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, 19056-19064 [E9-9588]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 79 (Monday, April 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19056-19064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9588]


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

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: 

[[Page 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

[[Page 19058]]

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-than-fair-
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,

[[Page 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 country-specific 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.

[[Page 19060]]

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 short-term 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 https://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

[[Page 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 further-manufactured 
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 Somecat-produced bearings which SKF 
UK sold in the United States on or after January 1, 2008; SKF UK 
reported SNFA UK-produced 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

[[Page 19062]]

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 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 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. model's characteristics) of the inner diameter, outer diameter, 
width, and load rating for each potential home-market match and 
selected the bearing with the smallest sum of the deviations. If two or 
more bearings had the same sum of the deviations, we selected the model 
that was sold at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale and was the 
closest contemporaneous sale to the U.S. sale. If two or more models 
were sold at the same level of trade and were sold equally 
contemporaneously, we selected the model with the smallest difference-
in-merchandise adjustment.
    Finally, if no 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

[[Page 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-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
From South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997).
    Where the respondent reported no home-market levels of trade that 
were equivalent to the CEP level of trade and where the CEP level of 
trade was at a less advanced stage than any of the home-market levels 
of trade, we were unable to calculate a level-of-trade adjustment based 
on the respondent's home-market sales of the foreign like product. 
Furthermore, we have no other information that provides an appropriate 
basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment. For respondents' CEP 
sales, to the extent possible, we determined normal value at the same 
level of trade as the U.S. sale to the first unaffiliated customer and 
made a CEP-offset adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of 
the Act. The CEP-offset adjustment to normal value was subject to the 
so-called ``offset cap,'' calculated as the sum of home-market indirect 
selling expenses up to the amount of U.S. indirect selling expenses 
deducted from CEP (or, if there were no home-market commissions, the 
sum of U.S. indirect selling expenses and U.S. commissions).
    For a company-specific description of our level-of-trade analyses 
for these preliminary results, see Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill, 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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                           Company                             (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
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

[[Page 19064]]

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 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.
    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 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 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