sales 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 
home market sales at the level of trade of the export transactions, 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 CEP sales in 
such situations, 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 Minoo Hatten, dated 
concurrently with this notice, entitled ``Ball Bearings and Parts 
Thereof from Various Countries: 2010/2011 Level-of-Trade Analysis,'' 
electronically filed in IA ACCESS in each country specific record.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

    As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margins on ball bearings and parts 
thereof from various countries exist for the period May 1, 2010, 
through April 30, 2011:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                          Company                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 FRANCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audi AG....................................................         0.00
Bosch Rexroth SAS..........................................         0.00
Caterpillar Group Services S.A.............................         0.00
Caterpillar Materials Routiers S.A.S.......................         0.00
Caterpillar S.A.R.L........................................         0.00
Intertechnique SAS.........................................         0.00
Perkins Engines Company Limited............................         0.00
SNECMA.....................................................         0.00
NTN-SNR....................................................         0.00
Volkswagen AG..............................................         0.00
Volkswagen Zubehor GmbH....................................         0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 GERMANY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG................................         0.00
Bosch Rexroth AG...........................................         0.00
BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgerate GmbH......................         0.00
Caterpillar S.A.R.L........................................         0.00
myonic GmbH................................................         0.00
Robert Bosch GmbH..........................................         0.00
Robert Bosch GmbH Power Tools and Hagglunds Drives.........         0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  ITALY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audi AG....................................................         0.00
Bosch Rexroth S.p.A........................................         0.00
Caterpillar Overseas S.A.R.L...............................         0.00
Caterpillar of Australia Pty. Ltd..........................         0.00
Caterpillar Group Services S.A.............................         0.00
Caterpillar Mexico, S.A. de C.V............................         0.00
Caterpillar Americas C.V...................................         0.00
Hagglunds Drives S.r.l.....................................         0.00
Perkins Engines Company Limited............................         0.00
Schaeffler Italia S.r.l. and WPB Water Pump Bearing GmbH &          0.00
 Co. KG, Schaeffler Italia SpA and The Schaeffler Group....
SKF Industries S.p.A., Somecat S.p.A., and SKF RIV-SKF              0.00
 Officine di Villar Perosa S.p.A...........................
SNECMA.....................................................         0.00
Volkswagen AG..............................................         0.00

[[Page 33165]]

 
Volkswagen Zubehor GmbH....................................         0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments

    We will disclose the calculations we used in our analysis to 
parties to these reviews within five days of the date of publication of 
this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. See 
19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a general-issues hearing and any 
hearings regarding issues related solely to specific countries 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. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 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.
    Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the 
respective case 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 following dates:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Case                   Briefs due         Rebuttals due
------------------------------------------------------------------------
France........................  July 23, 2012....  July 30, 2012.
Germany.......................  July 23, 2012....  July 30, 2012.
Italy.........................  July 23, 2012....  July 30, 2012.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties who submit case briefs (see 19 CFR 351.309(c)) or rebuttal 
briefs (see 19 CFR 351.309(d)) 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.
    The Department intends to 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, within 
120 days of the date of publication of this notice.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. If the weighted-average dumping margin for particular 
respondents is above de minimis in the final results of these reviews, 
we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates 
based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the 
importer's examined sales to the total entered value for those sales in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
    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). This 
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the 
period of review produced by companies selected for individual 
examination 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 country-specific all-others rate if there is 
no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 
Id.
    For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we 
will calculate an assessment rate based on the weighted average of the 
cash deposit rates calculated for the companies selected for individual 
review.
    We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after 
publication of the final results of these reviews.

Notification to Importers

    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 and rescission 
in part are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 
751(b)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 30, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-13565 Filed 6-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P