[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 156 (Thursday, August 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48493-48497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19985]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-601]


Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of 
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Timken Company (the petitioner) has filed a request for 
the Department of Commerce (the Department) to initiate a changed 
circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller 
bearings (TRBs) and parts thereof from the People's Republic of China 
(PRC). The petitioner alleges that Shanghai General Bearing Co., Ltd. 
(SGBC/SKF), a PRC TRBs producer previously revoked from the antidumping 
duty order, has resumed sales at prices below normal value (NV). 
Therefore, the petitioner requests that the Department conduct a review 
to determine whether to reinstate the antidumping duty order with 
respect to SGBC/SKF.
    In accordance with section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.216(b), the Department finds the 
information submitted by the petitioner sufficient to warrant 
initiation of a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty 
order on TRBs from the PRC with respect to SGBC/SKF. The period of 
review (POR) is June 1, 2014, through May 31, 2015.
    In this changed circumstances review, we will determine whether 
SGBC/SKF sold TRBs at less than NV subsequent to its revocation from 
the order. If we determine in this changed circumstances review that 
SGBC/SKF sold TRBs at less than NV and resumed dumping, effective on 
the date of publication of our final results, we will direct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all 
entries of TRBs manufactured and exported by SGBC/SKF.

DATES: Effective date: August 13, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alice Maldonado, Enforcement and 
Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone (202) 482-4682.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 15, 1987, the Department published 
the antidumping duty order on TRBs from

[[Page 48494]]

the PRC.\1\ On February 11, 1997, the Department conditionally revoked 
the TRBs Order with respect to merchandise produced and exported by 
SGBC/SKF,\2\ based on a finding of three years of no dumping.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Antidumping Duty Order; Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From the People's Republic of 
China, 52 FR 22667 (June 15, 1987) (TRBs Order).
    \2\ SGBC/SKF is currently part of a group of companies owned by 
AB SKF (SKF) in Sweden. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 80 
FR 19070 (April 9, 2015) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum (SII CCR) at Comment 1. At the time of revocation, SGBC 
was not part of this group. However, the Department conducted a 
changed circumstances review after the company's change in 
ownership, and we found that SGBC/SKF is the successor in interest 
to the company as it existed at the time of revocation. Id.
    \3\ The three administrative reviews forming the basis of the 
revocation are: (1) The June 1, 1991, through May 31, 1992, review; 
(2) the June 1, 1992, through May 31, 1993, review; and (3) the June 
1, 1993, through May 31, 1994, review. See Tapered Roller Bearings 
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's 
Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 61 FR 65527 (December 13, 1996) (for the 1991-1992 and 
1992-1993 reviews); see also Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of 
China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 62 FR 6189 (February 
11, 1997) (for the 1993-1994 review) (SGBC/SKF Revocation).
    The regulatory provision governing partial revocation at the 
time of SGBC/SKF's revocation was 19 CFR 353.25 (1997). The relevant 
language remained substantively unchanged when 19 CFR 353.25 was 
superseded by 19 CFR 351.222 in 1997. See Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for 
Public Comments, 61 FR 7308 (February 27, 1996) (1996 Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking); see also Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 
Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27325-26, 27399-402 (May 19, 1997) 
(Preamble). The portion of 19 CFR 351.222 related to partial 
revocations of orders as to specific companies has been revoked for 
all reviews initiated on or after June 20, 2012. See Modification to 
Regulation Concerning the Revocation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Orders: Final Rule, 77 FR 29875 (May 21, 2012) 
(Revocation Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 20, 2013, the petitioner alleged that, since its 
conditional revocation from the TRBs Order, there is evidence that 
SGBC/SKF has resumed dumping TRBs in the United States. The petitioner 
notes that SGBC/SKF agreed in writing to reinstatement in the 
antidumping duty order if it were found to have resumed dumping and it 
requests that, because SGBC/SKF violated this agreement, the Department 
initiate a changed circumstances review to determine whether to 
reinstate SGBC/SKF into the TRBs Order.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See the petitioner's February 20, 2013, letter to the 
Department (CCR Request).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its February 2013, submission, the petitioner provided evidence 
supporting its allegation. Specifically, the petitioner compared 
invoice prices to an unaffiliated U.S. customer submitted by SGBC/SKF 
as part of an application for a separate rate in the 2011-2012 
administrative review on TRBs from the PRC to NVs computed using data 
from the same segment of the proceeding related to another company, 
Changshan Peer Bearing Co., Ltd. (CPZ/SKF).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See CCR Request, at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In March 2013, the Department requested further information from 
the petitioner regarding the basis of its allegation, which the 
petitioner supplied in July 2013. Also in July 2013, SGBC/SKF objected 
to the petitioner's request for a changed circumstances review, and the 
petitioner responded to those comments in August 2013.
    From August through November 2013, the Department requested that 
the petitioner provide additional information to support and/or clarify 
its allegation. The petitioner responded to these requests during the 
same time period.
    In January 2014, the Department deferred the decision of whether to 
initiate the changed circumstances review requested by the petitioner, 
pending a determination in another changed circumstances review (i.e., 
where the Department was examining whether SGBC/SKF was the successor 
in interest to the company that existed at the time of revocation from 
the antidumping duty order).\6\ The Department completed that 
successor-in-interest changed circumstances review in April 2015, 
finding SGBC/SKF to be the successor to the revoked company.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See the memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, from 
Alan Ray, Senior Analyst, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations, entitled ``Deferment of Decision on Initiation of 
Changed Circumstances Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 
from the People's Republic of China,'' dated January 7, 2014.
    \7\ See SII CCR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In May and June 2015, the Department requested additional 
information from the petitioner regarding its request for a changed 
circumstances review. The petitioner responded to these requests in the 
same months, and SGBC/SKF submitted comments related to the former of 
these submissions in June 2015.

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by the order are shipments of tapered roller 
bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from the PRC; 
flange, take up cartridge, and hanger units incorporating tapered 
roller bearings; and tapered roller housings (except pillow blocks) 
incorporating tapered rollers, with or without spindles, whether or not 
for automotive use. These products are currently classifiable under 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 
8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45, 8483.20.40, 
8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80, 
8708.70.6060, 8708.99.2300, 8708.99.4850, 8708.99.6890, 8708.99.8115, 
and 8708.99.8180. Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope 
of the order is dispositive.

Allegation of Resumed Dumping

    In its February 2013 submission, the petitioner provided an invoice 
to an unaffiliated U.S. customer of SGBC/SKF as the basis for U.S. 
price, and it provided factors of production (FOPs) reported by CPZ/SKF 
in another segment of this proceeding and surrogate value (SV) 
information as the basis for NV. Specifically, the petitioner's 
information was obtained from the 2011-2012 administrative review on 
TRBs from the PRC,\8\ and the petitioner used this information to argue 
that SGBC/SKF sold TRBs at less than NV during that review period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See CCR Request, at Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner provided an alternative allegation in August 2013 to 
take into account certain objections raised by SGBC/SKF.\9\ In May and 
June 2015, at the Department's request, the petitioner provided 
additional calculations, based on data contained in the same source 
document used to make the initial allegation, to demonstrate that its 
initial allegation was representative of SGBC/SKF's broader overall 
selling practices during the period covered by the 2011-2012 
administrative review.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See the petitioner's August 9, 2013 submission.
    \10\ See the petitioner's June 24, 2015 submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The allegation of resumed dumping upon which the Department has 
based its decision to initiate a changed circumstances review is 
detailed below. The sources of data for the adjustments that the 
petitioner calculated relating to NV and U.S. price are discussed in 
greater detail in the Changed Circumstances Review Initiation 
Checklist, dated concurrently with this notice. Should the need arise 
to use any of this information as facts available under section 776 of 
the Act, we may reexamine the information and revise the margin 
calculation, if appropriate.

[[Page 48495]]

1. Export Price (EP)

    The petitioner based U.S. price upon sales documents submitted by 
SGBC/SKF in a separate rate application, dated October 15, 2012, in the 
2011-2012 administrative review on TRBs from the PRC. The invoice 
identifies prices for three TRB models sold by SGBC/SKF to an 
unaffiliated U.S. customer.\11\ The petitioner subsequently revised its 
allegation to remove one of these models from its calculations because 
it was unable to provide contemporaneous NV information for this 
product.\12\ In May and June 2015, to demonstrate that the prices upon 
which the petitioner based its allegation were representative of SGBC/
SKF's broader selling activity during the 2011-2012 review period, the 
petitioner provided three sets of additional margin calculations based 
on sales contained in SGBC/SKF's separate rate application that were 
made by SGBC/SKF to an affiliated U.S. importer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
    \12\ See the petitioner's August 29, 2013 submission at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. NV

    In accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, to determine NV, 
the petitioner used the FOPs submitted by CPZ/SKF, the sole respondent 
in the 2011-2012 administrative review on TRBs from the PRC, and it 
valued those FOPs using SV data and surrogate financial statements 
taken from the same segment of the proceeding.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Changed Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, on August 9, 2013, the petitioner provided an 
alternative calculation of NV in order to address comments made by 
SGBC/SKF.\14\ For further discussion, see below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See the petitioner's August 9, 2013 submission at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Alleged Margins of Dumping

    Based upon the information summarized above, the petitioner alleges 
that there is evidence that SGBC/SKF has resumed dumping TRBs in the 
United States that is sufficient to warrant initiation of a changed 
circumstances review to determine whether SGBC/SKF should be reinstated 
into the antidumping duty order. The petitioner estimated a margin of 
26 percent. To demonstrate that this margin is representative of SGBC/
SKF's broader selling experience, the petitioner also calculated 
several additional non-de minimis margins using the data in its May 22, 
2015, submission.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ These calculations were revised at the Department's request 
on June 24, 2015. The petitioner has designated the alternative 
margins in both submissions as business proprietary. See Changed 
Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments by Interested Parties

    As noted above, on July 23, 2013, SGBC/SKF submitted comments on 
the petitioner's request that the Department initiate a changed 
circumstances review.\16\ In these comments, SGBC/SKF contended that 
the evidence provided by the petitioner fails to provide a reasonable 
indication that SGBC/SKF has resumed dumping because: (1) The 
petitioner's allegation is based on a miniscule sample of U.S. sales, 
rendering the U.S. price data in the allegation unrepresentative of 
SGBC/SKF's broader selling experience; (2) the petitioner's 
calculations are not based on SGBC/SKF's own FOP data, but rather are 
based on the FOPs provided by CPZ/SKF, an entirely different company, 
and the petitioner provided no factual basis to demonstrate that CPZ/
SKF's FOPs provide an accurate estimate of SGBC/SKF's own FOPs or that 
CPZ/SKF's and SGBC/SKF's product mixes during the POR were similar; and 
(3) the petitioner's calculations fail to use the market economy steel 
prices deemed by the Department to be the best information to value 
CPZ/SKF's steel bar purchases during the 2011-2011 administrative 
review.\17\ Further, SGBC/SKF argued that, even if the small number of 
U.S. sales covered by petitioner's allegation represented sales below 
NV, this alone does not provide an indication of overall dumping 
because it does not take into account the fact that the Department's 
current practice is to offset lower-priced sales with higher prices on 
other products.\18\ According to SGBC/SKF, initiating a changed 
circumstances review with such flaws would be unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See SGBC/SKF's letter dated July 23, 2013.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 9, 2013, the petitioner responded to these comments.\19\ 
The petitioner noted that the U.S. price data in its allegation were 
taken from an actual sale made by SGBC/SKF, and thus it is reasonably 
likely that the sale of the products at issue is representative not 
only of other sales of the same part numbers (as these products fall 
within SGBC/SKF's U.S. product line) but also of SGBC/SKF's other 
products in general.\20\ Moreover, the petitioner stated that these 
data were the only information reasonably available to it and, 
therefore, they provide reasonable grounds for the Department to 
initiate a changed circumstances review.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See the petitioner's August 9, 2013 submission.
    \20\ Id. at 3.
    \21\ Id. at 2. Subsequent to this submission, in June 2015, the 
petitioner provided several calculations to support its contention 
that the margins contained in the original allegation are 
representative of SGBC/SKF's selling practices; the petitioner based 
these calculations on additional SGBC/SKF data contained on the 
record of the 2011-2012 administrative review proceeding. See the 
petitioner's June 24, 2015 submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the petitioner disagreed that use of CPZ/SKF's FOP 
information yields an inaccurate picture of SGBC/SKF's production 
costs. The petitioner noted that, in 2008, CPZ/SKF was acquired by SKF, 
the world's largest bearing company.\22\ Consequently, the petitioner 
argued that not only is SKF an efficient producer of TRBs, but also as 
owner of CPZ/SKF, it has improved the efficiency of CPZ/SKF's 
production facilities. Therefore, the petitioner claims that CPZ/SKF's 
FOPs likely provide a conservative estimate of SGBC/SKFs FOP 
experience.\23\ Furthermore, in its September 2013 submission, the 
petitioner placed its TRB product coding system on the record of this 
proceeding; \24\ the petitioner claims that this coding system 
demonstrates that certain of the TRBs sold by SGBC/SKF to the United 
States are the same as TRBs produced by CPZ/SKF (because they have the 
same part numbers),\25\ and, thus, the CPZ/SKF FOPs used in the 
allegation are for products with identical specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id. at 3, citing to Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Results of the 2008-2009 Administrative Review of 
the Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 41148, 41151 (July 15, 2010).
    \23\ See the petitioner's August 9, 2013, submission at 4.
    \24\ See the petitioner's September 3, 2013 submission at 
Attachment 1, Appendix 8. This information was originally part of an 
August 15, 2013, submission from SGBC/SKF on the successor-in-
interest changed circumstances review involving SGBC/SKF.
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to SGBC/SKF's final argument that the petitioner 
should have used CPZ/SKF's market economy input price submitted in the 
2011-2012 administrative review, the petitioner stated that there is no 
information on the record indicating that SGBC/SKF purchased its steel 
from a market-economy source, so there is no basis to use anything 
other than SV data.\26\ Nonetheless, in order to demonstrate that the 
facts of this record support the proposition that SGBC/SKF has likely 
resumed dumping, the petitioner took the margin program used by the 
Department in the 2011-2012 administrative review on TRBs from the

[[Page 48496]]

PRC and tailored it to account for the facts of this case. 
Specifically, The petitioner: (1) Lowered the FOP usage rates by 10 
percent in order to account for the possibility that SGBC/SKF is an 
even more efficient producer of TRBs than CPZ/SKF; and (2) used CPZ/
SKF's market-economy steel price. The petitioner notes that, even after 
incorporating these conservative assumptions, the results still 
indicate that SGBC/SKF has resumed dumping.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See the petitioner's August 9, 2013 submission at 4.
    \27\ See the petitioner's August 9, 2013, submission at 5 and 
the petitioner's June 24, 2015 submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, in May and June 2015, the petitioner responded to 
the Department's requests for additional information regarding its 
request for a changed circumstances review. In these submissions, the 
petitioner explained why it considered the sale covered by its 
allegation to be representative of SGBC/SKF's broader U.S. sales 
activity and it provided additional calculations supporting this 
conclusion. On June 5, 2015, SGBC/SKF submitted comments on the 
petitioner's May 22, 2015 filing; in these comments; SGBC/SKF contends 
that, despite its claim to the contrary, the petitioner failed to 
establish that the sale at issue is, in fact, representative. Moreover, 
SGBC/SKF maintains that the petitioner's additional calculations are 
not valid because: (1) They are based on ``irrelevant'' U.S. 
transactions between affiliated parties without accompanying evidence 
that a sale to an unaffiliated party took place; and (2) a ``markup'' 
used in these calculations is based, in part, on sales of non-subject 
products. According to SGBC/SKF, the standard for initiation of 
reinstatement changed circumstances reviews should be higher than the 
comparatively lower standard that exists for investigations, 
considering the costs associated with such reviews and the fact that a 
revoked company has already proven that it was not engaged in dumping 
for three consecutive years. As a result, SGBC/SKF submits that the 
single sale on which the petitioner's allegation is based is not 
sufficiently indicative of resumed dumping for purposes of initiating a 
changed circumstances review.

Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review

    Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act, the Department will conduct 
a changed circumstances review upon receipt of a request ``from an 
interested party for review of an antidumping duty order which shows 
changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order.'' 
After examining the petitioner's allegation and supporting 
documentation, we find that the petitioner has provided evidence of 
changed circumstances sufficient to initiate a review to determine 
whether SGBC/SKF has resumed dumping and should be reinstated in the 
TRBs Order.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Changed Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's authority to reinstate a revoked company into an 
antidumping duty order by means of a changed circumstances review 
derives from sections 751(b) and (d) of the Act.\29\ In particular, the 
Department's authority to revoke an order is expressed in section 
751(d) of the Act. The statute, however, provides no detailed 
description of the criteria, procedures, or conditions relating to the 
Department's exercise of this authority. Accordingly, the Department 
issued regulations setting forth in detail how the Department will 
exercise the authority granted to it under the statute. At the time of 
SGBC/SKF's revocation from the TRBs Order, a Department regulation 
authorized the partial and conditional revocation of orders as to 
companies that were determined not to have made sales at less than NV 
for the equivalent of three consecutive years and that certified to the 
immediate reinstatement into an order if they resumed dumping.\30\ 
Although the regulatory provision for partial and conditional 
revocation of companies from orders has since been revoked, we have 
clarified that all conditionally revoked companies remain subject to 
their certified agreements to be reinstated into the order from which 
they were revoked if the Department finds that the company has resumed 
dumping.\31\ For these reasons, conducting a changed circumstances 
review pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act to determine whether to 
reinstate SGBC/SKF into the TRBs Order is consistent with the statute 
and with the certification that SGBC/SKF signed as a precondition to 
its conditional revocation.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Sahaviriya Steel Indus. Pub. Co., Ltd. v. United 
States, 649 F.3d 1371, 1378 (CAFC 2011) (Sahaviriya) (``{T{time}  
his court holds, applying Chevron deference, that Commerce 
reasonably interpreted its revocation authority under {section 
751(d) of the Act{time}  to permit conditional revocation . . . 
.''); Id. at 1380 (finding that Commerce properly conducted a 
changed circumstances review for purposes of reconsidering 
revocation).
    \30\ See 19 CFR 353.25 (1997). As noted above, the relevant 
language regarding reinstatement remained substantively unchanged 
when 19 CFR 353.25 was superseded by 19 CFR 351.222 (1997), and the 
portion of 19 CFR 351.222 related to partial revocations of orders 
as to specific companies has been revoked for all reviews initiated 
on or after June 20, 2012. See 1996 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; 
Preamble; Revocation Final Rule.
    \31\ See Revocation Final Rule, 77 FR at 29882.
    \32\ See, e.g., Sahaviriya, 649 F.3d at 1380; Initiation of 
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand, 73 FR 18766, 18769 (April 
7, 2008); see also SGBC/SKF Revocation, 62 FR at 6189 (``In 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.25(a)(2)(iii), this request was 
accompanied by certifications from the firm that it had sold subject 
merchandise at not less than FMV for a three-year period, including 
this review period, and would not do so in the future. Shanghai also 
agreed to its immediate reinstatement in the antidumping duty order, 
as long as any firm is subject to this order, if the Department 
concludes under 19 CFR 353.22(f) that, subsequent to revocation, it 
sold the subject merchandise at less than FMV.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to SGBC/SKF's comments regarding the 
representativeness of the U.S. price and NV data proffered by the 
petitioner, on December 18, 2013, the Department placed information on 
the record of this segment of the proceeding which was submitted in an 
ongoing successor-in-interest changed circumstances review involving 
SGBC/SKF.\33\ This information relates to the product mix of both SGBC/
SKF and CPZ/SKF, and it demonstrates that the type of products shown on 
SGBC/SKF's invoice represents a significant proportion of SGBC/SKF's 
product line. We also find SGBC/SKF's concerns relating to the use of 
CPZ/SKF's FOPs to be misplaced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See the Product Mix Memo at Attachment I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the question of whether the size of the allegation 
is sufficiently representative of SGBC/SKF's sales activity, we note 
that, in response to the Department's supplemental questionnaires, the 
petitioner provided additional information regarding representativeness 
of the U.S. price data on May 22, 2015, and June 24, 2015. In these 
submissions, the petitioner used affiliated-party pricing for a 
substantial quantity of TRBs shipped between SGBC/SKF and its U.S. 
affiliate.\34\ Adjusting the prices to approximate the prices to an 
unaffiliated U.S. customer and using the same NV methodology, the 
petitioner calculated dumping margins.\35\ We disagree with SGBC/SKF 
that these alternative calculations are invalid simply because the 
petitioner constructed an export price using a markup which may contain 
profit rates for both TRBs and other products not subject to the TRBs 
Order. We find that

[[Page 48497]]

the petitioner's methodology yields a reasonable approximation of SGBC/
SKF's U.S. pricing behavior. Moreover, given that the petitioner made 
no adjustments for numerous selling expenses, we find that the 
petitioner's methodology is likely conservative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The prices and quantities were sourced from the same 
Separate Rate Application filed by SGBC/SKF used by the petitioner 
in its resumed dumping allegation. See the petitioner's May 22, 
2015, submission, at Exhibit 1.
    \35\ We note that the margins calculated by the petitioner in 
these submissions were treated as business proprietary information. 
See the petitioner's May 22, 2015, submission at 3 through 8; see 
also the petitioner's June 24, 2015, submission, at Exhibits 1, 2, 
and 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, with respect to NV, the petitioner maintains that its TRB 
product coding system demonstrates that the FOPs in its allegation are 
for the same basic products as CPZ/SKF's because they have the same 
cone and bore width.\36\ Thus, while the FOP data are not specific to 
SGBC/SKF, we find that the FOP data submitted are publicly available 
and the product coding system information submitted by the petitioner 
provides a reasonable basis to conclude that NV is for substantially 
similar or identical products. Finally, with respect to SGBC/SKF's 
argument that the petitioner should have used CPZ/SKF's market-economy 
steel purchase prices in its calculations, we note that the petitioner 
provided alternative calculations which incorporated these prices and 
provided the dumping margins resulting from these calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See the petitioner's September 3, 2013 submission at 
Attachment 1, Appendix 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to SGBC/SKF's comments regarding zeroing or offsets, 
we note that the issue raised by SGBC/SKF is implicated only when the 
comparison results (i.e., individual dumping margins) are aggregated to 
calculate the weighted-average dumping margin. In this instance, we 
have examples provided by the petitioner to demonstrate, on an 
individual comparison basis, that SGBC/SKF has sold subject merchandise 
at less than NV.\37\ As previously noted, we find, consistent with 
section 751(b) of the Act, that this information provided by the 
petitioner constitutes evidence of changed circumstances sufficient to 
initiate a review to determine whether SGBC/SKF has resumed dumping and 
should be reinstated in the TRBs Order. We note that initiation of this 
review does not constitute a conclusive determination that SGBC/SKF has 
resumed dumping on an aggregate basis. During the course of this 
review, the Department will apply its established methodologies 
regarding offsets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See the petitioner's February 20, 2013 submission at 
Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, with respect to SGBC/SKF's argument that the Department 
should apply a heightened standard when determining whether to initiate 
this review, the Department notes that the applicable standard is 
whether there is information ``which shows changed circumstances 
sufficient to warrant a review'' under section 751(b)(1) of the Act. In 
the context of a reinstatement changed circumstances review, the 
pertinent question is whether there is sufficient evidence of resumed 
dumping. Based on the foregoing, we find that the petitioner has 
provided sufficient evidence to initiate a changed circumstances review 
to examine SGBC/SKF's pricing and determine whether SGBC/SKF has 
resumed dumping sufficient to reinstate the company within the TRBs 
Order. If we determine in this changed circumstances review that SGBC/
SKF resumed dumping, effective on the date of publication of our final 
results, we will direct CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of 
TRBs manufactured in the PRC and exported by SGBC/SKF.

Period of Changed Circumstances Review

    The Department intends to request data from SGBC/SKF for the June 
1, 2014, through May 31, 2015, period in order to determine whether 
SGBC/SKF has resumed dumping sufficient to warrant reinstatement within 
the TRBs Order.

Public Comment

    The Department will publish in the Federal Register a notice of 
preliminary results of changed circumstances review in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.221(b)(4) and 351.221(c)(3)(i), which will set forth the 
Department's preliminary factual and legal conclusions. Pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will have an opportunity to 
comment on the preliminary results. Unless otherwise extended, the 
Department intends to issue its final results of review in accordance 
with the time limits set forth in 19 CFR 351.216(e).
    This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 
777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b) of the Department's 
regulations.

    Dated: August 7, 2015.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-19985 Filed 8-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P