19056 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 

group and, in separate charts, 

individually for each named entity. 

Please label each chart accordingly. 

Please state whether you exported 

PRCBs to the United States during the 

POI. 

If you did export PRCBs to the United 

States during the POI, please state 

whether you produced 100 percent of 

the PRCBs that you exported to the 

United States during the POI. 

If you did produce 100 percent of the 

PRCBs that you exported to the United 

States during the POI, please provide 

the following: 

Market: United States Total Quantity (kg) 

(Net Weight) 

Total Quantity 

Pieces (1,000 units) Terms of Sale2 Total Value3

($U.S.) 

1. Export Price4.

2. Constructed Export Price5.

3. Further Manufactured6.

Total.

2To the extent possible, sales values should be reported based on the same terms (e.g., FOB). 3Values should be expressed in U.S. dollars. Indicate any exchange rates used and their respective dates and sources. 

4Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as an export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated person occurs before the goods are imported 

into the United States. 5Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as a constructed export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated person occurs after importation. 

However, if the first sale to the unaffiliated person is made by a person in the United States affiliated with the foreign exporter, constructed export price applies even if the sale occurs prior to importation. Do not report the sale to the affiliated party in the United States, rather report the 

sale made by the affiliated party to the unaffiliated customer in the United States. 6 ‘‘Further manufactured’’ refers to merchandise that undergoes further manufacture or assembly in the United States before sale to the first 

unaffiliated customer. 

If you did not produce 100 percent of 

the PRCBs that you exported to the 

United States during the POI, please 

provide the following information: 

1) Identify each company which 

produced the PRCBs (Company A) 

that you (Company B) exported to 

the United States; 

2) Provide the physical address of 

each company which produced the 

PRCBs (Company A) that you 

(Company B) exported to the United 

States during the POI; 

3) For each company (Company/ 

Companies A) which produced the 

PRCBs that you (Company B) 

exported, provide the quantity (in 

kg and pieces) and value of the 

PRCBs that you (Company B) 

exported to the United Sates during 

the POI; 

4) Provide the quantity (in kg and 

pieces) and the value of the PRCBs 

that you (Company B) exported to 

the United Sates during the POI that 

was produced by your company 

(Company B); 

5) Use the chart below to provide the 

information requested above: 

Market: United 

States 

Name of 

Company 

A 

Country of 

Company 

A 

Name of 

Company 

B 

Quantity in Both (kg 

)(Net Weight) and 

Pieces (1,000 

units)Produced By 

Company A and 

Exported by Company B 

Quantity (kg)(Net 

Weight) and Pieces 

(1,000 units) Produced By Company 

B and Exported by 

Company B 

Value of Quantity 

Produced By Company A and Exported by Company 

B 

Value of Quantity 

Produced By Company B and Exported by Company 

B 

Export Price.

Constructed 

Export Price.

Further Manufactured.

Total.

[FR Doc. E9–9567 Filed 4–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

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 Revoke Order In 

Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) is 

conducting administrative reviews of 

the antidumping duty orders on ball 

bearings and parts thereof from France, 

Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United 

Kingdom. The reviews cover 15 

manufacturers/exporters. The period of 

review is May 1, 2007, through April 30, 

2008. We have preliminarily determined 

that sales have been made below normal 

value by certain 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. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 27, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristin Case 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) 482–3174 or (202) 482– 

4477, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 19057 

Background 

On May 15, 1989, the Department 

published the antidumping duty orders 

on ball bearings from France (54 FR 

20902), Germany (54 FR 20900), Italy 

(54 FR 20903), Japan (54 FR 20904), and 

the United Kingdom (54 FR 20910) in 

the Federal Register. On July 1, 2008, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), we 

published a notice of initiation of 

administrative reviews of 38 companies 

subject to these orders. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 37409 

(July 1, 2008). 

On January 8, 2009, we extended the 

due date for the completion of these 

preliminary results of reviews from 

January 31, 2009, to April 21, 2009. 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, 74 FR 796 (January 8, 2009). 

On March 26, 2009, we rescinded the 

administrative reviews with respect to 

23 companies. See Ball Bearings and 

Parts Thereof from France, Germany, 

Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, 74 FR 13190 

(March 26, 2009). 

The period of review is May 1, 2007, 

through April 30, 2008. 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 and parts thereof. 

These products include all antifriction 

bearings that employ balls as the rolling 

element. Imports of these products are 

classified under the following 

categories: Antifriction balls, ball 

bearings with integral shafts, ball 

bearings (including radial ball bearings) 

and parts thereof, and housed or 

mounted ball bearing units and parts 

thereof. 

Imports of these products are 

classified under the following 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 

3926.90.45, 4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 

6909.19.50.10, 8431.20.00, 

8431.39.00.10, 8482.10.10, 8482.10.50, 

8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.05, 

8482.99.35, 8482.99.25.80, 

8482.99.65.95, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 

8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.50.90, 

8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 

8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.60.80, 

8708.93.30, 8708.93.60.00, 8708.99.06, 

8708.99.31.00, 8708.99.40.00, 

8708.99.49.60, 8708.99.58, 

8708.99.80.15, 8708.99.80.80, 

8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 

8803.90.30, and 8803.90.90. 

As a result of changes to the HTSUS, 

effective February 2, 2007, the subject 

merchandise is also classifiable under 

the following additional HTSUS item 

numbers: 8708.30.50.90, 8708.40.75, 

8708.50.79.00, 8708.50.89.00, 

8708.50.91.50, 8708.50.99.00, 

8708.70.60.60, 8708.80.65.90, 

8708.93.75.00, 8708.94.75, 

8708.95.20.00, 8708.99.55.00, 

8708.99.68, 8708.99.81.80. 

Although the HTSUS 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 list of scope determinations 

which pertain to the orders, see the 

‘‘Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill’’ 

regarding scope determinations for the 

2007–2008 reviews, dated April 21, 

2009, which is on file in the Central 

Records Unit (CRU) of the main 

Commerce building, room 1117, in the 

General Issues record (A–100–001). 

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 individual examination in 

these reviews. Where it is not 

practicable to examine all known 

exporters/producers of subject 

merchandise because of the large 

number of such companies, section 

777A(c)(2) of the Act allows the 

Department to limit its examination to 

either a sample of exporters, producers, 

or types of products that is statistically 

valid, based on the information 

available at the time of selection, or 

exporters and producers accounting for 

the largest volume of subject 

merchandise from the exporting country 

that can be reasonably examined. 

Accordingly, in June 2008 we 

requested information concerning the 

quantity and value of sales to the United 

States from the 38 exporters/producers 

for which we had initiated reviews. We 

received responses from most of the 

exporters/producers by July 2008. Some 

of the companies withdrew their 

requests for review prior to our selection 

of respondents for individual 

examination. Based on our analysis of 

the responses and our available 

resources, we chose to examine the sales 

of certain companies. See Memoranda to 

Laurie Parkhill, dated August 12, 2008, 

for the detailed analysis of the selection 

process for each country-specific 

review. 

Subsequently, all selected firms 

withdrew their requests for review with 

respect to merchandise from Japan and 

the United Kingdom. To replace the 

firms that withdrew their requests for 

review, we made additional selections. 

See order-specific Memoranda to Laurie 

Parkhill, dated October 21, 2008. 

Non-Selected Respondents 

For responding companies under 

review of the orders on merchandise 

from France and Italy that were not 

individually examined, we have 

assigned the weighted-average margin of 

the sole selected respondent in the 

respective review. Therefore, we have 

applied, for these preliminary results, 

the rate of 10.13 percent (France) and 

10.94 percent (Italy) to the firms not 

individually examined in these reviews. 

With respect to the responding 

companies which remain under review 

and which we did not select for 

individual examination in the review of 

the order on subject merchandise from 

Germany, we have assigned the margin 

we calculated for Schaeffler KG of 3.32 

percent to these firms. There were two 

other selected respondents, myonic 

GmbH (myonic) and Gebrueder Reinfurt 

GmbH & Co., KG (GRW); we are 

assigning an adverse facts-available rate 

to myonic and we have calculated a de 

minimis rate for GRW. Generally we 

have looked to section 735(c)(5) of the 

Act, which provides instructions for 

calculating the all-others rate in an 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
19058 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 

investigation, for guidance when 

calculating the rate for respondents we 

did not examine in an administrative 

review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act 

instructs that we are not to calculate an 

all-others rate using any zero or de 

minimis margins or any margins based 

on total facts available. Therefore, we 

have not included either of the margins 

we established for myonic or GRW in 

the determination of the rate for 

companies not selected for individual 

examination. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we have verified information 

provided by GRW and SKF France 

S.A./SKF Aerospace France S.A.S. (SKF 

France) in the administrative reviews of 

the orders on subject merchandise from 

Germany and France, respectively, 

using standard verification procedures 

including the examination of relevant 

sales and financial records and the 

selection and review of original 

documentation containing relevant 

information. 

We intend to verify information 

provided by SKF (UK) Limited (SKF 

UK) and Japanese Aero Engines 

Corporation (JAEC) in the 

administrative reviews of the orders on 

subject merchandise from the United 

Kingdom and Japan, respectively, after 

publication of these preliminary results 

of administrative reviews. Our 

verification results are, or will be, 

outlined in the public versions of our 

verification reports which are, or will 

be, 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 two 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 

of the Act, significantly impedes a 

proceeding under this title, or provides 

such information but the information 

cannot be verified as provided in 

section 782(i) of the Act, 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 

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 

disregard, subject to section 782(e) of 

the Act, 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. 

Two of the companies selected for 

individual examination, myonic 

(Germany) and Edwards Ltd./Edwards 

High Vacuum Int’l Ltd. (Japan) 

(Edwards Japan), did not respond to our 

questionnaire other than to provide 

quantity and value of U.S. sales 

information. Because these companies 

did not respond fully to our request, we 

could not determine whether and to 

what extent these companies sold 

subject merchandise at less than normal 

value using the companies’ own data. 

Moreover, because these companies 

have failed to provide the information 

requested and thus have significantly 

impeded the respective reviews, we find 

that we must base their margins on the 

use of facts otherwise available. See 

section 776(a) of the Act. 

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 adverse inference in selecting 

from among the facts otherwise 

available. See, e.g., 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, 

70297 (December 11, 2007) (Final— 

Raspberries from Chile), and 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, 44114 (August 7, 2007) 

(unchanged in Final—Raspberries from 

Chile, 72 FR at 70297). 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—myonic and Edwards 

Japan—did not provide requested data 

concerning their sales of subject 

merchandise to the United States and 

foreign like product sold in the 

comparison markets during the period 

of review, we determine that they have 

failed to cooperate by not acting to the 

best of their ability. See Antifriction 

Bearings and Parts Thereof From 

France, et al.: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Rescission of Administrative 

Reviews in Part, and Determination To 

Revoke Order in Part, 69 FR 55574 

(September 15, 2004) (AFBs 14). 

Therefore, we conclude that the use of 

an adverse inference is warranted in 

applying facts otherwise available to 

these companies. 

C. Selection and Corroboration of 

Information Used as Facts Available 

As facts available with an adverse 

inference, we have selected the rates of 

70.41 percent for myonic and 73.55 

percent for Edwards Japan. These rates 

represent the highest rates calculated in 

the history of the respective proceedings 

and are from the respective less-thanfair-value investigations for each 

country. See Final Determinations of 

Sales at Less than Fair Value: 

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than 

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 

Thereof From the Federal Republic of 

Germany, 54 FR 18992, 18997 (May 3, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 19059 

1989), and Final Determinations of 

Sales at Less than Fair Value: 

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than 

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 

Thereof From Japan, 54 FR 19101, 

19108 (May 3, 1989). 

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 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

Brazil: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 39940 

(July 11, 2008). The word ‘‘corroborate’’ 

means that the Department will satisfy 

itself that the secondary information to 

be used has probative value. 

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. See 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) (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, 70.41 percent 

for myonic and 73.55 percent for 

Edwards Japan, have probative value 

and, therefore, are appropriate rates for 

use as AFA. Both rates fell within the 

range of margins we calculated for 

companies in the respective countryspecific administrative reviews, and 

there is no information on the record of 

the reviews that demonstrates that the 

selected rates are not appropriate AFA 

rates for the non-responsive firms. 

For more detail concerning the 

selection of the AFA rates, see the 

country-specific Memoranda to Laurie 

Parkhill, dated April 21, 2009, regarding 

corroboration of the respective AFA 

rates. 

Intent To Revoke 

On May 30, 2008, GRW requested the 

revocation from the order on ball 

bearings and parts thereof from 

Germany as it pertains to its sales. 

Under section 751(d)(1) of the Act, the 

Department ‘‘may revoke, in whole or in 

part’’ an antidumping duty order upon 

completion of a review. Although 

Congress has not specified the 

procedures that the Department must 

follow in revoking an order, the 

Department has developed a procedure 

for revocation that is set forth under 19 

CFR 351.222. Under 19 CFR 

351.222(b)(2), the Department may 

revoke an antidumping duty order in 

part if it concludes that (A) an exporter 

or producer has sold the merchandise at 

not less than normal value for a period 

of at least three consecutive years, (B) 

the exporter or producer has agreed in 

writing to its immediate reinstatement 

in the order if the Secretary concludes 

that the exporter or producer, 

subsequent to the revocation, sold the 

subject merchandise at less than normal 

value, and (C) the continued application 

of the antidumping duty order is no 

longer necessary to offset dumping. 

Section 351.222(b)(3) of the 

Department’s regulations states that, in 

the case of an exporter that is not the 

producer of subject merchandise, the 

Department normally will revoke an 

order in part under 19 CFR 

351.222(b)(2) only with respect to 

subject merchandise produced or 

supplied by those companies that 

supplied the exporter during the time 

period that formed the basis for 

revocation. 

A request for revocation of an order in 

part for a company previously found 

dumping must address three elements. 

The company requesting the revocation 

must do so in writing and submit the 

following statements with the request: 

(1) The company’s certification that it 

sold the subject merchandise at not less 

than normal value during the current 

review period and that, in the future, it 

will not sell at less than normal value; 

(2) the company’s certification that, 

during each of the consecutive years 

forming the basis of the request, it sold 

the subject merchandise to the United 

States in commercial quantities; (3) the 

agreement to reinstatement in the order 

if the Department concludes that, 

subsequent to revocation, the company 

has sold the subject merchandise at less 

than normal value. See 19 CFR 

351.222(e)(1). 

We preliminarily determine that 

GRW’s May 30, 2008, request meets all 

of the criteria under 19 CFR 

351.222(e)(1). With regard to the criteria 

of 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), our preliminary 

margin calculations show that GRW 

sold ball bearings at not less than 

normal value during the current review 

period. See Preliminary Results of 

Reviews section below. In addition, it 

sold ball bearings at not less than 

normal value in the two previous 

administrative reviews in which it was 

reviewed. See Ball Bearings and Parts 

Thereof from France, et al.: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Rescission 

of Review in Part, 72 FR 58053 (October 

12, 2007), for the period May 1, 2005, 

through April 30, 2006, and Ball 

Bearings and Parts Thereof From 

France, et al.: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Rescission of Reviews in 

Part, 73 FR 52823 (September 11, 2008), 

for the period May 1, 2006, through 

April 30, 2007. Based on our 

examination of the sales data submitted 

by GRW, we preliminarily determine 

that GRW sold the subject merchandise 

in the United States in commercial 

quantities in each of the consecutive 

years cited by GRW to support its 

request for revocation. See preliminary 

results analysis memorandum, dated 

April 21, 2009, on file in the CRU, room 

1117. Thus, we preliminarily find that 

GRW had zero or de minimis dumping 

margins for the last three consecutive 

years and sold in commercial quantities 

all three years. Also, we preliminarily 

determine that application of the 

antidumping duty order to GRW is no 

longer warranted for the following 

reasons: (1) The company had zero or de 

minimis margins for a period of at least 

three consecutive years; (2) the 

company has agreed to immediate 

reinstatement of the order if we find that 

it has resumed making sales at less than 

fair value; (3) the continued application 

of the order is not otherwise necessary 

to offset dumping. 

Therefore, we preliminarily determine 

that GRW qualifies for revocation from 

the order on ball bearings and parts 

thereof from Germany pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.222(b)(2) and, thus, we 

preliminarily determine to revoke the 

order with respect to ball bearings and 

parts thereof from Germany exported 

and/or sold by GRW to the United 

States. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
19060 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 

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 selected 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: June 3, 2007–June 9, 2007; 

July 29, 2007–August 4, 2007; 

September 23, 2007–September 29, 

2007; December 2, 2007–December 8, 

2007; February 10, 2008–February 16, 

2008; April 13, 2008–April 19, 2008. We 

reviewed all EP sales transactions the 

selected 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. 

Certain companies received freight 

revenues or packing revenues from the 

customer for certain U.S. sales. In 

Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 46584 (August 11, 2008) 

(OJ Brazil), and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 

7, and Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 6857 

(February 11, 2009) (PRC Bags), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6, the 

Department determined to treat such 

revenues as an offset to the specific 

expenses for which they were intended 

to compensate. Accordingly, we have 

used these respondents’ revenues as an 

offset to their respective expenses. 

Consistent with section 772(d)(1) of 

the Act, we calculated CEP by deducting 

selling expenses associated with 

economic activities occurring in the 

United States which includes 

commissions, direct selling expenses, 

and U.S. repacking expenses. In 

accordance with 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) of the Act in accordance with 

sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. 

In accordance with section 772(f) of the 

Act, we computed profit based on the 

total revenues realized on sales in both 

the U.S. and home markets, less all 

expenses associated with those sales. 

We then allocated profit to expenses 

incurred with respect to U.S. economic 

activity based on the ratio of total U.S. 

expenses to total expenses for both the 

U.S. and home markets. Finally, we 

made an adjustment for profit allocated 

to these expenses in accordance with 

section 772(d)(3) of the Act. 

Because SKF and JAEC did not incur 

short-term U.S. dollar borrowings 

during the period of review, they based 

their U.S. short-term interest rates on 

the Federal Funds Interest Rate for the 

calculation of their U.S. credit expenses 

and inventory-carrying costs incurred in 

the United States. We did not use the 

U.S. short-term interest rate for these 

firms. The Federal Funds Interest Rate 

is the interest rate at which private 

depository institutions lend balances at 

the Federal Reserve to other depository 

institutions. Instead we used the Federal 

Reserve’s weighted-average data for 

short-term commercial and industrial 

loans. Consistent with the Department’s 

Policy Bulletin 98.2, Imputed Credit 

Expenses and Interest Rates, February 

23, 1998, if a respondent had no shortterm debt in U.S. dollars during the 

period of review, it is the Department’s 

practice to ‘‘use the Federal Reserve’s 

weighted-average data for commercial 

and industrial loans maturing between 

one month and one year from the time 

the loan is made’’ in order to calculate 

the U.S. short-term interest percentage 

rate. See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars 

from Latvia, 71 FR 7016 (February 10, 

2006), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. 

The Federal Reserve maintains these 

specific data under the title ‘‘Federal 

Reserve Statistical Release’’ and the 

subheading ‘‘Survey of Terms of 

Business Lending,’’ which is posted on 

the Web site at http:// 

www.federalreserve.gov/releases/e2/. 

The short-term interest rates for May 7– 

11, 2007, August 6–10, 2007, November 

5–9, 2007, and February 4–8, 2008, were 

7.46, 7.22, 6.84, and 5.05 percent, 

respectively. We added these short-term 

interest rates and divided the sum by 

four to calculate the U.S. short-term 

interest rate of 6.64 percent for the 

period of review. We used this rate to 

recalculate SKF’s and JAEC’s U.S. credit 

expenses and inventory-carrying costs 

incurred in the United States. 

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 

CEP for such merchandise using the 

price of identical or other subject 

merchandise sold by the exporter or 

producer to an unaffiliated customer if 

there is a sufficient quantity of sales to 

provide a reasonable basis for 

comparison and we determine that the 

use of such sales is appropriate. If there 

is not a sufficient quantity of such sales 

or if we determine that using the price 

of identical or other subject 

merchandise is not appropriate, we may 

use any other reasonable basis to 

determine CEP. 

To determine whether the value 

added is likely to exceed substantially 

the value of the subject merchandise, we 

estimated the value added based on the 

difference between the averages of the 

prices charged to the first unaffiliated 

purchaser for the merchandise as sold in 

the United States and the averages of the 

prices paid for the subject merchandise 

by the affiliated purchaser. Based on 

this analysis, we determined that the 

estimated value added in the United 

States by the further-manufacturing 

firms accounted for at least 65 percent 

of the price charged to the first 

unaffiliated customer for the 

merchandise as sold in the United 

States. See 19 CFR 351.402(c) for an 

explanation of our practice on this 

issue. Therefore, we preliminarily 

determine that the value added is likely 

to exceed substantially the value of the 

subject merchandise for SKF France, 

SKF Industrie S.p.A./Somecat S.p.A. 

(SKF Italy), Schaeffler KG, JAEC, and 

Sapporo Precision Inc. (Sapporo). Also, 

for these firms, we determine that there 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 19061 

was a sufficient quantity of sales 

remaining to provide a reasonable basis 

for comparison and that the use of these 

sales is appropriate. For the analysis of 

the decision not to require furthermanufactured data, see the 

Department’s company-specific analysis 

memoranda dated April 21, 2009. 

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. 

On July 4, 2006, the SKF Group 

acquired Somecat S.p.A. (Somecat) in 

Italy and SNFA Bearings Ltd. in the 

United Kingdom (SNFA UK). We had 

revoked the antidumping duty orders 

covering ball bearings from Italy and the 

United Kingdom in part with respect to 

Somecat and SNFA UK. 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 (August 11, 2000), 

and 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, 66 FR 36551 (July 12, 

2001). Our revocations covered ball 

bearings from Italy produced by 

Somecat and exported by either 

Somecat or SNFA UK and ball bearings 

from the United Kingdom produced and 

exported by SNFA UK. On January 1, 

2008, SKF UK purchased the assets of 

SNFA UK and SKF UK started to export 

bearings produced by both Somecat and 

SNFA UK to the United States. 

In these administrative reviews for the 

period May 1, 2007, through April 30, 

2008, SKF Italy reported Somecatproduced bearings which SKF UK sold 

in the United States on or after January 

1, 2008; SKF UK reported SNFA UKproduced bearings which SKF UK sold 

in the United States on or after January 

1, 2008. SKF Italy and SKF UK have 

argued that we should not include in 

their respective margin calculations 

sales of Somecat-produced ball bearings 

or SNFA UK-produced ball bearings 

which SKF UK sold to U.S. customers 

during the period of review but which 

entered the United States before January 

1, 2008, on the grounds that entries of 

such merchandise were not subject to 

the antidumping duty orders. Because 

SKF Italy and SKF UK provided data 

supporting their position, we have 

excluded Somecat-produced bearings 

and SNFA UK-produced bearings where 

the record demonstrates that this 

merchandise was exported to the United 

States by either Somecat or SNFA UK 

prior to January 1, 2008, and thus 

covered by our revocations for these 

firms. 

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 

selected 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 

2007, June 2007, August 2007, 

September 2007, December 2007, 

February 2008, April 2008, and June 

2008. 

The Department may calculate normal 

value based on a sale to an affiliated 

party only if it is satisfied that the price 

to the affiliated party is comparable to 

the price at which sales are made to 

parties not affiliated with the exporter 

or producer, i.e., sales were made at 

arm’s-length prices. See 19 CFR 

351.403(c). We excluded from our 

analysis sales to affiliated customers for 

consumption in the home market that 

we determined not to be arm’s-length 

prices. 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 last completed segment for SKF 

France, SKF Italy, SKF UK, GRW, 

Schaeffler KG, and The Barden 

Corporation (UK), Ltd./Schaeffler (U.K.) 

Ltd. (Barden/Schaeffler UK). Therefore, 

for the instant reviews, we have 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that sales of the foreign like product 

under consideration for the 

determination of normal value in these 

reviews may have been made at prices 

below the cost of production (COP), as 

provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of 

the Act. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of 

the Act, we conducted COP 

investigations of sales by these firms in 

the 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 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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
19062 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 

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 weightedaverage 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 Italy, 

SKF UK, GRW, Schaeffler KG, and 

Barden/Schaeffler UK dated April 21, 

2009. Based on this test, we disregarded 

below-cost sales with respect to SKF 

France, SKF Italy, SKF UK, GRW, 

Schaeffler KG, and Barden/Schaeffler 

UK. 

Model-Match Methodology 

For all respondents, where possible, 

we compared U.S. sales with sales of the 

foreign like product in the home market. 

Specifically, in making our 

comparisons, if an identical homemarket model was reported, we made 

comparisons to weighted-average homemarket prices that were based on all 

sales which passed the COP test of the 

identical product during the relevant 

month. We calculated the weightedaverage 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. model’s 

characteristics) of the inner diameter, 

outer diameter, width, and load rating 

for each potential home-market match 

and selected the bearing with the 

smallest sum of the deviations. If two or 

more bearings had the same sum of the 

deviations, we selected the model that 

was sold at the same level of trade as the 

U.S. sale and was the closest 

contemporaneous sale to the U.S. sale. 

If two or more models were sold at the 

same level of trade and were sold 

equally contemporaneously, we selected 

the model with the smallest differencein-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, et al.: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 54711 

(September 16, 2005), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comments 2, 3, and 5 

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. Where companies 

received freight or packing revenues 

from the home-market customer, we 

offset these expenses in accordance with 

OJ Brazil and PRC Bags as discussed 

above. We also made adjustments for 

differences in cost attributable to 

differences in physical characteristics of 

the merchandise pursuant to section 

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.411 and for differences in 

circumstances of sale in accordance 

with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to 

EP, we made circumstance-of-sale 

adjustments by deducting home-market 

direct selling expenses from, and adding 

U.S. direct selling expenses to, normal 

value. For comparisons to CEP, we 

made circumstance-of-sale adjustments 

by deducting home-market direct selling 

expenses from normal value. We also 

made adjustments, when applicable, for 

home-market indirect selling expenses 

to offset U.S. commissions in EP and 

CEP calculations. 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based 

normal value, to the extent practicable, 

on sales at the same level of trade as the 

EP or CEP. If normal value was 

calculated at a different level of trade, 

we made an adjustment, if appropriate 

and if possible, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See Level 

of Trade section below. 

Constructed Value 

In accordance with section 773(a)(4) 

of the Act, we used constructed value as 

the basis for normal value when there 

were no usable sales of the foreign like 

product in the comparison market. We 

calculated constructed value in 

accordance with section 773(e) of the 

Act. We included the cost of materials 

and fabrication, 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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 19063 

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 socalled ‘‘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, dated April 21, 2009, 

entitled ‘‘Ball Bearings and Parts There 

of from Various Countries: 2007/2008 

Level-of-Trade Analysis,’’ 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, 2007, 

through April 30, 2008: 

Company Margin 

(percent) 

France 

SKF France ................................ 10.13 

Edwards Ltd. and Edwards High 

Vacuum Int’l Ltd ...................... 10.13 

Germany 

GRW ........................................... 0.10 

Schaeffler KG ............................. 3.32 

myonic ........................................ 70.41 

RWG Frankenjura Industrie Aircraft Bearings GmbH .............. 3.32 

SKF GmbH ................................. 3.32 

Edwards Ltd. and Edwards High 

Vacuum Int’l Ltd ...................... 3.32 

Italy 

SKF Italy ..................................... 10.94 

Schaeffler Italia S.r.L. (formerly 

FAG Italia S.p.A.) .................... 10.94 

Japan 

Edwards Ltd. and Edwards High 

Vacuum Int’l Ltd ...................... 73.55 

Company Margin 

(percent) 

JAEC ........................................... 0.00 

Sapporo ...................................... 6.65 

United Kingdom 

Barden/Schaeffler UK ................. 0.14 

SKF UK ....................................... 18.27 

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. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Any interested party may 

request a hearing within 30 days of the 

date of publication of this notice. See 19 

CFR 351.310(c). 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. See 19 

CFR 351.310(c). Requests should 

contain the following: (1) The party’s 

name, address, and telephone number; 

(2) the number of participants; (3) a list 

of issues to be discussed. 

Issues raised in hearings will be 

limited to those raised in the respective 

case briefs. Case briefs from interested 

parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the 

issues raised in the respective case 

briefs, may be submitted not later than 

the following dates: 

Case Briefs due 1 Rebuttals due 

France ..................................................................................... May 27, 2009 ......................................................................... June 3, 2009. 

Germany ................................................................................. May 28, 2009 ......................................................................... June 4, 2009. 

Italy ......................................................................................... May 29, 2009 ......................................................................... June 5, 2009. 

Japan ...................................................................................... June 4, 2009 .......................................................................... June 11, 2009. 

United Kingdom ...................................................................... June 5, 2009 .......................................................................... June 12, 2009. 

General Issues ........................................................................ June 8, 2009 .......................................................................... June 15, 2009. 

1 If verification reports for pending verifications involving the administrative reviews of Japan and the United Kingdom are issued later than 

seven days prior to the dates indicated, then the case brief will be due seven days after release of the verification report and the rebuttal brief 

will be due seven days after the due date for the case brief. The case brief for General Issues will be due the first business day after the last 

country-specific case brief is due and the rebuttal brief for General Issues will be due seven days thereafter. 

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. 

The Department intends to issue the 

final results of these administrative 

reviews, including the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in any such 

written briefs or at the hearings, if held, 

within 120 days of the date of 

publication of this notice. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
19064 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 

described below. We intend to issue 

liquidation 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 selected 

for individual examination in these 

preliminary results of reviews for which 

the reviewed companies did not know 

their merchandise was destined for the 

United States. In such instances, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 

entries at the country-specific all-others 

rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediate company(ies) involved in 

the transaction. For a full discussion of 

this clarification, see Assessment of 

Antidumping Duties. 

For the responsive companies which 

were not selected for individual 

examination, we will instruct CBP to 

apply the rates listed above to all entries 

of subject merchandise produced and/or 

exported by 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 AFA rate to all 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the period of review produced and/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 nonsampled), 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 weightedaverage 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. 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

notice of final results of administrative 

reviews for all shipments of subject 

merchandise 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 the reviews; (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not listed above, the cashdeposit 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 reviews published on 

July 26, 1993. See Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Revocation in Part of an 

Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR 39729 

(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 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. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Department’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of doubled antidumping duties. 

These preliminary results of 

administrative reviews and intent to 

revoke in part are issued and published 

in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) 

and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: April 21, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–9588 Filed 4–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–552–805] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation and Request for Public 

Comment on the Application of the 

Countervailing Duty Law to Imports 

From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 27, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jun 

Jack Zhao or Gene Calvert, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1396 and (202) 

482–3586, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On March 31, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) received a 

petition concerning imports of 

polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

(Vietnam) filed in proper form by Hilex 

Poly Co., LLC and Superbag Corporation 

(collectively, the petitioners), domestic 

producers of PRCBs. On April 6, 2009, 

the Department issued requests for 

additional information and clarification 

of certain areas of the Petition involving 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES