Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Preliminary Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews in Part, and Intent To Revoke Order In Part, 22384-22391 [2010-9865]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22384-22391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9865]



[[Page 22384]]

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

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, Preliminary Results of Changed-Circumstances 
Review, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews in Part, 
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 for 
the period May 1, 2008, through April 30, 2009. We have preliminarily 
determined that sales have been made below normal value by certain 
companies subject to these reviews. We have also preliminarily 
determined that myonic GmbH, a firm covered by the administrative 
review of the order on ball bearings from Germany, is the successor-in-
interest to the pre-acquisition myonic GmbH. We are also rescinding the 
administrative reviews in part for certain firms for which the requests 
for review of these firms were withdrawn in a timely manner. Finally, 
we are announcing our intent to revoke the order on ball bearings and 
parts thereof from the United Kingdom in part with respect to subject 
merchandise exported and/or sold by Barden/Schaeffler UK to the United 
States.
    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 28, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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) 482-4477.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 15, 1989, the Department published the antidumping duty 
orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from France (54 FR 20902), 
Germany (54 FR 20900), Italy (54 FR 20903), Japan (54 FR 20904), and 
the United Kingdom (54 FR 20910) in the Federal Register. On June 24, 
2009, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), we published a notice of 
initiation of administrative reviews of 29 companies subject to these 
orders. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 30052 
(June 24, 2009).
    On January 14, 2010, we extended the due date for the completion of 
these preliminary results of reviews from February 1, 2010, to April 
14, 2010.\1\ See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, et al.: 
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 2108 (January 14, 2010) (Extension 
Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The original statutory due date for the preliminary results 
was Sunday, January 31, 2010. In the Extension Notice, we calculated 
73 days from Monday, February 1, 2010, and stated that ``we are 
extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of 
these reviews by 73 days until April 15, 2010.'' The 73rd day from 
the original statutory due date is April 14, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in Memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, the Department has exercised its discretion to 
toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal 
Government from February 5 through February 12, 2010. Thus, all 
deadlines in these segments of the five proceedings have been extended 
by seven days. The revised deadline for the preliminary results of 
these antidumping administrative reviews is now April 21, 2010. See 
Memorandum to the Record from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import 
Administration, regarding ``Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a 
Result of the Government Closure During the Recent Snowstorm,'' dated 
February 12, 2010.
    The period of review is May 1, 2008, through April 30, 2009. The 
Department is conducting these administrative reviews in accordance 
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of the Orders

    The products covered by the orders are ball bearings and parts 
thereof. These products include all antifriction bearings that employ 
balls as the rolling element. Imports of these products are classified 
under the following categories: Antifriction balls, ball bearings with 
integral shafts, ball bearings (including radial ball bearings) and 
parts thereof, and housed or mounted ball bearing units and parts 
thereof.
    Imports of these products are classified under the following 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 
3926.90.45, 4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.19.50.10, 8431.20.00, 
8431.39.00.10, 8482.10.10, 8482.10.50, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 
8482.99.05, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.25.80, 8482.99.65.95, 8483.20.40, 
8483.20.80, 8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.50.90, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 
8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.60.80, 8708.93.30, 
8708.93.60.00, 8708.99.06, 8708.99.31.00, 8708.99.40.00, 8708.99.49.60, 
8708.99.58, 8708.99.80.15, 8708.99.80.80, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 
8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, 8803.90.90, 8708.30.50.90, 8708.40.75.70, 
8708.40.75.80, 8708.50.79.00, 8708.50.89.00, 8708.50.91.50, 
8708.50.99.00, 8708.70.60.60, 8708.80.65.90, 8708.93.75.00, 8708.94.75, 
8708.95.20.00, 8708.99.55.00, 8708.99.68, and 8708.99.81.80.
    Although the HTSUS item numbers above are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, the written descriptions of the scope of the 
orders remain dispositive.
    The size or precision grade of a bearing does not influence whether 
the bearing is covered by one of the orders. The orders cover all the 
subject bearings and parts thereof (inner race, outer race, cage, 
rollers, balls, seals, shields, etc.) outlined above with certain 
limitations. With regard to finished parts, all such parts are included 
in the scope of the orders. For unfinished parts, such parts are 
included if they have been heat-treated or if heat treatment is not 
required to be performed on the part. Thus, the only unfinished parts 
that are not covered by the orders are those that will be subject to 
heat treatment after importation. The ultimate application of a bearing 
also does not influence whether the bearing is covered by the orders. 
Bearings designed for highly specialized applications are not excluded. 
Any of the subject bearings, regardless of whether they may ultimately 
be utilized in aircraft, automobiles, or other equipment, are within 
the scope of the orders.
    For a list of scope determinations which pertain to the orders, see 
the ``Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill'' regarding scope determinations 
for the 2008/2009 reviews, dated April 21, 2010, which is on file in 
the Central Records Unit (CRU) of the main

[[Page 22385]]

Commerce building, room 1117, in the General Issues record (A-100-001).

Rescission of Reviews in Part

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Country                              Company
------------------------------------------------------------------------
France................................  SNR Roulements (SNR).
Germany...............................  RWG Frankenjura-Industrie
                                         Flugwerklager GmbH.
                                        SNR Walzlager GmbH.
Japan.................................  Asahi Seiko Co. Ltd.
                                        Nippon Pillow Block Co., Ltd.
                                        Japanese Aero Engine Bearings
                                         Corporation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because there are no other requests for review of the above-named 
firms, we are rescinding the reviews with respect to these companies in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
    In addition, on August 31, 2009, the Department revoked, in part, 
the antidumping duty order on ball bearings and parts thereof from 
Germany as it applies to all subject merchandise exported and/or sold 
by Gebr[uuml]der Reinfurt GmbH & Co. KG (GRW). See Ball Bearings and 
Parts Thereof From France, et al.: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Revocation of an Order in Part, 74 FR 44819, 
44820 (August 31, 2009). The effective date of the revocation is May 1, 
2008. Therefore, we are also rescinding the review of the 2008/2009 
period with respect to GRW.

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 2009 we requested information concerning the 
quantity and value of sales to the United States from the 29 exporters/
producers for which we had initiated reviews. We received responses 
from all of the exporters/producers by July 2009. 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 Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill, dated July 31, 
2009, for the detailed analysis of the selection process for each 
country-specific review. We selected the following companies for 
individual examination:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Country                              Company
------------------------------------------------------------------------
France................................  SKF France.
                                        SNR.\2\
Germany...............................  Schaeffler KG.
                                        myonic GmbH (myonic).
Italy.................................  Schaeffler Italia S.r.l.
                                         (formerly FAG Italia S.p.A.).
                                        SKF Industrie S.p.A./Somecat
                                         S.p.A. (SKF Italy).
Japan.................................  NTN Corporation.
                                        NSK Ltd.
United Kingdom........................  Barden/Schaeffler UK.
                                        NSK Bearings Europe Ltd. (NSK
                                         U.K.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Selected Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Request withdrawn; see ``Rescission of Reviews in Part'' 
section above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For responding companies under review of the orders on merchandise 
from Germany and Japan that were not individually examined, we have 
assigned the simple-average margin of the two selected respondents in 
each respective review. Therefore, we have applied, for these 
preliminary results, the rate of 11.94 percent (Germany) and the rate 
of 10.97 percent (Japan) to the firms not individually examined in the 
respective reviews. See Memorandum to the File entitled ``Calculation 
of Simple-Average Margins'' under A-100-001 in the CRU.
    With respect to the responding company which remains under review 
and which we did not select for individual examination in the review of 
the order on subject merchandise from France (Microturbo SAS), we have 
assigned the margin we have calculated for SKF France of 6.86 percent 
to this firm. 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 the United Kingdom 
(SKF UK; Timken UK Ltd. and Timken Aerospace UK Ltd.), we have 
disregarded the de minimis margin we calculated for Barden/Schaeffler 
UK and assigned the margin we have calculated for NSK U.K. of 6.85 
percent to these firms.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we have verified 
information provided by the following companies: Myonic; Schaeffler 
Italia S.r.l.; SKF Italy; NTN Corporation; Barden/Schaeffler UK; NSK 
U.K.
    We conducted these verifications using standard verification 
procedures including the examination of relevant sales and financial 
records and the selection and review of original documentation 
containing relevant information. Our verification results are outlined 
in the public versions of our verification reports which are on file in 
CRU, room 1117 of the main Department building.

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 22, 2008-June 28, 2008; August 10, 2008-August 16, 2008; August 
31, 2008-September 6, 2008; November 16, 2008-November 22, 2008; 
February 1, 2009-February 7, 2009; April 26, 2009-April 30, 2009. We 
reviewed all EP sales transactions which the respondents we selected 
for individual examination 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

[[Page 22386]]

made deductions, as appropriate, for discounts and rebates. See 19 CFR 
351.401(c) and 351.102(b)(38). We also made deductions for any movement 
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    Certain companies received freight revenues or packing revenues 
from the customer for certain U.S. sales. In Certain Orange Juice from 
Brazil: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 46584 (August 11, 2008) (OJ Brazil), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7, and 
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.
    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 with 
the exception of myonic.
    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 NTN Corporation, NSK Ltd., NSK 
U.K., SKF France, SKF Italy, and Schaeffler KG. Also, for these firms, 
we determine that there was a sufficient quantity of sales remaining to 
provide a reasonable basis for comparison and that the use of these 
sales is appropriate. For the analysis of the decision not to require 
further-manufactured data, see the Department's company-specific 
preliminary analysis memoranda dated April 21, 2010. Accordingly, for 
purposes of determining dumping margins for the sales subject to the 
special rule, we have used the weighted-average dumping margins 
calculated on sales of identical or other subject merchandise sold to 
unaffiliated persons.
    For myonic, we determined that the special rule did not apply 
because the value added in the United States did not exceed 
substantially the value of the subject merchandise. Consequently, 
myonic submitted a complete response to our further-manufacturing 
questionnaire which included the costs of the further processing 
performed by myonic Inc. in the United States. We analyzed these sales 
in the same manner as non-further-manufactured products but deducted 
the value of further manufacturing incurred in the United States and an 
amount for profit attributable to the further manufacturing. We used 
the data reported in myonic's response to calculate the further-
manufacturing expense which we deducted from U.S. prices.
    There were no other claimed or allowed adjustments to EP or CEP 
sales by the 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 2008, June 2008, August 2008, September 2008, November 2008, 
February 2009, April 2009, and June 2009.

[[Page 22387]]

    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 at 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. See company-specific preliminary analysis memoranda dated April 
21, 2010.

Cost of Production

    In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, in the last completed 
segment of the relevant country-specific proceeding we disregarded 
below-cost sales for NTN Corporation, NSK Ltd., SKF France, SKF Italy, 
Schaeffler Italia S.r.l., Schaeffler KG, NSK U.K., and Barden/
Schaeffler UK. Furthermore, based on an allegation from The Timken 
Company that myonic was making sales in its home market at below-cost 
prices, we initiated a cost-of-production (COP) investigation 
concerning myonic's home-market sales. See Memorandum to Laurie 
Parkhill dated November 16, 2009. Therefore, for the instant reviews, 
we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales by all of 
the above companies of the foreign like product under consideration for 
the determination of normal value in these reviews may have been made 
at prices below the 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 or, in the case of Schaeffler Italia S.r.l., 
its largest supplier.
    After calculating the COP and in accordance with section 773(b)(1) 
of the Act, we tested whether home-market sales of the foreign like 
product were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of 
time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We compared 
model-specific COPs to the reported home-market prices less any 
applicable movement charges, discounts, and rebates.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less 
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities 
within an extended period of time. When 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product during the period of review were 
at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales 
because they were made in substantial quantities within an extended 
period of time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act and 
because, based on comparisons of prices to weighted-average COPs for 
the period of review, we determined that these sales were at prices 
which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period 
of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Based on 
this test, we disregarded below-cost sales with respect to NTN 
Corporation, NSK Ltd., SKF France, SKF Italy, Schaeffler Italia S.r.l., 
myonic, Schaeffler KG, NSK U.K., and Barden/Schaeffler UK. See the 
relevant company-specific preliminary analysis memoranda dated April 
21, 2010.

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. For a full 
discussion of the model-match methodology we have used in 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

[[Page 22388]]

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 were at a different level of 
trade than U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and 
selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer 
and the unaffiliated customer. If the home-market sales were at a 
different level of trade from that of 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 
home-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 in such situations, to the extent possible, we determined normal 
value at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale to the first 
unaffiliated customer and made a CEP-offset adjustment in accordance 
with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The CEP-offset adjustment to 
normal value was subject to the so-called ``offset cap,'' calculated as 
the sum of home-market indirect selling expenses up to the amount of 
U.S. indirect selling expenses deducted from CEP (or, if there were no 
home-market commissions, the sum of U.S. indirect selling expenses and 
U.S. commissions).
    For a company-specific description of our level-of-trade analyses 
for these preliminary results, see Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill, dated 
April 21, 2010, entitled ``Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Various 
Countries: 2008/2009 Level-of-Trade Analysis,'' on file in the CRU, 
room 1117.

Weighted-Average Margin

    In order to derive a single weighted-average margin for each 
respondent, we weight-averaged the EP and CEP weighted-average margins 
(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 weighted-
average margin.

Intent To Revoke

    On May 18, 2009, Barden/Schaeffler UK requested revocation of the 
order on ball bearings and parts thereof from the United Kingdom 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 at 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

[[Page 22389]]

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 the request dated May 
18, 2009, from Barden/Schaeffler UK 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 Barden/Schaeffler UK 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 Reviews in 
Part, 73 FR 52823 (September 11, 2008), for the period May 1, 2006, 
through April 30, 2007, and Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From 
France, et al.: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Revocation of an Order in Part, 74 FR 44819 (August 31, 
2009), for the period May 1, 2007, through April 30, 2008. Based on our 
examination of the sales data submitted by Barden/Schaeffler UK, we 
preliminarily determine that Barden/Schaeffler UK sold the subject 
merchandise in the United States in commercial quantities in each of 
the consecutive years cited by Barden/Schaeffler UK to support its 
request for revocation. See the preliminary analysis memorandum for 
Barden/Schaeffler UK dated April 21, 2010, for more details. Thus, we 
preliminarily find that Barden/Schaeffler UK 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 Barden/Schaeffler UK 
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 Barden/Schaeffler UK 
qualifies for revocation from the order on ball bearings and parts 
thereof from the United Kingdom 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 United Kingdom exported and/or 
sold to the United States by Barden/Schaeffler UK. If our intent to 
revoke results in revocation of the order in part with respect to 
merchandise exported and/or sold by Barden/Schaeffler UK, the proposed 
effective date of the revocation is May 1, 2009.

Preliminary Results of Changed-Circumstances Review

    On January 21, 2010, we initiated a changed-circumstances review 
upon being informed by myonic that on March 5, 2009, Minebea Co., Ltd. 
(Minebea), purchased 100 percent of the shares of myonic GmbH Holding, 
myonic's parent company, and that an unaffiliated investor purchased 
myonic Inc. which was myonic's U.S. subsidiary. See Ball Bearings and 
Parts Thereof From Germany: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed-
Circumstances Review, 75 FR 3444 (January 21, 2010). We also announced 
that we would conduct the changed-circumstances review in the context 
of the 2008/2009 administrative review.
    In determining whether one company is the successor to another for 
purposes of applying the antidumping duty law, the Department examines 
a number of factors including, but not limited to, changes in 
management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customer 
base. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Japan: Initiation and 
Preliminary Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, 71 FR 14679, 14680 
(March 23, 2006), unchanged in Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Changed-Circumstances Review: Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from 
Japan, 71 FR 26452 (May 5, 2006) (collectively CCR Japan), and 
Industrial Phosphoric Acid From Israel; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944 (February 14, 1994). 
Although no single or even several of these factors will necessarily 
provide a dispositive indication of succession, generally the 
Department will consider one company to be a successor to another 
company if its resulting operation is similar to that of its 
predecessor. See CCR Japan and Brass Sheet and Strip From Canada; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460 (May 13, 
1992), at Comment 1. Thus, if the evidence demonstrates that, with 
respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new 
company operates as the same business entity as the prior company, the 
Department will assign the new company the cash-deposit rate of its 
predecessor. Id. See also Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the 
Republic of Korea; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 
Circumstances Review, 63 FR 14679 (March 26, 1998), unchanged in 
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Korea; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 63 FR 20572 (April 27, 
1998), in which the Department found that a company which only changed 
its name and did not change its operations is a successor-in-interest 
to the company before it changed its name.
    In its responses dated October 1, 2009, December 14, 2009, February 
3, 2010, and March 9, 2010, myonic provided information to demonstrate 
that it is the successor-in-interest to the pre-acquisition myonic. 
Myonic provided contract documents which provided evidence of Minebea's 
acquisition of myonic GmbH Holding and an unaffiliated investor's 
purchase of myonic Inc. Myonic provided the chart of management 
structures and list of managing directors which state that the 
company's management did not change. We have visited myonic's 
production facilities and reviewed myonic's production of ball bearings 
and we did not find differences in business operations between the pre-
acquisition myonic and post-acquisition myonic. We examined information 
concerning myonic's customers in the home market and the United States 
and found that the post-acquisition myonic retained several of its pre-
acquisition customers. We reviewed myonic Inc.'s invoices and the 
invoices of Minebea's U.S. affiliate, New Hampshire Ball

[[Page 22390]]

Bearings, Inc. (NHBB), and found that NHBB's myonic USA Division sells 
myonic's ball bearings in the United States. The post-acquisition 
myonic purchased raw materials from suppliers which differ from the 
suppliers from which the pre-acquisition myonic purchased raw materials 
but the types of input remained the same for both pre-acquisition 
myonic and post-acquisition myonic. See the preliminary analysis 
memorandum for myonic dated April 21, 2010, for more details.
    Based on the above, we preliminarily determine that the post-
acquisition myonic is the successor-in-interest to the pre-acquisition 
myonic.

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, 
2008, through April 30, 2009:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                           Company                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 France
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF France..................................................        6.86
Microturbo SAS 6............................................         .86
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Germany
------------------------------------------------------------------------
myonic......................................................       21.72
Schaeffler KG...............................................        2.16
SKF GmbH....................................................       11.94
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Italy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKF Italy...................................................       13.04
Schaeffler Italia S.r.l.....................................        1.98
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Japan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aisin Seiki Company Ltd.....................................       10.97
JTEKT Corporation (formerly known as Koyo Seiko Co.)........       10.97
Makino Milling Machine Company Ltd..........................       10.97
Mazda Motor Corporation.....................................       10.97
Nachi- Fujikoshi Corporation................................       10.97
Nissan Motor Company Ltd....................................       10.97
NSK Ltd.....................................................        8.48
NTN Corporation.............................................       13.46
Sapporo Precision, Inc., and Tokyo Precision, Inc...........       10.97
Univance Corporation........................................       10.97
Yamazaki Mazak Trading Corporation..........................       10.97
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             United Kingdom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barden/Schaeffler UK........................................        0.00
NSK U.K.....................................................        6.85
SKF UK......................................................        6.85
Timken UK Ltd. and Timken Aerospace UK Ltd..................        6.85
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments

    We will disclose the calculations we used in our analysis to 
parties to these reviews within five days of the date of publication of 
this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. See 
19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a general-issues hearing and any 
hearings regarding issues related solely to specific countries will be 
held at the main Department building at times and locations to be 
determined.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate 
if one is requested must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration within 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should 
contain the following: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone 
number; (2) the number of participants; (3) a list of issues to be 
discussed.
    Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the 
respective case briefs. Case briefs from interested parties and 
rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the respective case 
briefs, may be submitted not later than the following dates:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Case                               Briefs due                           Rebuttals due
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
France..............................  May 26, 2010........................  June 2, 2010.
Germany \3\.........................  May 27, 2010........................  June 3, 2010.
Italy...............................  May 28, 2010........................  June 4, 2010.
Japan...............................  June 1, 2010........................  June 8, 2010.
United Kingdom......................  June 2, 2010........................  June 9, 2010.
General Issues......................  June 3, 2010........................  June 10, 2010.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties who submit case briefs (see 19 CFR 351.309(c)) or rebuttal 
briefs (see 19 CFR 351.309(d)) in these proceedings are requested to 
submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief 
summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a 
summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of 
statutes, regulations, and cases cited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Briefs should include any comments with respect to the 
changed-circumstances review concerning myonic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department intends to issue the final results of these 
administrative reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in any such written briefs or at the hearings, if held, within 
120 days of the date of publication of this notice.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated, 
whenever possible, an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific 
assessment rate or value for merchandise subject to these reviews as 
described below.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject 
merchandise during the period of review produced by companies selected 
for individual examination in these preliminary results of reviews for 
which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was 
destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP 
to liquidate unreviewed entries at the country-specific all-others rate 
if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the 
transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of 
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
    For the 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.
    We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after 
publication of the final results of these reviews.

Export-Price Sales

    With respect to EP sales, for these preliminary results, we divided 
the total

[[Page 22391]]

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

    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 Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of 
Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 66472, 66521 (December 17, 1996). These 
rates are the all-others rates from the relevant less-than-fair-value 
investigations. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain 
in effect until further notice.

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, preliminary 
results of changed-circumstances review, rescission of antidumping duty 
administrative reviews in part, and intent to revoke an order in part 
are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 
751(b)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 21, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-9865 Filed 4-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P