Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the 2008-2009 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 41148-41157 [2010-17302]

Download as PDF 41148 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 135 / Thursday, July 15, 2010 / Notices entries containing subject merchandise exported by the PRC–wide entity at the PRC–wide rate in the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for shipments of subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of the review, as provided by sections 751(a)(1) and (a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for all respondents receiving a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of the review; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non–PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter–specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC–wide rate of 139.49 percent; and (4) for all non–PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non– PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES 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 Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. The Department is issuing and publishing these preliminary results of administrative review in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). Dated: July 7, 2010. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 2010–17299 Filed 7–14–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:53 Jul 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–601] Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the 2008–2009 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) is currently conducting the 2008–2009 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished or unfinished (‘‘TRBs’’), from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’), covering the period June 1, 2008, through May 31, 2009. We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below normal value (‘‘NV’’) by certain companies subject to this review. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the period of review (‘‘POR’’) for which the importerspecific assessment rates are above de minimis. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue final results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. DATES: Effective Date: July 15, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brendan Quinn or Trisha Tran, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5848 or (202) 482– 4852, respectively. Background On June 15, 1987, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on TRBs from the PRC.1 On June 1, 2009, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on TRBs from the PRC.2 On June 30, 1 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From the People’s Republic of China, 52 FR 22667 (June 15, 1987). 2 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 2009, the sole respondent in the prior review, the majority Spungen familyowned joint-venture Peer Bearing Company Ltd.—Changshan (‘‘PBCD/ CPZ’’) and its wholly Spungen-familyowned U.S. sales affiliate, Peer Bearing Company (‘‘PBCD/Peer’’) (collectively ‘‘PBCD’’), requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales of subject merchandise prior to the acquisition of both companies by AB SKF during the POR. On June 30, 2009, the wholly AB SKF-owned Changshan Peer Bearing Company, Ltd. (‘‘SKF/ CPZ’’) and its wholly AB SKF-owned U.S. sales affiliate, Peer Bearing Company (‘‘SKF/Peer’’) (collectively ‘‘SKF’’), requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales of subject merchandise subsequent to the acquisition of the PBCD companies during the POR.3 On June 30, 2009, the Timken Company, of Canton, Ohio (‘‘Petitioner’’) requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of all entries of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by CPZ, regardless of its ownership during the POR. On June 30, 2009, Hubei New Torch Science & Technology Company Co., Ltd. (‘‘New Torch’’), a producer and exporter of subject merchandise, also requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales of subject merchandise. On July 29, 2009, the Department initiated the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on TRBs from the PRC for the period June 1, 2008, through May 31, 2009.4 On August 26, 2009, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to PBCD, SKF, and New Torch. Between October 14, 2009, and June 18, 2010, PBCD, SKF, and New Torch responded to the Department’s original and supplemental questionnaires. On October 1, 2009, we invited all interested parties to submit publicly available information to value factors of production (‘‘FOPs’’) for consideration in the Department’s preliminary results of review. On December 7, 2009, SKF submitted publicly available information to value FOPs for the preliminary results. On December 17, 2009, and June 16, 2010, PBCD submitted surrogate value To Request Administrative Review, 74 FR 26202 (June 1, 2009). 3 Without consideration of ownership, the Changshan-based TRB production facility is referred to as ‘‘CPZ’’ and the Illinois-based U.S. sales affiliate is referred to as ‘‘Peer.’’ 4 See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Administrative Review, 74 FR 37690 (July 29, 2009). E:\FR\FM\15JYN1.SGM 15JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 135 / Thursday, July 15, 2010 / Notices information for the Department’s consideration. From December 17, 2009, through June 18, 2010, Petitioner submitted comments and publicly available information to value FOPs for the preliminary results. On May 5, 2010, in its supplemental response to the Department’s questionnaire, New Torch submitted publicly available information regarding the valuation of certain inputs.5 On March 2, 2010, the Department published a notice in the Federal Register extending the time limit for the preliminary results of review by the full 120 days allowed under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), to July 7, 2010.6 Period of Review The POR is June 1, 2008, through May 31, 2009. Scope of the Order srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES Imports covered by this order are shipments of tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from the PRC; flange, take up cartridge, and hanger units incorporating tapered roller bearings; and tapered roller housings (except pillow blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or without spindles, whether or not for automotive use. These products are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) item numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80, 5 On June 22, 2010, Petitioner submitted comments regarding PBCD and SKF for the upcoming preliminary results. SKF submitted rebuttal comments on June 30, 2010. Petitioner then submitted further rebuttal comments on July 6, 2010; however, due to the proximity to the deadline, the Department was unable to consider these submissions for purposes of the preliminary results. 6 See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from the People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 2008–2009 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 9391 (March 2, 2010). See also 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, wherein all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by seven days as a result of the closure of the Federal Government from February 5, 2010 through February 12, 2010. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:53 Jul 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 8708.99.80.15 7 and 8708.99.80.80.8 Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Initiation of Scope Determination of New Torch’s Wheel Hub Assemblies From October 30, 2009, through May 5, 2010, in various supplemental questionnaires, New Torch stated that it produced and sold wheel hub assemblies to the United States during the POR, which it asserted were not subject to the scope of the order on TRBs. On June 15, 2010, the Department initiated two scope inquiries on wheel hub assemblies produced by PRC producers that are unrelated to the respondents in the instant administrative review. Subsequently, on June 17, 2010, New Torch requested that the Department accept a revised U.S. sales and FOP database, which would include sales and FOP information regarding New Torch’s wheel hub assemblies sold to the United States during the POR. On July 6, 2010, the Department requested revised FOP and U.S. sales databases containing information with respect to New Torch’s wheel hub assemblies sold to the United States during the POR. For the purposes of these preliminary results, because the Department has not yet determined whether wheel hub assemblies are covered by the scope of the order on TRBs, the Department will continue to base its antidumping margin calculation on New Torch’s original U.S. sales database, which does not include wheel hub assemblies. However, the Department will determine whether New Torch’s wheel hub assemblies are covered by the scope of the order on TRBs for the final results. In addition, pursuant to the outcome of the Department’s determination of whether New Torch’s wheel hub assemblies are within the scope of the order on TRBs, the Department intends to use the appropriate databases to determine New Torch’s antidumping margin calculation for the final results. 7 Effective January 1, 2007, the HTSUS subheading 8708.99.8015 is renumbered as 8708.99.8115. See United States International Trade Commission (‘‘USITC’’) publication entitled, ‘‘Modifications to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Under Section 1206 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988,’’ USITC Publication 3898 (December 2006) found at http://www.usitc.gov. 8 Effective January 1, 2007, the USHTS subheading 8708.99.8080 is renumbered as 8708.99.8180; see Id. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 41149 Non-Market Economy Country Status Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a NME country.9 None of the parties to this review has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated normal value in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries. Surrogate Country Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on the NME producer’s FOPs, valued in a surrogate market-economy (‘‘ME’’) country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall use, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of the FOPs in one or more market economy countries that are: (1) At a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the ‘‘Factor Valuations’’ section below.10 The Department’s practice with respect to determining economic comparability is explained in Policy Bulletin 04.1,11 which states that ‘‘OP {Office of Policy} determines per capita economic comparability on the basis of per capita gross national income, as reported in the most current annual issue of the World Development Report (The World Bank).’’ On September 23, 2009, the Department identified six countries as being at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC for the specified POR: India, the 9 See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2001–2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 2001– 2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 2003). 10 See also the Department’s memorandum entitled, ‘‘Preliminary Results of the 2008–2009 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from the People’s Republic of China: Surrogate Value Memorandum,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (‘‘Surrogate Value Memorandum’’). 11 See the Department’s Policy Bulletin No. 04.1, regarding, ‘‘Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process,’’ (March 1, 2004) (‘‘Policy Bulletin 04.1’’), available on the Department’s Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull04-1.html. E:\FR\FM\15JYN1.SGM 15JYN1 41150 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 135 / Thursday, July 15, 2010 / Notices srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES Philippines, Indonesia, Colombia, Thailand, and Peru.12 13 On October 1, 2009, the Department invited all interested parties to submit comments on the surrogate country selection.14 On November 23, 2009, Petitioner, SKF, and PBCD submitted comments regarding the Department’s selection of a surrogate country for the preliminary results. Petitioner submitted rebuttal surrogate country comments on December 3, 2009. In their comments, both Petitioner and SKF requested that India be selected as the primary surrogate country, whereas PBCD requested the Department also consider Indonesia and Thailand as potential surrogates. New Torch did not submit comments regarding surrogate country selection. Policy Bulletin 04.1 provides some guidance on identifying comparable merchandise and selecting a producer of comparable merchandise. Based on an analysis of export data obtained from Global Trade Atlas, published by Global Trade Information Services, Inc. (‘‘GTA’’) for harmonized tariff schedule (‘‘HTS’’) subheadings 8482.20, 8482.20.00, 8482.91, 8482.91.00, 8482.99, 8482.99.00, 8483.20, 8483.20.00, 8483.30, 8483.30.90, 8708.99,15 the Department finds that India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Colombia, Thailand, and Peru are all producers of comparable merchandise. Finally, we have reliable data from India on the record that we can use to value 12 See the Department’s Memorandum from Kelly Parkhill, Acting Director, Office of Policy, to Wendy Frankel, Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, regarding, ‘‘Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered Roller Bearings (‘‘TRB’’) from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’),’’ dated September 23, 2009 (‘‘Surrogate Countries Memorandum’’). 13 See Policy Bulletin 04.1 at 2. 14 See the Department’s letter regarding, ‘‘2008– 2009 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered Roller Bearings from the People’s Republic of China’’ requesting all interested parties to provide comments on surrogate-country selection and provide surrogate FOP values from the potential surrogate countries (i.e., India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Colombia, and Peru), dated October 1, 2009. 15 Export information could not be found for all HTS subheadings specified in the scope of the order. As such, the Department utilized GTA data for all available HTS categories. GTA export statistics for India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Colombia, Thailand, and Peru only offer a basket category for all categories other than 8482.20.00 ‘‘Tapered roller bearings, including cone and tapered roller assemblies.’’ In the case of the categories beginning with the four digit 8482 and 8483 heading, similar ‘NESOI’ or ‘Other’ subheadings were used in the alternative, though typically not as specific as that of the HTSUS category. However, in the case of the categories beginning with the four digit 8708 heading, GTA export statistics for each of the potential surrogate country candidates could only be found to the broadly defined 8708.99 subheading. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:53 Jul 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 the FOPs. While PBCD and SKF submitted Indonesian and Thai data on the record to value limited FOP inputs, Petitioner, SKF and New Torch each submitted surrogate values for the majority of the inputs using Indian sources, suggesting greater availability of appropriate surrogate value data in India. Additionally, Petitioner and SKF placed the financial statements of various Indian producers on the record, further demonstrating the greater availability of appropriate surrogate value data in India. Therefore, the Department is preliminarily selecting India as the surrogate country on the basis that: (1) It is at a similar level of economic development to the PRC, pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; (2) it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; and (3) we have reliable data from India that we can use to value the FOPs. Accordingly, we have calculated NV using Indian prices when available and appropriate to value each respondent’s FOPs.16 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of an administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value the FOPs within 20 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results.17 Separate Rates In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assigned a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department’s policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the absence of both de jure and de facto government 16 See Surrogate Value Memorandum; see also ‘‘Factor Valuations’’ section, below. 17 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final results of this administrative review, interested parties may submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information submitted by an interested party less than ten days before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record. The Department generally will not accept the submission of additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate value information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (‘‘IDM’’) at Comment 2. PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 control over export activities. The Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as further developed in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). However, if the Department determines that a company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a separate-rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent from government control. PBCD has demonstrated that the preacquisition CPZ was a China-Foreign joint venture, owned by two shareholders, a PRC based company and a U.S. company wholly-owned by the Spungen family. New Torch has stated that it is a joint stock limited, partially foreign invested enterprise. Therefore, the Department must analyze whether PBCD/CPZ and New Torch have demonstrated the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export activities, and are therefore entitled to a separate rate. SKF submitted information indicating that SKF/CPZ is a wholly foreign-owned limited liability company. Therefore, for the purposes of these preliminary results, the Department finds that it is not necessary to perform a separate-rate analysis for SKF/CPZ. a. Absence of De Jure Control The Department considers the following de jure criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter’s business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.18 The evidence provided by PBCD and New Torch supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence of government control based on the following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter’s business and export licenses; (2) there are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the companies; and (3) there are formal measures by the government 18 See E:\FR\FM\15JYN1.SGM Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 15JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 135 / Thursday, July 15, 2010 / Notices decentralizing control of the companies.19 preliminarily granting PBCD and New Torch a separate rate. b. Absence of De facto Control Affiliation—SKF/CPZ and Company A 22 Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are subject to the approval of a government agency; (2) whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses.20 The Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of government control over export activities which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. For PBCD and New Torch, we determine that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of de facto absence of government control based on record statements and supporting documentation showing the following: (1) Each respondent sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) each respondent retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) each respondent has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) each respondent has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management.21 The evidence placed on the record of this review by each respondent demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government control with respect to its exports of the merchandise under review, in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. Therefore, we are srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES 19 See PBCD/SKF’s Joint Section A Questionnaire Response, dated October 14, 2009, and New Torch’s Section A Questionnaire Response, dated November 2, 2009. 20 See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586–87; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). 21 See PBCD/SKF’s Joint Section A Questionnaire Response, dated October 14, 2009, and New Torch’s Section A Questionnaire Response, dated November 2, 2009. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:53 Jul 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 In its questionnaire responses, SKF/ CPZ indicated that it was affiliated with Company A. For purposes of the preliminary results, the Department has determined not to conduct a collapsing analysis with respect to SKF/CPZ and Company A due to insufficient information on the record. However, we intend to solicit additional information with respect to this issue, and will address it subsequent to the preliminary results. Bona Fide Sale Analysis—New Torch New Torch reported a single sale of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.23 In evaluating whether or not a sale subject to review is commercially reasonable, and therefore bona fide, the Department considers, inter alia, such factors as (1) the timing of the sale; (2) the price and quantity; (3) the expenses arising from the transaction; (4) whether the goods were resold at a profit; and (5) whether the transaction was made on an armslength basis.24 The Department examines the bona fide nature of a sale on a case-by-case basis, and the analysis may vary with the facts surrounding each sale.25 In TTPC, the court affirmed the Department’s practice of considering that ‘‘any factor which indicates that the sale under consideration is not likely to be typical of those which the producer will make in the future is relevant,’’ 26 and that ‘‘the weight given to each factor investigated will depend on the circumstances surrounding the sale.’’ 27 In New Donghua, the Court stated that the Department’s practice makes clear 22 The identity of ‘‘Company A’’ is proprietary. See the Department’s memorandum entitled, ‘‘2008– 2009 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from the People’s Republic of China: Analysis of the Preliminary Determination Margin Calculation for SKF–Owned Peer Bearing Company—Changshan,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (‘‘SKF Program Analysis Memorandum’’) for further discussion. 23 See New Torch’s November 12, 2009, Section C and D questionnaire response at C–8. 24 See Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. United States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1250 S (‘‘TTPC’’) (CIT 2005), citing Am. Silicon Techs. v. United States, F. Supp. 2d 992, 995 (CIT 2000). 25 See Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd. v. United States, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1338 (CIT 2005), (‘‘New Donghua’’) quoting Fresh Garlic from the PRC: Final Results of Administrative Review and Rescission of New Shipper Review, 67 FR 11283 (March 13, 2002), and accompanying IDM. 26 See TTPC, 366 F. Supp. 2d at 1250, citing Windmill Int’l Pte., Ltd. v. United States, F. Supp. 2d 1303, 1307 (CIT 2002). 27 See TTPC, 366 F. Supp. 2d at 1263. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 41151 that the Department ‘‘is highly likely to examine objective, verifiable factors to ensure that a sale is not being made to circumvent an antidumping duty order.’’ 28 For the reasons stated below, we preliminarily find New Torch’s reported U.S. sales during the POR to be bona fide based on the facts on the record. First, the sales were made to an unaffiliated customer with the terms set by negotiation and payment received in a timely manner, indicating that the sales were made at arm’s-length. Second, there does not seem to be anything unusual in the timing of New Torch’s sales. Third, New Torch’s sales prices and quantities are similar to the prices and quantities examined during the POR. Fourth, there were no unusual expenses arising from these sales. Fifth, there is no record evidence that the merchandise was not resold at a profit. Therefore, based on the totality of the circumstances, the Department preliminarily finds that New Torch’s sales are bona fide.29 Successor in Interest—SKF/CPZ On September 11, 2008, approximately three and a half months into the POR, PBCD/CPZ and its Illinois-based U.S. sales affiliate, PBCD/ Peer, were each acquired by AB SKF, a Swedish conglomerate, and henceforth known as SKF/CPZ and SKF/Peer. In addition, on August 28, 2009, SKF submitted a request for a changed circumstance review (‘‘CCR’’) to determine that SKF/CPZ is not the successor-in-interest to PBCD/CPZ. On September 30, 2009, the Department informed parties that the information provided in SKF’s August 28, 2009, submission was sufficient to warrant a successor-in-interest analysis regarding SKF’s acquisition of CPZ, and that this determination would be performed within the context of the instant 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: (1) Management, (2) 28 See New Donghua, 374 F. Supp. 2d at 1339. Memorandum to Wendy Frankel, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, through Erin Begnal, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, from Trisha Tran, International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, regarding Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order Covering Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s Republic of China (6/1/2008–5/31/2009): Bona Fide Nature of the Sales Under Review for Hubei New Torch Science & Technology Co., Ltd. (‘‘New Torch’’) (July 7, 2010). 29 See E:\FR\FM\15JYN1.SGM 15JYN1 41152 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 135 / Thursday, July 15, 2010 / Notices srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES production facilities, (3) supplier relationships, and (4) customer base.30 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 not materially dissimilar to that of its predecessor.31 Thus, if the ‘‘totality of circumstances’’ 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.32 In its initial CCR request and subsequent responses to the Department’s supplemental questionnaires, SKF provided documentation demonstrating that SKF/ CPZ instituted a significant change to upper management that starkly contrasts with the management structure of PBCD/CPZ, including the appointment of a new board of directors and a new General Manager. Additionally, SKF expanded its production capabilities by acquiring two co-located affiliated business entities and integrated the production capabilities into one newly consolidated company. The Department finds that the totality of the circumstances demonstrate that SKF/CPZ is not the successor-in-interest to PBCD/CPZ. First, the Department finds that, because SKF/CPZ has replaced and restructured the company’s top management, SKF/CPZ has demonstrated that the company’s operations and production decisions are distinct from the management and operations of PBCD/CPZ. Additionally, we find that changes in SKF/CPZ’s integration and expansion of its production facilities and structure, along with SKF/CPZ’s complete management restructure, demonstrate that SKF/CPZ is a distinct entity from that of the pre-acquisition company. As such, we preliminarily determine that SKF/CPZ is not the successor-in-interest to the pre-acquisition PBCD/CPZ.33 30 See, e.g., Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France: Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, 75 FR 34688 (June 18, 2010), and IDM at Comment 1. 31 See, e.g., Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway; Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 9979 (March 1, 1999). 32 See Id at 9980; see also Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final Result of Administrative Review, 57 FR 20461 (May 13, 1992), and IDM at Comment 1. 33 See Memorandum to Wendy Frankel, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, through Erin Begnal, Program VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:53 Jul 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of TRBs to the United States by respondents were made at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), we compared constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) and export price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, as described in the ‘‘U.S. Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice, below, and pursuant to section 771(35) of the Act. U.S. Price Constructed Export Price In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used CEP for PBCD/CPZ and SKF/CPZ’s sales where the exporter first sold subject merchandise to its affiliated company in the United States, PBCD/Peer and SKF/ Peer, respectively, which in turn sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. customers. We calculated CEP based on delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the U.S. sales price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation, international freight, brokerage and handling, marine insurance, other U.S. transportation, U.S. customs duty, U.S. warehousing expenses, where applicable, U.S. inland freight from port to the warehouse, and U.S. inland freight from the warehouse to the customer. Where foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling fees, or international freight were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based those charges on surrogate rates from India. See ‘‘Factor Valuations’’ section below for further discussion of surrogate rates. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department deducted credit expenses, inventory carrying costs and indirect selling expenses from the U.S. price, all of which relate to commercial activity in the United States. Finally, we deducted CEP profit, in accordance with Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, from Brendan Quinn, International Trade Analyst, AD/ CVD Operations, Office 8, entitled ‘‘Tapered Roller Bearings from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Successor-In-Interest Determination,’’ dated July 7, 2010. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act.34 Consistent with our determination in the 2006–2007 review,35 we have preliminarily determined to use PRODCOD as a basis for comparing NV to CEP for PBCD and SKF’s sales of subject merchandise. SKF/CPZ Existing Inventory On September 11, 2008, AB SKF acquired various Spungen family-owned companies, including PBCD/CPZ and PBCD/Peer. Through a share transfer agreement, AB SKF acquired PBCD/CPZ and PBCD/Peer, including PBCD/CPZ’s assets and liabilities. Among these assets were existing unsold inventory held by PBCD/Peer, which was produced by PBCD/CPZ prior to the acquisition. SKF has argued that the acquisition of PBCD/Peer’s unsold inventory constituted a CEP sale of all remaining inventory to SKF/Peer as the first unaffiliated customer, and requested that the Department treat the transfer as a CEP sale for the purposes of this review. However, PBCD disagreed that the inventory transfer constituted a CEP sale, arguing, that no asset transfer or sale of inventory was specified by the acquisition documents.36 For these preliminary results, the Department finds that SKF’s acquisition of PBCD/CPZ and PBCD/Peer, pursuant to the Master Purchase Agreement (‘‘MPA’’), should not be treated as the first sale to an unaffiliated customer of the inventory held by PBCD/Peer for the purpose of calculating the margin of dumping in this administrative review. The MPA specifies the details of the share transfer between ownership parties upon finalization of the acquisition agreement, which resulted in the transfer of ownership of various 34 See the Department’s memorandum entitled, ‘‘2008–2009 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from the People’s Republic of China: Analysis of the Preliminary Determination Margin Calculation for Spungen-Owned Peer Bearing Company— Changshan,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (‘‘PBCD Program Analysis Memorandum’’); see also the Department’s memorandum entitled, ‘‘2008– 2009 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from the People’s Republic of China: Analysis of the Preliminary Determination Margin Calculation for SKF–Owned Peer Bearing Company—Changshan,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (‘‘SKF Program Analysis Memorandum’’). 35 See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the Administrative Review, 74 FR 3987 (January 22, 2009), and accompanying IDM at Comment 3. 36 For a complete analysis of the arguments forwarded by parties on this issue, see SKF Program Analysis Memorandum. E:\FR\FM\15JYN1.SGM 15JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 135 / Thursday, July 15, 2010 / Notices Spungen-owned companies, including PBCD/Peer and PBCD/CPZ, to various AB SKF-owned affiliates. Therefore, as explained by SKF, there was no sale value specifically associated with just the TRB inventory as part of the MPA. Instead, SKF reported sales prices for the inventory based on an accounting value it obtained from a third party accounting firm for financial reporting purposes subsequent to the acquisition. Thus, the value reported by SKF is not reflective of negotiated sales prices for this merchandise. Therefore, the Department finds that the fact the SKF acquired the inventory of PBCD/Peer simply reflects the fact the inventory in question would remain with SKF/Peer and was not being retained by the former owner of PBCD/Peer. Accordingly, we are examining the sales of this merchandise from SKF to its first unaffiliated downstream customer, and have relied on the U.S. sales prices of SKF/Peer’s downstream sales for purposes of calculating SKF/Peer’s dumping margin.37 Export Price Because New Torch sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to importation into the United States, we used EP for these transactions in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. We calculated EP based on the delivery method reported to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. New Torch’s sales required no deductions included in section 772(c) of the Act.38 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES Normal Value We compared NV to individual EP and CEP transactions in accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, as appropriate. Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using an FOP methodology if: (1) The merchandise is exported from an NME country; and (2) the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home market prices, third country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. When determining NV in an NME context, the Department will base NV on FOPs because the presence of government controls on various aspects of these economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of 37 See Id. for further discussion of this issue. 38 See the Department’s memorandum entitled, ‘‘2008–2009 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from the People’s Republic of China: Analysis of the Preliminary Determination Margin Calculation for Hubei New Torch Science & Technology Co., Ltd.,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (‘‘New Torch Program Analysis Memorandum’’). VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:53 Jul 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 production costs invalid under our normal methodologies. Under section 773(c)(3) of the Act, FOPs include but are not limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital costs. The Department used FOPs reported by the respondents for materials, energy, labor and packing. In past cases, it has been the Department’s practice to value various FOPs using import statistics of the primary selected surrogate country from World Trade Atlas (‘‘WTA’’), as published by Global Trade Information Services (‘‘GTIS’’).39 However, in October 2009, the Department learned that Indian import data obtained from the WTA, as published by GTIS, began identifying the original reporting currency for India as the U.S. Dollar. The Department then contacted GTIS about the change in the original reporting currency for India from the Indian Rupee to the U.S. Dollar. Officials at GTIS explained that while GTIS obtains data on imports into India directly from the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, as denominated and published in Indian Rupees, the WTA software is limited with regard to the number of significant digits it can manage. Therefore, GTIS made a decision to change the original reporting currency for Indian data from the Indian Rupee to the U.S. Dollar in order to reduce the loss of significant digits when obtaining data through the WTA software. GTIS explained that it converts the Indian Rupee to the U.S. Dollar using the monthly Federal Reserve exchange rate applicable to the relevant month of the data being downloaded and converted.40 Because of the conversion and rounding problems in the data reported by WTA, the Department will now obtain import statistics from Global Trade Atlas (‘‘GTA’’), as published by GTIS, for valuing various FOPs. The data reported in the GTA software reports import statistics, such as from India, in the original reporting currency and thus this data corresponds to the original currency value reported by each country. Additionally, the data reported in the GTA software is reported to the 39 See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 50946, 50950 (October 2, 2009). 40 See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, and Final Determination of Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335 (April 19, 2010) and accompanying IDM at Comment 4. PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 41153 nearest digit and thus there is not a loss of data by rounding, as there is with the data reported by the WTA software. Consequently the import statistics we obtain from GTA are in the original reporting currency of the country from which the data are obtained and have the same level of accuracy as the original data released. In the instant review, PBCD and SKF reported sales that were further manufactured or assembled in a third country. Consistent with the TRBs 2007–2008, the Department has determined that the finishing operations in the third country do not constitute substantial transformation and, hence, do not confer a new country of origin for antidumping purposes.41 As such, we have determined NV for such sales based on the country of origin (i.e., the PRC), pursuant to section 773(a)(3)(A) of the Act, because PBCD and SKF knew at the time of the sale of merchandise that it was destined for export. The Department also included the further manufacturing and assembly costs incurred in the third country in the NV calculation, as well as the expense of transporting the merchandise from the factory in the PRC to the further manufacturing plant in the third country.42 Factor Valuations In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on FOPs reported by respondents for the POR. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will normally use publicly available information to find an appropriate surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) to value FOPs, but when a producer sources an input from a market economy and pays for it in market economy currency, the Department normally will value the factor using the actual price paid for the input.43 To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factorconsumption rates by publicly available surrogate values (except as discussed below). In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data.44 As 41 See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 2007–2008 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 844 (January 6, 2010) (‘‘TRBs 2007–2008’’), and accompanying IDM at Comment 1. 42 See PBCD and SKF Program Analysis Memoranda. 43 See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof Assembly Components Div of Ill Tool Works v. United States, 268 F. 3d 1376, 1382–1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming the Department’s use of marketbased prices to value certain FOPs). 44 See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping E:\FR\FM\15JYN1.SGM Continued 15JYN1 41154 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 135 / Thursday, July 15, 2010 / Notices srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to import surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407–08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed description of all surrogate values used for PBCD/CPZ, SKF/CPZ, and New Torch can be found in the Surrogate Value Memorandum. For the preliminary results, in accordance with the Department’s practice, except where noted below, we used data from the Indian import Statistics in the GTA and other publicly available Indian sources in order to calculate surrogate values for PBCD/ CPZ, SKF/CPZ, and New Torch’s FOPs (i.e. direct materials, energy, and packing materials) and certain movement expenses. In selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department’s practice is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are non-export average values, most contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive.45 The record shows that data in the Indian Import Statistics, as well as those from the other Indian sources, are contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-exclusive.46 In those instances where we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous to the POI with which to value factors, we adjusted the surrogate values using, where appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index (‘‘WPI’’) as published in the IMF’s International Financial Statistics.47 Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 72139 (December 4, 2002), and accompanying IDM at Comment 6; and Final Results of First New Shipper Review and First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s Republic of China, 66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001), and accompanying IDM at Comment 5. 45 See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). 46 See Surrogate Value Memorandum. 47 See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:53 Jul 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 In accordance with the OTCA 1988 legislative history, the Department continues to apply its long-standing practice of disregarding surrogate values if it has a reason to believe or suspect the source data may be subsidized.48 In this regard, the Department has previously found that it is appropriate to disregard such prices from India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand because we have determined that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry specific export subsidies.49 Based on the existence of these subsidy programs that were generally available to all exporters and producers in these countries at the time of the POR, the Department finds that it is reasonable to infer that all exporters from India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand may have benefitted from these subsidies. Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME countries.50 Finally, imports that were labeled as originating from an ‘‘unspecified’’ country were excluded from the average value, because the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an NME country or a country with generally available export subsidies.51 PBCD and SKF claim that certain of their reported raw material inputs were sourced from an ME country and paid for in ME currencies. When a respondent sources inputs from an ME supplier in meaningful quantities, we use the actual price paid by respondent for those inputs, except when prices may have been distorted by dumping or subsidies.52 Where we found ME Determination, 74 FR 9600 (March 5, 2009), unchanged in Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 74 FR 36656 (July 24, 2009). 48 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf. Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988) (‘‘OTCA 1988’’) at 590. 49 See e.g., Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India, 75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at pages 4–5; Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at page 4; See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 2512 (January 15, 2009) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at pages 17, 19–20; See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Determination, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at page 23. 50 See Id. 51 See Id. 52 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997). PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 purchases to be of significant quantities (i.e., 33 percent or more), in accordance with our statement of policy as outlined in Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs,53 we used the actual purchases of these inputs to value the inputs. Accordingly, we valued certain of respondents’ inputs using the ME prices paid for in ME currencies for the inputs where the total volume of the input purchased from all ME sources during the POR exceeds or is equal to 33 percent of the total volume of the input purchased from all sources during the period. Where the quantity of the reported input purchased from ME suppliers was below 33 percent of the total volume of the input purchased from all sources during the POR, and were otherwise valid, we weightaveraged the ME input’s purchase price with the appropriate surrogate value for the input according to their respective shares of the reported total volume of purchases.54 Where appropriate, we added freight to the ME prices of inputs. For a detailed description of the actual values used for the ME inputs reported, see the Department’s analysis memoranda dated concurrently with this notice. Among the FOPs for which the Department calculated SVs using Indian import statistics are bearing-quality steel bar, cage steel, steel by-product, cone spacer, coal, anti-rust oil, and all packing materials. In their June 16, 2010, surrogate value submission, PBCD expressed concerns regarding the quality of certain SV information from the primary surrogate country, India, specifically in regard to the valuation of bearing quality steel bar and wire rod inputs. In these comments, PBCD argues that the Indian import data for HTS 7228.30.29 (Other bars and rods of other alloy steel; angles, shapes and sections, of other alloy steel; hollow drill bars and rods, of alloy or non-alloy steel; Other bars and rods, not further worked than hot-rolled, hot-drawn or extruded; Bright Bars; Other), submitted by Petitioner and SKF as a surrogate to value bearing quality steel bar, are aberrational due to the relatively high value when benchmarked against similar bearing and roller quality steel HTS categories in the U.S. and potential surrogate countries. Furthermore, PBCD reiterates the position previously 53 See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717 (October 19, 2006) (‘‘Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs’’). 54 See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 71 FR at 61718. E:\FR\FM\15JYN1.SGM 15JYN1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 135 / Thursday, July 15, 2010 / Notices forwarded by SKF in its December 7, 2009, surrogate value submission that, consistent with the analysis of potential wire rod SVs performed in the prior review, certain data considerations compel the Department to reject Indian import information for HTS 7228.50.90 (Other bars and rods of other alloy steel; angles, shapes and sections, of other alloy steel; hollow drill bars and rods, of alloy or non-alloy steel; Other bars and rods, not further worked than coldformed or cold-finished: Other) in favor of Thai import data for HTS 7228.50.90 (Other bars and rods of other alloy steel; angles, shapes and sections, of other alloy steel; hollow drill bars and rods, of alloy or non-alloy steel; Other bars and rods, not further worked than coldformed or cold-finished: Other) to value wire rod inputs in the instant review. Petitioner addressed the steel bar and wire rod surrogate issues in its June 18, 2010, surrogate value comments, as well as additional comments submitted on June 21, 2010. While Petitioner maintains that the Department should value all FOPs, including wire rod and steel bar, using surrogate data from the primary surrogate country (i.e. India), it adds that, should the Department determine that Thai data is preferable to Indian data for the valuation of wire rod inputs, as was determined in the prior review, Thai import data for HTS 7228.50.10 55 are a more appropriate surrogate to value wire rod than the Thai import data for HTS 7228.50.90 suggested by PBCD and SKF. For the preliminary results, we have determined to use contemporaneous Thai import data from HTS category 7228.50.10 and contemporaneous Indian import data from HTS category 7228.30.29 to calculate a SV for roller quality steel wire rod and bearing quality steel bar, respectively. As in TRBs 2007–2008, the Indian import statistics for HTS category 7228.50.90 show wide variations in the average unit values (‘‘AUVs’’) between the individual countries listed as exporters in the data. Thai import statistics under Thai HTS categories 7228.50.10 and 7228.50.90 do not exhibit the wide level of AUV variance between imports from individual countries that is seen in the Indian data. Thus, we have determined to use Thai data to value steel wire rod. We have used Thai HTS category 7228.50.10 to value wire rod, as it is more specific to the input than Thai HTS category 7228.50.90 because the 55 Other bars and rods of other alloy steel; angles, shapes and sections, of other alloy steel; hollow drill bars and rods, of alloy or non-alloy steel; Other bars and rods, not further worked than cold-formed or cold-finished: Of circular cross-section. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:53 Jul 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 wire rod in this category are circular, as are the respondents’ inputs. Using the same method of analysis, Indian import statistics for steel bar under Indian HTS category 7228.30.29 appear to be reasonably consistent and do not have wide fluctuations between the AUVs from individual countries. As it is our preference to use SVs from within the primary surrogate country, and because we do not find that the Indian import data under Indian HTS category 7228.30.29 are aberrational, we preliminarily determine to value steel bar from Indian HTS category 7228.30.29.56 We valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit average rate calculated from data on the infobanc Web site: http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/ logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this Web site contains inland freight truck rates between many large Indian cities.57 We valued inland water freight using price data for barge freight reported in a March 19, 2007, article published in The Hindu Business Line.58 Since the inland water transportation rates are not contemporaneous with the POR, we inflated the rates using the Indian WPI inflator. We valued brokerage and handling using a price list of export procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in India. The price list is compiled based on a survey case study of the procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by ocean transport in India that is published in Doing Business 2010: India, published by the World Bank.59 Since brokerage and handling rates are not contemporaneous with the POR, we inflated the rates using the Indian WPI inflator. We valued electricity using the updated electricity price data for small, medium, and large industries, as published by the Central Electricity Authority, an administrative body of the Government of India, in its publication titled ‘‘Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India,’’ dated March 2008. These electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly-available information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to small, medium, and large industries in India.60 Because the rates listed in this source became effective on a variety of different dates, 56 See Surrogate Value Memorandum for further analysis. 57 See Id. 58 See Id. 59 See Id. 60 See Id. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 41155 we are not adjusting the average value for inflation. In other words, the Department did not inflate this value to the POR because the utility rates represent current rates, as indicated by the effective date listed for each of the rates provided.61 We valued international air freight using rates based on the market economy air freight purchases of SKF and PBCD.62 We valued water using the revised Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation water rates available at http://www.midcindia.com/watersupply.63 The Department is valuing international ocean freight from the PRC to the United States using data obtained from the Descartes Carrier Rate Retrieval Database (‘‘Descartes’’), which can be accessed via http://descartes.com/. The Department has calculated the periodaverage international freight rate by obtaining rates from multiple carriers for a single day in each quarter of the POR. For any rate that the Department determined was from a non-market economy carrier, the Department has not included that rate in the periodaverage international freight calculation. Additionally, the Department has not included any charges included in the rate that are covered by brokerage and handling charges that the respondent incurred and are valued by the reported market economy purchase or the appropriate surrogate value in the calculation.64 Because PBCD and SKF had shipments of subject merchandise to a third country for further manufacturing during the POR, we added the additional international freight cost to NV, and applied the surrogate value for international freight from the PRC to the third country. The Department valued ocean freight using publicly available data collected from Maersk Line.65 For direct, indirect, and packing labor, pursuant to a recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, we have calculated an hourly wage rate to use in valuing each respondent’s reported labor input by averaging earnings and/or wages in countries that are economically comparable to the PRC and that are significant producers of comparable 61 See, e.g., Wire Decking from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 32905 (June 10, 2010), and accompanying IDM at Comment 3. 62 See Surrogate Value Memorandum. 63 See Id. 64 See Id. 65 See Id. E:\FR\FM\15JYN1.SGM 15JYN1 41156 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 135 / Thursday, July 15, 2010 / Notices merchandise.66 Because this wage rate does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, the Department has applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by the respondents.67 To value factory overhead, selling, general and administrative expenses and profit, the Department used the average of the ratios derived from the financial statements of three Indian producers: SKF India Limited (for the year ending on December 31, 2008), ABC Bearings Limited (for the year ending on March 31, 2009), and FAG Bearings India Limited (for the year ending on December 31, 2008).68 Each respondent reported that steel scrap was recovered as a by-product of the production of subject merchandise and successfully demonstrated that the scrap has commercial value, therefore, we have granted by-product offset for the quantities of these reported byproducts, valued using Indian GTA data.69 Currency Conversion Where appropriate, we made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period June 1, 2008, through May 31, 2009: TRBS FROM THE PRC Exporter Weightedaverage margin (percent) Spungen-Owned Peer Bearing Company-Changshan ........... SKF-Owned Changshan Peer Bearing Co., Ltd .................... Hubei New Torch Science & Technology Co., Ltd .............. 52.26 9.94 00.00 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES Disclosure and Public Comment The Department will disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.70 Rebuttals to written comments may be filed no later than five days after the written comments are filed.71 Further, parties submitting written comments and rebuttal comments are requested to provide the Department with an additional copy of those comments on diskette. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice.72 Hearing requests should contain the following information: (1) The party’s name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.73 The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. For assessment purposes, we calculated exporter/importer- (or customer) -specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. Where appropriate, we calculated an ad valorem rate for each importer (or customer) by dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party by the total entered values associated with those transactions. For dutyassessment rates calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting ad valorem rate against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise. Where appropriate, we calculated a per-unit rate for each importer (or customer) by dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate against the entered quantity of the subject merchandise. Where an 66 See Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 2009–1257 at 20 (CAFC 2010) (‘‘Dorbest’’). 67 See Surrogate Value Memorandum. 68 See Id. 69 See Id. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:53 Jul 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 70 See 19 CFR 351.309(c). 19 CFR 351.309(d). 72 See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 73 See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 71 See Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 importer- (or customer) -specific assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent), the Department will instruct CBP to assess that importer (or customer’s) entries of subject merchandise without regard to antidumping duties. We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate entries containing subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity at the PRC-wide rate we determine in the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review. Cash-Deposit Requirements The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For PBCD, SKF, and New Torch, the cash deposit rate will be their respective rates established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is zero or de minimis no cash deposit will be required; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 92.84 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that nonPRC exporter. 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 Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and E:\FR\FM\15JYN1.SGM 15JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 135 / Thursday, July 15, 2010 / Notices 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213. Stanford.HCP@noaa.gov. Include the document identifier: Stanford HCP. Dated: July 7, 2010. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Stern (NMFS), 707–575–6060, or Sheila Larsen (USFWS), 916–414–6600. BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service RIN 0648–XX52 Stanford University Habitat Conservation Plan; Extension of Comment Period AGENCIES: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce; Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior (DOI). ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period. The National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are extending the comment period for our joint request for comments on the Stanford University Habitat Conservation Plan (Plan), the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Authorization of Incidental Take and Implementation of the Plan, and the Implementing Agreement (IA). As of July 2, 2010, we have received comments from four organizations and individuals requesting that the comment period be extended by 45 days. In response to these requests, we are extending the comment period for an additional 45 days. DATES: We must receive any written comments on the DEIS, Plan, and IA by August 30, 2010, at 5 p.m. Pacific Time. ADDRESSES: Comments concerning the DEIS, Plan, and IA can be sent by U.S. Mail or facsimile to: 1. Gary Stern, San Francisco Bay Region Supervisor, National Marine Fisheries Service, 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325, Santa Rosa, CA 95404; facsimile (707) 578–3435; or 2. Eric Tattersall, Chief, Conservation Planning and Recovery Division, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W–2605, Sacramento, CA 95825; facsimile (916) 414–6713. Comments concerning the DEIS, Plan, and IA can also be sent by email to: srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:53 Jul 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 We are extending the comment period for our jointly issued Stanford University Habitat Conservation Plan, a DEIS for Authorization of Incidental Take and Implementation of the Plan, and IA. On April 12, 2010, we opened a 90–day public comment period via a Federal Register notice (75 FR 18482). We then made a correction to our comment period closing date via a May 18, 2010 (75 FR 27708), notice. A public meeting was held at Stanford, CA on May 25, 2010. As of July 2, 2010, we received comments from four organizations and individuals requesting an extension of the comment period by 45 days. In response to requests from the public, we now extend the comment period for an additional 45 days. The comment period will now officially close on August 30, 2010, at 5 p.m. Pacific Time. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [FR Doc. 2010–17302 Filed 7–14–10; 8:45 am] Background For background information, see our April 12, 2010, notice (75 FR 18482). Document Availability Copies of the DEIS, Plan, and IA are available on the NMFS Southwest Region website at http:// swr.nmfs.noaa.gov or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office Website at http:// www.fws.gov/sacramento/. Alternatively, the documents are available for public review during regular business hours from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Santa Rosa Office and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES). Individuals wishing copies of the DEIS, Plan, or IA should contact either of the Services by telephone (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or by letter (see ADDRESSES). Additionally, hardcopies of the DEIS, Plan, and IA are available for viewing, or for partial or complete duplication, at the following locations: 1. Social Sciences Resource Center, Green Library, Room 121, Stanford, CA 94305. 2. Palo Alto Main Library, 1213 Newell Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303. PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 41157 Dated: July 12, 2010. Therese Conant, Acting Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Dated: July 9, 2010. Alexandra Pitts, Deputy Region Director, Pacific Southwest Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 2010–17298 Filed 7–14–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODES 3510–22–S, 4310–55–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration U.S. Cleantech Trade & Investment Mission AGENCY: International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice. Mission Description The United States Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration, U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (USFCS), and Economic Development Administration (EDA) are holding the first ever U.S. Clean Technology Trade & Investment Mission to Lyon, France, November 29– December 2, 2010 and to Brussels, Belgium, December 2–4, 2010. This joint mission will be led by senior Department of Commerce officials Brian McGowan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Development, and Karen Zens, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Operations (OIO) of the USFCS. This mission is designed to advance President Obama’s economic growth initiatives and Secretary Locke’s goal of simplifying access to the Department of Commerce’s diverse suite of resources–all for the purpose of employment generation. This initiative will support both bureaus’ job creation goals by increasing exports and attracting foreign direct investment (FDI), placing a particular emphasis on the clean technology sector. This mission is especially significant as it includes, for the first time ever, both U.S. companies and delegates from U.S. communities. Please see the section titled ‘‘Participation Requirements’’ below for more information on community delegates and selection criteria that will be used to evaluate applicants. While traditional trade missions are limited to business-tobusiness connections, the addition of communities in this model provides much broader access to U.S. companies by leveraging regional business networks. Community delegates will E:\FR\FM\15JYN1.SGM 15JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 135 (Thursday, July 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41148-41157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-17302]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-601]


Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or 
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 
the 2008-2009 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce (``Department'') is currently conducting the 
2008-2009 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished or unfinished 
(``TRBs''), from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''), covering the 
period June 1, 2008, through May 31, 2009. We have preliminarily 
determined that sales have been made below normal value (``NV'') by 
certain companies subject to this review. If these preliminary results 
are adopted in our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on 
entries of subject merchandise during the period of review (``POR'') 
for which the importer-specific assessment rates are above de minimis.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. We will issue final results no later than 120 days from the 
date of publication of this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: July 15, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brendan Quinn or Trisha Tran, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5848 or (202) 482-4852, respectively.

Background

    On June 15, 1987, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on TRBs from the PRC.\1\ On June 1, 2009, 
the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on TRBs from the 
PRC.\2\ On June 30, 2009, the sole respondent in the prior review, the 
majority Spungen family-owned joint-venture Peer Bearing Company Ltd.--
Changshan (``PBCD/CPZ'') and its wholly Spungen-family-owned U.S. sales 
affiliate, Peer Bearing Company (``PBCD/Peer'') (collectively 
``PBCD''), requested that the Department conduct an administrative 
review of its sales of subject merchandise prior to the acquisition of 
both companies by AB SKF during the POR. On June 30, 2009, the wholly 
AB SKF-owned Changshan Peer Bearing Company, Ltd. (``SKF/CPZ'') and its 
wholly AB SKF-owned U.S. sales affiliate, Peer Bearing Company (``SKF/
Peer'') (collectively ``SKF''), requested that the Department conduct 
an administrative review of its sales of subject merchandise subsequent 
to the acquisition of the PBCD companies during the POR.\3\ On June 30, 
2009, the Timken Company, of Canton, Ohio (``Petitioner'') requested 
that the Department conduct an administrative review of all entries of 
subject merchandise produced and/or exported by CPZ, regardless of its 
ownership during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From the 
People's Republic of China, 52 FR 22667 (June 15, 1987).
    \2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative 
Review, 74 FR 26202 (June 1, 2009).
    \3\ Without consideration of ownership, the Changshan-based TRB 
production facility is referred to as ``CPZ'' and the Illinois-based 
U.S. sales affiliate is referred to as ``Peer.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 30, 2009, Hubei New Torch Science & Technology Company Co., 
Ltd. (``New Torch''), a producer and exporter of subject merchandise, 
also requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of 
its sales of subject merchandise. On July 29, 2009, the Department 
initiated the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
TRBs from the PRC for the period June 1, 2008, through May 31, 2009.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Administrative Review, 74 FR 
37690 (July 29, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 26, 2009, the Department issued its antidumping duty 
questionnaire to PBCD, SKF, and New Torch. Between October 14, 2009, 
and June 18, 2010, PBCD, SKF, and New Torch responded to the 
Department's original and supplemental questionnaires. On October 1, 
2009, we invited all interested parties to submit publicly available 
information to value factors of production (``FOPs'') for consideration 
in the Department's preliminary results of review. On December 7, 2009, 
SKF submitted publicly available information to value FOPs for the 
preliminary results. On December 17, 2009, and June 16, 2010, PBCD 
submitted surrogate value

[[Page 41149]]

information for the Department's consideration. From December 17, 2009, 
through June 18, 2010, Petitioner submitted comments and publicly 
available information to value FOPs for the preliminary results. On May 
5, 2010, in its supplemental response to the Department's 
questionnaire, New Torch submitted publicly available information 
regarding the valuation of certain inputs.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ On June 22, 2010, Petitioner submitted comments regarding 
PBCD and SKF for the upcoming preliminary results. SKF submitted 
rebuttal comments on June 30, 2010. Petitioner then submitted 
further rebuttal comments on July 6, 2010; however, due to the 
proximity to the deadline, the Department was unable to consider 
these submissions for purposes of the preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 2, 2010, the Department published a notice in the Federal 
Register extending the time limit for the preliminary results of review 
by the full 120 days allowed under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), to July 7, 2010.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or 
Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time 
Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 2008-2009 Administrative 
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 9391 (March 2, 2010). 
See also 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, wherein all deadlines in this 
segment of the proceeding have been extended by seven days as a 
result of the closure of the Federal Government from February 5, 
2010 through February 12, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Review

    The POR is June 1, 2008, through May 31, 2009.

Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by this order are shipments of tapered roller 
bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from the PRC; 
flange, take up cartridge, and hanger units incorporating tapered 
roller bearings; and tapered roller housings (except pillow blocks) 
incorporating tapered rollers, with or without spindles, whether or not 
for automotive use. These products are currently classifiable under 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') item 
numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45, 8483.20.40, 
8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80, 
8708.99.80.15 \7\ and 8708.99.80.80.\8\ Although the HTSUS item numbers 
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written 
description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Effective January 1, 2007, the HTSUS subheading 8708.99.8015 
is renumbered as 8708.99.8115. See United States International Trade 
Commission (``USITC'') publication entitled, ``Modifications to the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Under Section 1206 
of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988,'' USITC 
Publication 3898 (December 2006) found at http://www.usitc.gov.
    \8\ Effective January 1, 2007, the USHTS subheading 8708.99.8080 
is renumbered as 8708.99.8180; see Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Scope Determination of New Torch's Wheel Hub Assemblies

    From October 30, 2009, through May 5, 2010, in various supplemental 
questionnaires, New Torch stated that it produced and sold wheel hub 
assemblies to the United States during the POR, which it asserted were 
not subject to the scope of the order on TRBs. On June 15, 2010, the 
Department initiated two scope inquiries on wheel hub assemblies 
produced by PRC producers that are unrelated to the respondents in the 
instant administrative review. Subsequently, on June 17, 2010, New 
Torch requested that the Department accept a revised U.S. sales and FOP 
database, which would include sales and FOP information regarding New 
Torch's wheel hub assemblies sold to the United States during the POR. 
On July 6, 2010, the Department requested revised FOP and U.S. sales 
databases containing information with respect to New Torch's wheel hub 
assemblies sold to the United States during the POR.
    For the purposes of these preliminary results, because the 
Department has not yet determined whether wheel hub assemblies are 
covered by the scope of the order on TRBs, the Department will continue 
to base its antidumping margin calculation on New Torch's original U.S. 
sales database, which does not include wheel hub assemblies. However, 
the Department will determine whether New Torch's wheel hub assemblies 
are covered by the scope of the order on TRBs for the final results. In 
addition, pursuant to the outcome of the Department's determination of 
whether New Torch's wheel hub assemblies are within the scope of the 
order on TRBs, the Department intends to use the appropriate databases 
to determine New Torch's antidumping margin calculation for the final 
results.

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination 
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until 
revoked by the administering authority. In every case conducted by the 
Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a NME 
country.\9\ None of the parties to this review has contested such 
treatment. Accordingly, we calculated normal value in accordance with 
section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial 
Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003), unchanged in 
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2001-2002 
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 70488 
(December 18, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on 
the NME producer's FOPs, valued in a surrogate market-economy (``ME'') 
country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In 
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the 
Department shall use, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of 
the FOPs in one or more market economy countries that are: (1) At a 
level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; 
and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of 
the surrogate factor values are discussed under the ``Factor 
Valuations'' section below.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See also the Department's memorandum entitled, 
``Preliminary Results of the 2008-2009 Administrative Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished or Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: 
Surrogate Value Memorandum,'' dated concurrently with this notice 
(``Surrogate Value Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's practice with respect to determining economic 
comparability is explained in Policy Bulletin 04.1,\11\ which states 
that ``OP {Office of Policy{time}  determines per capita economic 
comparability on the basis of per capita gross national income, as 
reported in the most current annual issue of the World Development 
Report (The World Bank).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See the Department's Policy Bulletin No. 04.1, regarding, 
``Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process,'' (March 
1, 2004) (``Policy Bulletin 04.1''), available on the Department's 
Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull04-1.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 23, 2009, the Department identified six countries as 
being at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC for the 
specified POR: India, the

[[Page 41150]]

Philippines, Indonesia, Colombia, Thailand, and Peru.12 13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See the Department's Memorandum from Kelly Parkhill, Acting 
Director, Office of Policy, to Wendy Frankel, Office Director, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 8, regarding, ``Request for a List of 
Surrogate Countries for an Administrative Review of the Antidumping 
Duty Order on Tapered Roller Bearings (``TRB'') from the People's 
Republic of China (``PRC''),'' dated September 23, 2009 (``Surrogate 
Countries Memorandum'').
    \13\ See Policy Bulletin 04.1 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 1, 2009, the Department invited all interested parties 
to submit comments on the surrogate country selection.\14\ On November 
23, 2009, Petitioner, SKF, and PBCD submitted comments regarding the 
Department's selection of a surrogate country for the preliminary 
results. Petitioner submitted rebuttal surrogate country comments on 
December 3, 2009. In their comments, both Petitioner and SKF requested 
that India be selected as the primary surrogate country, whereas PBCD 
requested the Department also consider Indonesia and Thailand as 
potential surrogates. New Torch did not submit comments regarding 
surrogate country selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See the Department's letter regarding, ``2008-2009 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered 
Roller Bearings from the People's Republic of China'' requesting all 
interested parties to provide comments on surrogate-country 
selection and provide surrogate FOP values from the potential 
surrogate countries (i.e., India, Indonesia, the Philippines, 
Thailand, Colombia, and Peru), dated October 1, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Policy Bulletin 04.1 provides some guidance on identifying 
comparable merchandise and selecting a producer of comparable 
merchandise. Based on an analysis of export data obtained from Global 
Trade Atlas, published by Global Trade Information Services, Inc. 
(``GTA'') for harmonized tariff schedule (``HTS'') subheadings 8482.20, 
8482.20.00, 8482.91, 8482.91.00, 8482.99, 8482.99.00, 8483.20, 
8483.20.00, 8483.30, 8483.30.90, 8708.99,\15\ the Department finds that 
India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Colombia, Thailand, and Peru are all 
producers of comparable merchandise. Finally, we have reliable data 
from India on the record that we can use to value the FOPs. While PBCD 
and SKF submitted Indonesian and Thai data on the record to value 
limited FOP inputs, Petitioner, SKF and New Torch each submitted 
surrogate values for the majority of the inputs using Indian sources, 
suggesting greater availability of appropriate surrogate value data in 
India. Additionally, Petitioner and SKF placed the financial statements 
of various Indian producers on the record, further demonstrating the 
greater availability of appropriate surrogate value data in India.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Export information could not be found for all HTS 
subheadings specified in the scope of the order. As such, the 
Department utilized GTA data for all available HTS categories. GTA 
export statistics for India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Colombia, 
Thailand, and Peru only offer a basket category for all categories 
other than 8482.20.00 ``Tapered roller bearings, including cone and 
tapered roller assemblies.'' In the case of the categories beginning 
with the four digit 8482 and 8483 heading, similar `NESOI' or 
`Other' subheadings were used in the alternative, though typically 
not as specific as that of the HTSUS category. However, in the case 
of the categories beginning with the four digit 8708 heading, GTA 
export statistics for each of the potential surrogate country 
candidates could only be found to the broadly defined 8708.99 
subheading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Department is preliminarily selecting India as the 
surrogate country on the basis that: (1) It is at a similar level of 
economic development to the PRC, pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; (2) 
it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; and (3) we have 
reliable data from India that we can use to value the FOPs. 
Accordingly, we have calculated NV using Indian prices when available 
and appropriate to value each respondent's FOPs.\16\ In accordance with 
19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of an administrative 
review, interested parties may submit publicly available information to 
value the FOPs within 20 days after the date of publication of these 
preliminary results.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum; see also ``Factor 
Valuations'' section, below.
    \17\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final 
results of this administrative review, interested parties may submit 
factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual 
information submitted by an interested party less than ten days 
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such 
factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, 
clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record. 
The Department generally will not accept the submission of 
additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate 
value information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 
(October 17, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
(``IDM'') at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and thus should be assigned a single 
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all 
exporters of merchandise subject to review in an NME country this 
single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently 
independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can 
demonstrate this independence through the absence of both de jure and 
de facto government control over export activities. The Department 
analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test 
arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 
1991) (``Sparklers''), as further developed in the Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's 
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). 
However, if the Department determines that a company is wholly foreign-
owned or located in a market economy, then a separate-rate analysis is 
not necessary to determine whether it is independent from government 
control.
    PBCD has demonstrated that the pre-acquisition CPZ was a China-
Foreign joint venture, owned by two shareholders, a PRC based company 
and a U.S. company wholly-owned by the Spungen family. New Torch has 
stated that it is a joint stock limited, partially foreign invested 
enterprise. Therefore, the Department must analyze whether PBCD/CPZ and 
New Torch have demonstrated the absence of both de jure and de facto 
government control over export activities, and are therefore entitled 
to a separate rate. SKF submitted information indicating that SKF/CPZ 
is a wholly foreign-owned limited liability company. Therefore, for the 
purposes of these preliminary results, the Department finds that it is 
not necessary to perform a separate-rate analysis for SKF/CPZ.

a. Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The evidence provided by PBCD and New Torch supports a preliminary 
finding of de jure absence of government control based on the 
following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with 
the individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) there are 
applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the 
companies; and (3) there are formal measures by the government

[[Page 41151]]

decentralizing control of the companies.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See PBCD/SKF's Joint Section A Questionnaire Response, 
dated October 14, 2009, and New Torch's Section A Questionnaire 
Response, dated November 2, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Absence of De facto Control

    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a government agency; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl 
Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 
8, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control 
is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to 
a degree of government control over export activities which would 
preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. For PBCD and New 
Torch, we determine that the evidence on the record supports a 
preliminary finding of de facto absence of government control based on 
record statements and supporting documentation showing the following: 
(1) Each respondent sets its own export prices independent of the 
government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) each 
respondent retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent 
decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) 
each respondent has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and 
other agreements; and (4) each respondent has autonomy from the 
government regarding the selection of management.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See PBCD/SKF's Joint Section A Questionnaire Response, 
dated October 14, 2009, and New Torch's Section A Questionnaire 
Response, dated November 2, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The evidence placed on the record of this review by each respondent 
demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government control with 
respect to its exports of the merchandise under review, in accordance 
with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. 
Therefore, we are preliminarily granting PBCD and New Torch a separate 
rate.

Affiliation--SKF/CPZ and Company A \22\

    In its questionnaire responses, SKF/CPZ indicated that it was 
affiliated with Company A. For purposes of the preliminary results, the 
Department has determined not to conduct a collapsing analysis with 
respect to SKF/CPZ and Company A due to insufficient information on the 
record. However, we intend to solicit additional information with 
respect to this issue, and will address it subsequent to the 
preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The identity of ``Company A'' is proprietary. See the 
Department's memorandum entitled, ``2008-2009 Administrative Review 
of the Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from the People's Republic of 
China: Analysis of the Preliminary Determination Margin Calculation 
for SKF-Owned Peer Bearing Company--Changshan,'' dated concurrently 
with this notice (``SKF Program Analysis Memorandum'') for further 
discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bona Fide Sale Analysis--New Torch

    New Torch reported a single sale of subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POR.\23\ In evaluating whether or not a sale 
subject to review is commercially reasonable, and therefore bona fide, 
the Department considers, inter alia, such factors as (1) the timing of 
the sale; (2) the price and quantity; (3) the expenses arising from the 
transaction; (4) whether the goods were resold at a profit; and (5) 
whether the transaction was made on an arms-length basis.\24\ The 
Department examines the bona fide nature of a sale on a case-by-case 
basis, and the analysis may vary with the facts surrounding each 
sale.\25\ In TTPC, the court affirmed the Department's practice of 
considering that ``any factor which indicates that the sale under 
consideration is not likely to be typical of those which the producer 
will make in the future is relevant,'' \26\ and that ``the weight given 
to each factor investigated will depend on the circumstances 
surrounding the sale.'' \27\ In New Donghua, the Court stated that the 
Department's practice makes clear that the Department ``is highly 
likely to examine objective, verifiable factors to ensure that a sale 
is not being made to circumvent an antidumping duty order.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See New Torch's November 12, 2009, Section C and D 
questionnaire response at C-8.
    \24\ See Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. United 
States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1250 S (``TTPC'') (CIT 2005), citing 
Am. Silicon Techs. v. United States, F. Supp. 2d 992, 995 (CIT 
2000).
    \25\ See Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd. v. United 
States, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1338 (CIT 2005), (``New Donghua'') 
quoting Fresh Garlic from the PRC: Final Results of Administrative 
Review and Rescission of New Shipper Review, 67 FR 11283 (March 13, 
2002), and accompanying IDM.
    \26\ See TTPC, 366 F. Supp. 2d at 1250, citing Windmill Int'l 
Pte., Ltd. v. United States, F. Supp. 2d 1303, 1307 (CIT 2002).
    \27\ See TTPC, 366 F. Supp. 2d at 1263.
    \28\ See New Donghua, 374 F. Supp. 2d at 1339.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons stated below, we preliminarily find New Torch's 
reported U.S. sales during the POR to be bona fide based on the facts 
on the record. First, the sales were made to an unaffiliated customer 
with the terms set by negotiation and payment received in a timely 
manner, indicating that the sales were made at arm's-length. Second, 
there does not seem to be anything unusual in the timing of New Torch's 
sales. Third, New Torch's sales prices and quantities are similar to 
the prices and quantities examined during the POR. Fourth, there were 
no unusual expenses arising from these sales. Fifth, there is no record 
evidence that the merchandise was not resold at a profit. Therefore, 
based on the totality of the circumstances, the Department 
preliminarily finds that New Torch's sales are bona fide.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Memorandum to Wendy Frankel, Director, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, through Erin Begnal, 
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, from Trisha Tran, 
International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, regarding 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order Covering Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the 
People's Republic of China (6/1/2008-5/31/2009): Bona Fide Nature of 
the Sales Under Review for Hubei New Torch Science & Technology Co., 
Ltd. (``New Torch'') (July 7, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Successor in Interest--SKF/CPZ

    On September 11, 2008, approximately three and a half months into 
the POR, PBCD/CPZ and its Illinois-based U.S. sales affiliate, PBCD/
Peer, were each acquired by AB SKF, a Swedish conglomerate, and 
henceforth known as SKF/CPZ and SKF/Peer. In addition, on August 28, 
2009, SKF submitted a request for a changed circumstance review 
(``CCR'') to determine that SKF/CPZ is not the successor-in-interest to 
PBCD/CPZ. On September 30, 2009, the Department informed parties that 
the information provided in SKF's August 28, 2009, submission was 
sufficient to warrant a successor-in-interest analysis regarding SKF's 
acquisition of CPZ, and that this determination would be performed 
within the context of the instant 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: (1) 
Management, (2)

[[Page 41152]]

production facilities, (3) supplier relationships, and (4) customer 
base.\30\ 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 not materially dissimilar to that 
of its predecessor.\31\ Thus, if the ``totality of circumstances'' 
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.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See, e.g., Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France: 
Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, 75 FR 34688 (June 18, 
2010), and IDM at Comment 1.
    \31\ See, e.g., Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway; 
Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 64 FR 9979 (March 1, 1999).
    \32\ See Id at 9980; see also Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: 
Final Result of Administrative Review, 57 FR 20461 (May 13, 1992), 
and IDM at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its initial CCR request and subsequent responses to the 
Department's supplemental questionnaires, SKF provided documentation 
demonstrating that SKF/CPZ instituted a significant change to upper 
management that starkly contrasts with the management structure of 
PBCD/CPZ, including the appointment of a new board of directors and a 
new General Manager. Additionally, SKF expanded its production 
capabilities by acquiring two co-located affiliated business entities 
and integrated the production capabilities into one newly consolidated 
company.
    The Department finds that the totality of the circumstances 
demonstrate that SKF/CPZ is not the successor-in-interest to PBCD/CPZ. 
First, the Department finds that, because SKF/CPZ has replaced and 
restructured the company's top management, SKF/CPZ has demonstrated 
that the company's operations and production decisions are distinct 
from the management and operations of PBCD/CPZ. Additionally, we find 
that changes in SKF/CPZ's integration and expansion of its production 
facilities and structure, along with SKF/CPZ's complete management 
restructure, demonstrate that SKF/CPZ is a distinct entity from that of 
the pre-acquisition company. As such, we preliminarily determine that 
SKF/CPZ is not the successor-in-interest to the pre-acquisition PBCD/
CPZ.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Memorandum to Wendy Frankel, Director, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, through Erin Begnal, 
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, from Brendan Quinn, 
International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, entitled 
``Tapered Roller Bearings from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Successor-In-Interest Determination,'' dated July 7, 
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of TRBs to the United States by 
respondents were made at less than fair value (``LTFV''), we compared 
constructed export price (``CEP'') and export price (``EP'') to NV, as 
described in the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice, below, and pursuant to section 771(35) of the Act.

U.S. Price

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at 
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in 
the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the 
account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller 
affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated 
with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and 
(d) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used 
CEP for PBCD/CPZ and SKF/CPZ's sales where the exporter first sold 
subject merchandise to its affiliated company in the United States, 
PBCD/Peer and SKF/Peer, respectively, which in turn sold subject 
merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. customers. We calculated CEP based on 
delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We 
made deductions from the U.S. sales price for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included foreign 
inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation, international 
freight, brokerage and handling, marine insurance, other U.S. 
transportation, U.S. customs duty, U.S. warehousing expenses, where 
applicable, U.S. inland freight from port to the warehouse, and U.S. 
inland freight from the warehouse to the customer. Where foreign inland 
freight, foreign brokerage and handling fees, or international freight 
were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we 
based those charges on surrogate rates from India. See ``Factor 
Valuations'' section below for further discussion of surrogate rates. 
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department 
deducted credit expenses, inventory carrying costs and indirect selling 
expenses from the U.S. price, all of which relate to commercial 
activity in the United States. Finally, we deducted CEP profit, in 
accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, ``2008-2009 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from the 
People's Republic of China: Analysis of the Preliminary 
Determination Margin Calculation for Spungen-Owned Peer Bearing 
Company--Changshan,'' dated concurrently with this notice (``PBCD 
Program Analysis Memorandum''); see also the Department's memorandum 
entitled, ``2008-2009 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 
Order on Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or 
Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of the 
Preliminary Determination Margin Calculation for SKF-Owned Peer 
Bearing Company--Changshan,'' dated concurrently with this notice 
(``SKF Program Analysis Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with our determination in the 2006-2007 review,\35\ we 
have preliminarily determined to use PRODCOD as a basis for comparing 
NV to CEP for PBCD and SKF's sales of subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
the Administrative Review, 74 FR 3987 (January 22, 2009), and 
accompanying IDM at Comment 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SKF/CPZ Existing Inventory

    On September 11, 2008, AB SKF acquired various Spungen family-owned 
companies, including PBCD/CPZ and PBCD/Peer. Through a share transfer 
agreement, AB SKF acquired PBCD/CPZ and PBCD/Peer, including PBCD/CPZ's 
assets and liabilities. Among these assets were existing unsold 
inventory held by PBCD/Peer, which was produced by PBCD/CPZ prior to 
the acquisition.
    SKF has argued that the acquisition of PBCD/Peer's unsold inventory 
constituted a CEP sale of all remaining inventory to SKF/Peer as the 
first unaffiliated customer, and requested that the Department treat 
the transfer as a CEP sale for the purposes of this review. However, 
PBCD disagreed that the inventory transfer constituted a CEP sale, 
arguing, that no asset transfer or sale of inventory was specified by 
the acquisition documents.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ For a complete analysis of the arguments forwarded by 
parties on this issue, see SKF Program Analysis Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these preliminary results, the Department finds that SKF's 
acquisition of PBCD/CPZ and PBCD/Peer, pursuant to the Master Purchase 
Agreement (``MPA''), should not be treated as the first sale to an 
unaffiliated customer of the inventory held by PBCD/Peer for the 
purpose of calculating the margin of dumping in this administrative 
review. The MPA specifies the details of the share transfer between 
ownership parties upon finalization of the acquisition agreement, which 
resulted in the transfer of ownership of various

[[Page 41153]]

Spungen-owned companies, including PBCD/Peer and PBCD/CPZ, to various 
AB SKF-owned affiliates. Therefore, as explained by SKF, there was no 
sale value specifically associated with just the TRB inventory as part 
of the MPA. Instead, SKF reported sales prices for the inventory based 
on an accounting value it obtained from a third party accounting firm 
for financial reporting purposes subsequent to the acquisition. Thus, 
the value reported by SKF is not reflective of negotiated sales prices 
for this merchandise. Therefore, the Department finds that the fact the 
SKF acquired the inventory of PBCD/Peer simply reflects the fact the 
inventory in question would remain with SKF/Peer and was not being 
retained by the former owner of PBCD/Peer. Accordingly, we are 
examining the sales of this merchandise from SKF to its first 
unaffiliated downstream customer, and have relied on the U.S. sales 
prices of SKF/Peer's downstream sales for purposes of calculating SKF/
Peer's dumping margin.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Id. for further discussion of this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Export Price

    Because New Torch sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States prior to importation into the United 
States, we used EP for these transactions in accordance with section 
772(a) of the Act. We calculated EP based on the delivery method 
reported to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. New 
Torch's sales required no deductions included in section 772(c) of the 
Act.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, ``2008-2009 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from the 
People's Republic of China: Analysis of the Preliminary 
Determination Margin Calculation for Hubei New Torch Science & 
Technology Co., Ltd.,'' dated concurrently with this notice (``New 
Torch Program Analysis Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    We compared NV to individual EP and CEP transactions in accordance 
with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, as appropriate. Section 773(c)(1) 
of the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using an FOP 
methodology if: (1) The merchandise is exported from an NME country; 
and (2) the information does not permit the calculation of NV using 
home market prices, third country prices, or constructed value under 
section 773(a) of the Act. When determining NV in an NME context, the 
Department will base NV on FOPs because the presence of government 
controls on various aspects of these economies renders price 
comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under our 
normal methodologies. Under section 773(c)(3) of the Act, FOPs include 
but are not limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of 
raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities 
consumed; and (4) representative capital costs. The Department used 
FOPs reported by the respondents for materials, energy, labor and 
packing.
    In past cases, it has been the Department's practice to value 
various FOPs using import statistics of the primary selected surrogate 
country from World Trade Atlas (``WTA''), as published by Global Trade 
Information Services (``GTIS'').\39\ However, in October 2009, the 
Department learned that Indian import data obtained from the WTA, as 
published by GTIS, began identifying the original reporting currency 
for India as the U.S. Dollar. The Department then contacted GTIS about 
the change in the original reporting currency for India from the Indian 
Rupee to the U.S. Dollar. Officials at GTIS explained that while GTIS 
obtains data on imports into India directly from the Ministry of 
Commerce, Government of India, as denominated and published in Indian 
Rupees, the WTA software is limited with regard to the number of 
significant digits it can manage. Therefore, GTIS made a decision to 
change the original reporting currency for Indian data from the Indian 
Rupee to the U.S. Dollar in order to reduce the loss of significant 
digits when obtaining data through the WTA software. GTIS explained 
that it converts the Indian Rupee to the U.S. Dollar using the monthly 
Federal Reserve exchange rate applicable to the relevant month of the 
data being downloaded and converted.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic 
of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 
Review, 74 FR 50946, 50950 (October 2, 2009).
    \40\ See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, 
and Final Determination of Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335 (April 19, 
2010) and accompanying IDM at Comment 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of the conversion and rounding problems in the data 
reported by WTA, the Department will now obtain import statistics from 
Global Trade Atlas (``GTA''), as published by GTIS, for valuing various 
FOPs. The data reported in the GTA software reports import statistics, 
such as from India, in the original reporting currency and thus this 
data corresponds to the original currency value reported by each 
country. Additionally, the data reported in the GTA software is 
reported to the nearest digit and thus there is not a loss of data by 
rounding, as there is with the data reported by the WTA software. 
Consequently the import statistics we obtain from GTA are in the 
original reporting currency of the country from which the data are 
obtained and have the same level of accuracy as the original data 
released.
    In the instant review, PBCD and SKF reported sales that were 
further manufactured or assembled in a third country. Consistent with 
the TRBs 2007-2008, the Department has determined that the finishing 
operations in the third country do not constitute substantial 
transformation and, hence, do not confer a new country of origin for 
antidumping purposes.\41\ As such, we have determined NV for such sales 
based on the country of origin (i.e., the PRC), pursuant to section 
773(a)(3)(A) of the Act, because PBCD and SKF knew at the time of the 
sale of merchandise that it was destined for export. The Department 
also included the further manufacturing and assembly costs incurred in 
the third country in the NV calculation, as well as the expense of 
transporting the merchandise from the factory in the PRC to the further 
manufacturing plant in the third country.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or 
Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
2007-2008 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 
844 (January 6, 2010) (``TRBs 2007-2008''), and accompanying IDM at 
Comment 1.
    \42\ See PBCD and SKF Program Analysis Memoranda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOPs reported by respondents for the POR. In accordance with 
19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will normally use publicly 
available information to find an appropriate surrogate value (``SV'') 
to value FOPs, but when a producer sources an input from a market 
economy and pays for it in market economy currency, the Department 
normally will value the factor using the actual price paid for the 
input.\43\ To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-
consumption rates by publicly available surrogate values (except as 
discussed below). In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the 
quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data.\44\ As

[[Page 41154]]

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to 
make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to import surrogate 
values a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported 
distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from 
the nearest seaport to the factory where appropriate. This adjustment 
is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's 
decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed. 
Cir. 1997). A detailed description of all surrogate values used for 
PBCD/CPZ, SKF/CPZ, and New Torch can be found in the Surrogate Value 
Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof Assembly 
Components Div of Ill Tool Works v. United States, 268 F. 3d 1376, 
1382-1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming the Department's use of 
market-based prices to value certain FOPs).
    \44\ See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 
72139 (December 4, 2002), and accompanying IDM at Comment 6; and 
Final Results of First New Shipper Review and First Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's 
Republic of China, 66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001), and accompanying IDM 
at Comment 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the preliminary results, in accordance with the Department's 
practice, except where noted below, we used data from the Indian import 
Statistics in the GTA and other publicly available Indian sources in 
order to calculate surrogate values for PBCD/CPZ, SKF/CPZ, and New 
Torch's FOPs (i.e. direct materials, energy, and packing materials) and 
certain movement expenses. In selecting the best available information 
for valuing FOPs in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the 
Department's practice is to select, to the extent practicable, 
surrogate values which are non-export average values, most 
contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive.\45\ 
The record shows that data in the Indian Import Statistics, as well as 
those from the other Indian sources, are contemporaneous with the POI, 
product-specific, and tax-exclusive.\46\ In those instances where we 
could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous to the 
POI with which to value factors, we adjusted the surrogate values 
using, where appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as 
published in the IMF's International Financial Statistics.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical 
Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain 
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 
Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 
FR 71005 (December 8, 2004).
    \46\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    \47\ See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks 
From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final 
Determination, 74 FR 9600 (March 5, 2009), unchanged in Certain 
Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 74 FR 
36656 (July 24, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with the OTCA 1988 legislative history, the 
Department continues to apply its long-standing practice of 
disregarding surrogate values if it has a reason to believe or suspect 
the source data may be subsidized.\48\ In this regard, the Department 
has previously found that it is appropriate to disregard such prices 
from India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand because we have 
determined that these countries maintain broadly available, non-
industry specific export subsidies.\49\ Based on the existence of these 
subsidy programs that were generally available to all exporters and 
producers in these countries at the time of the POR, the Department 
finds that it is reasonable to infer that all exporters from India, 
Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand may have benefitted from these 
subsidies. Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME countries.\50\ 
Finally, imports that were labeled as originating from an 
``unspecified'' country were excluded from the average value, because 
the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an 
NME country or a country with generally available export subsidies.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf. Report 
to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. 
(1988) (``OTCA 1988'') at 590.
    \49\ See e.g., Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing 
Duty Order on Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India, 75 FR 13257 
(March 19, 2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
pages 4-5; Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order 
on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia, 
70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at page 4; See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 2512 (January 15, 2009) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at pages 17, 19-20; See 
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand: Final 
Results of Countervailing Duty Determination, 66 FR 50410 (October 
3, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at page 23.
    \50\ See Id.
    \51\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PBCD and SKF claim that certain of their reported raw material 
inputs were sourced from an ME country and paid for in ME currencies. 
When a respondent sources inputs from an ME supplier in meaningful 
quantities, we use the actual price paid by respondent for those 
inputs, except when prices may have been distorted by dumping or 
subsidies.\52\ Where we found ME purchases to be of significant 
quantities (i.e., 33 percent or more), in accordance with our statement 
of policy as outlined in Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy 
Inputs,\53\ we used the actual purchases of these inputs to value the 
inputs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997).
    \53\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for 
Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717 (October 19, 2006) (``Antidumping 
Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, we valued certain of respondents' inputs using the ME 
prices paid for in ME currencies for the inputs where the total volume 
of the input purchased from all ME sources during the POR exceeds or is 
equal to 33 percent of the total volume of the input purchased from all 
sources during the period. Where the quantity of the reported input 
purchased from ME suppliers was below 33 percent of the total volume of 
the input purchased from all sources during the POR, and were otherwise 
valid, we weight-averaged the ME input's purchase price with the 
appropriate surrogate value for the input according to their respective 
shares of the reported total volume of purchases.\54\ Where 
appropriate, we added freight to the ME prices of inputs. For a 
detailed description of the actual values used for the ME inputs 
reported, see the Department's analysis memoranda dated concurrently 
with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 71 FR 
at 61718.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among the FOPs for which the Department calculated SVs using Indian 
import statistics are bearing-quality steel bar, cage steel, steel by-
product, cone spacer, coal, anti-rust oil, and all packing materials.
    In their June 16, 2010, surrogate value submission, PBCD expressed 
concerns regarding the quality of certain SV information from the 
primary surrogate country, India, specifically in regard to the 
valuation of bearing quality steel bar and wire rod inputs. In these 
comments, PBCD argues that the Indian import data for HTS 7228.30.29 
(Other bars and rods of other alloy steel; angles, shapes and sections, 
of other alloy steel; hollow drill bars and rods, of alloy or non-alloy 
steel; Other bars and rods, not further worked than hot-rolled, hot-
drawn or extruded; Bright Bars; Other), submitted by Petitioner and SKF 
as a surrogate to value bearing quality steel bar, are aberrational due 
to the relatively high value when benchmarked against similar bearing 
and roller quality steel HTS categories in the U.S. and potential 
surrogate countries. Furthermore, PBCD reiterates the position 
previously

[[Page 41155]]

forwarded by SKF in its December 7, 2009, surrogate value submission 
that, consistent with the analysis of potential wire rod SVs performed 
in the prior review, certain data considerations compel the Department 
to reject Indian import information for HTS 7228.50.90 (Other bars and 
rods of other alloy steel; angles, shapes and sections, of other alloy 
steel; hollow drill bars and rods, of alloy or non-alloy steel; Other 
bars and rods, not further worked than cold-formed or cold-finished: 
Other) in favor of Thai import data for HTS 7228.50.90 (Other bars and 
rods of other alloy steel; angles, shapes and sections, of other alloy 
steel; hollow drill bars and rods, of alloy or non-alloy steel; Other 
bars and rods, not further worked than cold-formed or cold-finished: 
Other) to value wire rod inputs in the instant review. Petitioner 
addressed the steel bar and wire rod surrogate issues in its June 18, 
2010, surrogate value comments, as well as additional comments 
submitted on June 21, 2010. While Petitioner maintains that the 
Department should value all FOPs, including wire rod and steel bar, 
using surrogate data from the primary surrogate country (i.e. India), 
it adds that, should the Department determine that Thai data is 
preferable to Indian data for the valuation of wire rod inputs, as was 
determined in the prior review, Thai import data for HTS 7228.50.10 
\55\ are a more appropriate surrogate to value wire rod than the Thai 
import data for HTS 7228.50.90 suggested by PBCD and SKF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Other bars and rods of other alloy steel; angles, shapes 
and sections, of other alloy steel; hollow drill bars and rods, of 
alloy or non-alloy steel; Other bars and rods, not further worked 
than cold-formed or cold-finished: Of circular cross-section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the preliminary results, we have determined to use 
contemporaneous Thai import data from HTS category 7228.50.10 and 
contemporaneous Indian import data from HTS category 7228.30.29 to 
calculate a SV for roller quality steel wire rod and bearing quality 
steel bar, respectively. As in TRBs 2007-2008, the Indian import 
statistics for HTS category 7228.50.90 show wide variations in the 
average unit values (``AUVs'') between the individual countries listed 
as exporters in the data. Thai import statistics under Thai HTS 
categories 7228.50.10 and 7228.50.90 do not exhibit the wide level of 
AUV variance between imports from individual countries that is seen in 
the Indian data. Thus, we have determined to use Thai data to value 
steel wire rod. We have used Thai HTS category 7228.50.10 to value wire 
rod, as it is more specific to the input than Thai HTS category 
7228.50.90 because the wire rod in this category are circular, as are 
the respondents' inputs. Using the same method of analysis, Indian 
import statistics for steel bar under Indian HTS category 7228.30.29 
appear to be reasonably consistent and do not have wide fluctuations 
between the AUVs from individual countries. As it is our preference to 
use SVs from within the primary surrogate country, and because we do 
not find that the Indian import data under Indian HTS category 
7228.30.29 are aberrational, we preliminarily determine to value steel 
bar from Indian HTS category 7228.30.29.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum for further analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit average rate 
calculated from data on the infobanc Web site: http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this Web site contains 
inland freight truck rates between many large Indian cities.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We valued inland water freight using price data for barge freight 
reported in a March 19, 2007, article published in The Hindu Business 
Line.\58\ Since the inland water transportation rates are not 
contemporaneous with the POR, we inflated the rates using the Indian 
WPI inflator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We valued brokerage and handling using a price list of export 
procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in India. 
The price list is compiled based on a survey case study of the 
procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by 
ocean transport in India that is published in Doing Business 2010: 
India, published by the World Bank.\59\ Since brokerage and handling 
rates are not contemporaneous with the POR, we inflated the rates using 
the Indian WPI inflator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We valued electricity using the updated electricity price data for 
small, medium, and large industries, as published by the Central 
Electricity Authority, an administrative body of the Government of 
India, in its publication titled ``Electricity Tariff & Duty and 
Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India,'' dated March 2008. These 
electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly-available 
information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to small, 
medium, and large industries in India.\60\ Because the rates listed in 
this source became effective on a variety of different dates, we are 
not adjusting the average value for inflation. In other words, the 
Department did not inflate this value to the POR because the utility 
rates represent current rates, as indicated by the effective date 
listed for each of the rates provided.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See Id.
    \61\ See, e.g., Wire Decking from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair