25654 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Notices 

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, 14th 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Notices 25655 

1Subsequent 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). 

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: 

* SKF France S.A. and SFK Aerospace 

France S.A.S. (SKF France) 

Germany: 

* Gebru ̈der Reinfurt GmbH & Co., KG 

(GRW) 

* SKF GmbH (SKF Germany) 

Italy: 

* 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: 

* JTEKT Corporation (formerly known 

as Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd.) (JTEKT) 

* NTN Corporation (NTN) 

United Kingdom: 

* The Barden Corporation (UK) 

Limited; Schaeffler (UK) Ltd. 

(formerly known as the Barden 

Corporation (UK) Ltd.; FAG (UK) 

Ltd. (collectively Barden/FAG)) 

(collectively Barden/Schaeffler UK) 

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

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
25656 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Notices 

2See 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. 

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–ofproduction (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}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. 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Notices 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) (PrelimRaspberries 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
25658 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Notices 

3The rate of 70.41 percent is the weightedaverage 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). 

4SKF Italy and SKF France are part of the SKF 

Group. 

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’.’’). 

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 Group4

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. 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Notices 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
25660 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Notices 

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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Notices 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–toLength 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

Company Margin 

(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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
25662 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Notices 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Notices 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 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–428–801 

Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from 

Germany: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Changed–

Circumstances Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On March 11, 2008, pursuant 

to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 

351.216 and 351.221(c)(3), the 

Department of Commerce initiated a 

changed–circumstances review of the 

antidumping duty order on ball bearings 

and parts thereof from Germany with 

respect to myonic GmbH. See Initiation 

of Antidumping Duty Changed–

Circumstances Review: Ball Bearings 

and Parts Thereof from Germany, 73 FR 

12953 (March 11, 2008) (myonic 

Initiation). After reviewing information 

on the record, we have preliminarily 

concluded that myonic GmbH is the 

successor–in-interest to 

Miniaturkugellager Gesellschaft mit 

beschra ̈nkter Haftung and, as a result, 

should be accorded the same treatment 

previously accorded Miniaturkugellager 

Gesellschaft mit beschra ̈nkter Haftung 

with regard to the antidumping duty 

order on ball bearings and parts thereof 

from Germany. Interested parties are 

invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 7, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard Rimlinger at (202) 482–4477, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On January 31, 2008, myonic GmbH 

(myonic) asked the Department to 

initiate and conduct a changed–

circumstances review to confirm that 

myonic is the successor–in-interest to 

Miniaturkugellager Gesellschaft mit 

beschra ̈nkter Haftung (MKL) for 

purposes of determining antidumping–

duty liabilities subject to this order. On 

March 11, 2008, we initiated a changed–

circumstances review of the 

antidumping duty order on ball bearings 

and parts thereof from Germany with 

respect to myonic. See myonic 

Initiation. On March 13, 2008, we sent 

myonic a supplemental questionnaire 

requesting further information. On 

March 24, 2008, we received a timely 

response to our supplemental 

questionnaire. On March 27, 2008, we 

sent myonic a second supplemental 

questionnaire. On April 8, 2008, we 

received a timely response to our 

second supplemental questionnaire. We 

have not received comments from any 

other interested parties. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are ball bearings and parts thereof. 

These products include all 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 of the 

United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 

3926.90.45, 4016.93.00, 4016.93.10, 

4016.93.50, 6909.19.5010, 8431.20.00, 

8431.39.0010, 8482.10.10, 8482.10.50, 

8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.05, 

8482.99.2580, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.6595, 

8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.50.8040, 

8483.50.90, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 

8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 

8708.60.80, 8708.70.6060, 8708.70.8050, 

8708.93.30, 8708.93.5000, 8708.93.6000, 

8708.93.75, 8708.99.06, 8708.99.31, 

8708.99.4960, 8708.99.50, 8708.99.5800, 

8708.99.8080, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 

8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, and 8803.90.90. 

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: 8708.30.5090, 

8708.40.7500, 8708.50.7900, 

8708.50.8900, 8708.50.9150, 

8708.50.9900, 8708.80.6590, 8708.94.75, 

8708.95.2000, 8708.99.5500, 8708.99.68, 

and 8708.99.8180. 

Successor–in-Interest Determination 

In a changed–circumstances review 

involving a successor–in-interest 

determination, the Department typically 

examines several factors including, but 

not limited to, changes in the following: 

(1) management; (2) production 

facilities; (3) supplier relationships; (4) 

customer base. See Certain Cut–toLength Carbon Steel Plate from 

Romania: Initiation and Preliminary 

Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 22847 (May 3, 2005). 

While no single factor or combination of 

factors will necessarily be dispositive, 

generally the Department will consider 

the new company to be the successor to 

the predecessor if the resulting 

operations are essentially the same as 

those of the predecessor company. See, 

e.g., Notice of Initiation of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review: 

Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges 

from India, 71 FR 327 (January 4, 2006). 

Thus, if the record demonstrates that, 

with respect to the production and sale 

of the subject merchandise, the new 

company operates as the same business 

entity as the predecessor company, the 

Department may assign the new 

company the cash–deposit rate of its 

predecessor. See, e.g., Fresh and Chilled 

Atlantic Salmon from Norway: Final 

Results of Changed Circumstances 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES