Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative and Changed-Circumstances Reviews, 22372-22381 [2011-9721]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 77 (Thursday, April 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22372-22381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9721]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-427-801, A-428-801, A-475-801, A-588-804, A-412-801]


Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, 
Japan, and the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Administrative and Changed-Circumstances Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting administrative 
reviews of the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts 
thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom for 
the period May 1, 2009, through April 30, 2010. We have preliminarily 
determined that sales have been made below normal value by certain 
companies subject to these reviews. We have also preliminarily 
determined that Schaeffler Technologies GmbH & Co. KG is the successor-
in-interest to Schaeffler KG with respect to the order on ball bearings 
and parts thereof from Germany.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit comments in these reviews are requested to 
submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief 
summary of the argument.

DATES:  Effective Date: April 21, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0410.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On May 15, 1989, the Department published the antidumping duty 
orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from France (54 FR 20902), 
Germany (54 FR 20900), Italy (54 FR 20903), Japan (54 FR 20904), and 
the United Kingdom (54 FR 20910) in the Federal Register. On June 30, 
2010, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b), we published a notice of 
initiation of administrative reviews of 133 companies subject to these 
orders. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 37759 
(June 30, 2010) (Initiation Notice).
    Subsequent to the initiation of these reviews we published in the 
Federal Register the final results of the 2008-2009 administrative 
reviews of the orders, in which we revoked the antidumping duty order 
on ball bearings and parts thereof from the United Kingdom, in part, 
with respect to merchandise exported or sold by The Barden Corporation 
(U.K.) Limited and Schaeffler (U.K.) Limited (The Schaeffler Group) 
effective May 1, 2009.\1\ As a result we rescinded the 2009-2010 
administrative review of the order on merchandise from the United 
Kingdom.\2\ We have also rescinded the administrative reviews with 
respect to 34 other companies based on the withdrawals of the 
applicable requests for reviews. See Rescission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, et al.: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final 
Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, and Revocation of an Order 
in Part, 75 FR 53661 (September 1, 2010) (AFBs 20).
    \2\ See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, et al.: 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 
69402 (November 12, 2010), and Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From 
France: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 76 FR 327 (January 4, 2011) (collectively Rescission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 14, 2011, we issued a notice of extension of the 
deadline for completion of the preliminary results of reviews from 
January 31, 2011, to March 17, 2011. See Ball Bearings and Parts 
Thereof From France, et al.: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 2647 (January 
14, 2011). On March 22, 2011, we issued a second notice of extension of 
the deadline for completion of the preliminary results of reviews from 
March 17, 2011, to April 18, 2011. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof 
From France, et al.: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative and Changed-Circumstances Reviews, 76 
FR 15940 (March 22, 2011).
    The period of review is May 1, 2009, through April 30, 2010. The 
Department is conducting these administrative reviews in accordance 
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of the Orders

    The products covered by the orders are ball bearings and parts 
thereof. These products include all antifriction bearings that employ 
balls as the rolling element. Imports of these products are classified 
under the following categories: Antifriction balls, ball bearings with 
integral shafts, ball bearings (including radial ball bearings) and 
parts thereof, and housed or mounted ball bearing units and parts 
thereof.
    Imports of these products are classified under the following 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 
3926.90.45, 4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.19.50.10, 8414.90.41.75, 
8431.20.00, 8431.39.00.10, 8482.10.10, 8482.10.50, 8482.80.00, 
8482.91.00, 8482.99.05, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.25.80, 8482.99.65.95, 
8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.50.90, 8483.90.20, 
8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.60.80, 8708.93.30, 
8708.93.60.00, 8708.99.06, 8708.99.31.00, 8708.99.40.00, 8708.99.49.60, 
8708.99.58, 8708.99.80.15, 8708.99.80.80, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 
8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, 8803.90.90, 8708.30.50.90, 8708.40.75.70, 
8708.40.75.80, 8708.50.79.00, 8708.50.89.00, 8708.50.91.50, 
8708.50.99.00, 8708.70.60.60, 8708.80.65.90, 8708.93.75.00, 8708.94.75, 
8708.95.20.00, 8708.99.55.00, 8708.99.68, and 8708.99.81.80.
    Although the HTSUS item numbers above are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, the written descriptions of the scope of the 
orders remain dispositive.
    The size or precision grade of a bearing does not influence whether 
the bearing is covered by one of the orders. The orders cover all the 
subject bearings and parts thereof (inner race, outer race, cage, 
rollers, balls, seals, shields, etc.) outlined above with certain 
limitations. With regard to finished parts, all such parts are included 
in the scope of the orders. For unfinished parts, such parts are 
included if they have been heat-treated or if heat treatment is not 
required to be performed on the part. Thus, the only unfinished parts 
that are not covered by the orders are those that will be subject to 
heat treatment after importation. The ultimate application of a bearing 
also does not influence whether the bearing is covered by the orders. 
Bearings designed for highly specialized applications are not excluded. 
Any of the subject bearings, regardless of whether they may ultimately 
be utilized in aircraft,

[[Page 22373]]

automobiles, or other equipment, are within the scope of the orders.
    For a list of scope determinations which pertain to the orders, see 
the ``Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill'' regarding scope determinations 
for the 2009/2010 reviews, dated concurrently with this notice, which 
is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) of the main Commerce 
building, room 7046, in the General Issues record (A-100-001).

Selection of Respondents

    Due to the large number of companies in the reviews and the 
resulting administrative burden to examine each company for which a 
request had been made and not withdrawn, the Department exercised its 
authority to limit the number of respondents selected for individual 
examination in these reviews. Where it is not practicable to examine 
all known exporters/producers of subject merchandise because of the 
large number of such companies, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act allows 
the Department to limit its examination to either a sample of 
exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid, 
based on the information available at the time of selection, or 
exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of subject 
merchandise from the exporting country that can be reasonably examined.
    Accordingly, in June 2010 we requested information concerning the 
quantity and value of sales to the United States from the 133 
exporters/producers for which we had initiated reviews. We received 
responses from most of the exporters/producers subject to the reviews; 
some companies withdrew their requests for review and some companies 
did not respond to our request for information.\3\ Based on our 
analysis of the responses and our available resources, we chose to 
examine the sales of certain companies. See Memoranda to Laurie 
Parkhill, dated August 18, 2010, for the detailed analysis of the 
selection process for each country-specific review. We selected the 
following companies for individual examination:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ``Use of Facts Otherwise Available section.''

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Country                              Company
------------------------------------------------------------------------
France..............................   SKF France S.A. and SKF Aerospace
                                       France S.A.S (SKF France) SNR
                                       Roulements S.A./SNR Europe (SNR).
Germany.............................   Schaeffler KG myonic GmbH
                                       (myonic).
Italy...............................   Schaeffler Italia S.r.l.
                                       (formerly FAG Italia S.p.A.) SKF
                                       Industrie S.p.A./Somecat S.p.A.
                                       (SKF Italy).
Japan...............................   NTN Corporation (NTN) NSK Ltd.
United Kingdom......................  Barden Corporation (U.K.) Limited
                                       and Schaeffler (U.K.) Limited \4\
                                       NSK Bearings Europe Ltd. (NSK
                                       U.K.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Selected Respondents

    For the respondents we did not examine individually in the 
administrative reviews of the orders on merchandise from France, 
Germany, and Italy, we cannot apply our normal methodology of 
calculating a weighted-average margin using the results of the reviews 
for the two respondents we selected in each review for individual 
examination due to their requests to protect their business-proprietary 
information. In such situations, it is our normal practice to calculate 
a weighted-average margin using the publicly available U.S. sales 
values and antidumping duty margins of the two selected respondents or 
to use the simple average of their margins, depending on which result 
is closer to the actual weighted-average margin of the companies in 
question. See AFBs 20 and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Revocation resulted in rescission of the review with respect 
to these firms. See ``Background'' section above and Rescission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For responding companies in the administrative reviews of the 
orders on subject merchandise from France, Germany, and Italy that were 
not individually examined, we have used weighted-average margins and 
the publicly available U.S. sales values of the two selected 
respondents in each respective review to calculate the weighted-average 
margin. Therefore, we have applied, for these preliminary results, the 
rate of 5.12 percent (France), the rate of 6.26 percent (Germany), and 
the rate of 12.32 percent (Italy) to the firms not individually 
examined in the respective reviews. See the country-specific Memoranda 
to the File concerning Respondents Not Selected for Individual 
Examination for France, Germany, and Italy dated concurrently with this 
notice for an explanation of our calculations.
    With respect to the responding companies which remain under review 
and which we did not select for individual examination in the review of 
the order on subject merchandise from the United Kingdom, we have 
assigned the margin we have calculated for NSK U.K. of 5.90 percent to 
these firms because, after rescission of the review with respect to 
Barden Corporation (U.K.) Limited and Schaeffler (U.K) Limited, NSK 
U.K. was the sole remaining company selected for individual 
examination. With respect to the responding companies which remain 
under review and which we did not select for individual examination in 
the review of the order on subject merchandise from Japan, because we 
do not have publicly available information on U.S. sales value for one 
of the selected respondents, we have assigned to the non-selected 
respondents the simple-average margin of the two respondents selected 
for individual examination; that rate is 11.36 percent.

Voluntary Respondents

    We received voluntary responses from Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd. (Asahi), 
and Mori Seiki Co., Ltd., with respect to the review of the order on 
merchandise from Japan. Due to changes in our workload since our 
initial selection of respondents for individual examination, we decided 
to treat these firms as firms selected for individual examination as 
well. See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill dated November 15, 2010.

No-Shipments Respondent

    On July 15, 2010, SNR UK submitted a letter indicating that it made 
no sales to the United States during the period of review. We have not 
received any comments on SNR UK's submission. We confirmed SNR UK's 
claim of no shipments by issuing a ``No-Shipments Inquiry'' to U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on March 18, 2011.
    With regard to SNR UK's claim of no shipments, our practice since 
implementation of the 1997 regulations concerning no-shipments 
respondents has been to rescind the administrative review if the 
respondent certifies that it had no shipments and we have confirmed 
through our examination of CBP data that there were no shipments of 
subject merchandise during the POR. See Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27393 (May 19, 1997), and Oil 
Country Tubular Goods from Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 70 FR 
53161, 53162 (September 7, 2005), unchanged in Oil Country Tubular 
Goods from Japan: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 95 (January 3, 2006). As a result, in 
such circumstances, we normally instruct CBP to liquidate any entries 
from the no-shipment company

[[Page 22374]]

at the deposit rate in effect on the date of entry.
    In our May 6, 2003, ``automatic assessment'' clarification, we 
explained that, where respondents in an administrative review 
demonstrate that they had no knowledge of sales through resellers to 
the United States, we would instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at 
the all-others rate applicable to the proceeding. See Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (May 2003 clarification).
    Based on SNR UK's assertion of no shipments and no indication from 
CBP that there are suspended entries of subject merchandise from SNR 
UK, we preliminarily determine that SNR UK had no sales to the United 
States during the POR.
    Because ``as entered'' liquidation instructions do not alleviate 
the concerns which the May 2003 clarification was intended to address, 
we find it appropriate in this case to instruct CBP to liquidate any 
existing entries of merchandise produced by SNR UK at the all-others 
rate should we continue to find at the time of our final results that 
SNR UK had no shipments of subject merchandise from the United Kingdom. 
See Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 26922, 26933 (May 13, 
2010), unchanged in Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 56989 
(September 17, 2010). See also Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 
India: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 
FR 77610, 77612 (December 19, 2008). In addition, the Department finds 
that it is more consistent with the May 2003 clarification not to 
rescind the review in part in these circumstances but, rather, to 
complete the review with respect to SNR UK and issue appropriate 
instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review. See the 
``Assessment Rates'' section of this notice below.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we have verified 
information provided by NSK Ltd. and Schaeffler KG.
    We conducted these verifications using standard verification 
procedures including the examination of relevant sales and financial 
records and the selection and review of original documentation 
containing relevant information. Our verification results are outlined 
in the public versions of our verification reports which are on file in 
CRU, room 7046 of the main Department building.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    For the reasons discussed below, we determine that the use of 
adverse facts available (AFA) is appropriate for the preliminary 
results of reviews with respect to several companies.

A. Use of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
withholds information requested by the administering authority, fails 
to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the 
information and in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections 
(c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act, significantly impedes a 
proceeding under this title, or provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i) of the 
Act, the administering authority shall use, subject to section 782(d) 
of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the 
administering authority determines that a response to a request for 
information does not comply with the request, the administering 
authority shall promptly inform the responding party and, to the extent 
practicable, provide an opportunity to remedy the deficient submission. 
If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time 
limits, the Department may disregard, subject to section 782(e) of the 
Act, all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as 
appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department 
``shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an 
interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not 
meet all the applicable requirements established by the administering 
authority'' if the information is timely, can be verified, and is not 
so incomplete that it cannot be used and if the interested party acted 
to the best of its ability in providing the information. Where all of 
these conditions are met, the statute requires the Department to use 
the information if it can do so without undue difficulties.
    The following companies did not respond to our request to provide 
information concerning the quantity and value of their U.S. sales: 
France--AVIAC, Eurocopter SAS, Groupe Intertechnique, SNECMA, and 
Tecnofan; Italy--Eurocopter and SNECMA; Japan--Tsubakimoto. Because 
these companies did not respond to our request, we could not determine 
whether and to what extent these companies participated in sales of 
subject merchandise to the U.S. market. Moreover, because these 
companies failed to provide the information requested and thus 
significantly impeded the respective country-specific reviews, we find 
that we must base their margins on facts otherwise available. See 
section 776(a) of the Act.

B. Application of Adverse Inferences for Facts Available

    In applying the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the 
Act provides that, if the administering authority finds that an 
interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of 
its ability to comply with a request for information from the 
administering authority, in reaching the applicable determination under 
this title, the administering authority may use an adverse inference in 
selecting from among the facts otherwise available. See, e.g., Notice 
of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Final 
Determination to Revoke the Order In Part: Individually Quick Frozen 
Red Raspberries from Chile, 72 FR 70295, 70297 (December 11, 2007) 
(Raspberries from Chile Final), and Notice of Preliminary Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Postponement of Final 
Determination: Certain Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Line Pipe From 
Mexico, 69 FR 59892, 59896 (October 6, 2004).
    Adverse inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does 
not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it 
had cooperated fully.'' See Notice of Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Notice of Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Notice of Intent to Revoke in 
Part: Certain Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile, 72 
FR 44112, 44114 (August 7, 2007) (unchanged in Raspberries from Chile 
Final, 72 FR at 70297). Further, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith on 
the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make 
an adverse inference.'' See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 
62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). See also Nippon Steel Corp. v. 
United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1380-84 (CAFC 2003).
    Because the non-responding companies did not provide requested data 
concerning their sales of subject merchandise to the United States 
during the period of review, we determine that they have failed to 
cooperate by not

[[Page 22375]]

acting to the best of their ability. See Antifriction Bearings and 
Parts Thereof From France, et al.: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, Rescission of Administrative Reviews in Part, 
and Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 69 FR 55574 (September 15, 
2004) (AFBs 14). Therefore, we conclude that the use of an adverse 
inference is warranted in applying facts otherwise available to these 
companies.

C. Selection and Corroboration of Information Used as Facts Available

    As facts available with an adverse inference, we have selected the 
rates of 66.42 percent for AVIAC, Eurocopter SAS, Groupe 
Intertechnique, SNECMA, and Technofan (France), 69.99 percent for 
Eurocopter SAS and SNECMA (Italy), and 73.55 percent for Tsubakimoto 
(Japan). These rates represent the highest rates calculated in the 
history of the respective proceedings and are from the respective less-
than-fair-value investigations for each country. See Final 
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Antifriction Bearings 
(Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, 54 
FR 19092, 19096 (May 3, 1989), Final Determinations of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Spherical Plain and 
Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From Italy; and Final 
Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value; Spherical Plain 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, From Italy, 54 FR 19096, 19101 (May 3, 
1989), and Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; 
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 
Thereof From Japan, 54 FR 19101, 19108 (May 3, 1989).
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
corroborate, to the extent practicable, secondary information used for 
facts available by reviewing independent sources reasonably at its 
disposal. Information from a prior segment of the proceeding 
constitutes secondary information. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 
from Brazil: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 39940 (July 11, 2008). The word 
``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that the 
secondary information to be used has probative value.
    To corroborate secondary information, the Department will examine, 
to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of the 
information used. Unlike other types of information such as input costs 
or selling expenses, however, there are no independent sources for 
calculated dumping margins. The only source for margins is 
administrative determinations. Thus, with respect to an administrative 
review, if we choose as facts available a calculated dumping margin 
from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is our practice to find the 
margin for that time period reliable. See, e.g., AFBs 14, 69 FR at 
55577. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to 
whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not 
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not 
appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and 
determine an appropriate margin. See Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 
6814 (February 22, 1996) (the Department disregarded the highest 
dumping margin as best information available because the margin was 
based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting 
in an unusually high margin).
    We find that the rates we are using for these preliminary results, 
as identified above, have probative value and, therefore, are 
appropriate rates for use as AFA. All rates fell within the range of 
margins we calculated for companies in the respective country-specific 
administrative reviews and there is no information on the record of the 
reviews that demonstrates that the selected rates are not appropriate 
AFA rates for the non-responsive firms.
    For more detail concerning the corroboration of the AFA rates, see 
the country-specific Memoranda to Laurie Parkhill, dated concurrently 
with this notice.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used export price (EP) or 
constructed export price (CEP) as defined in sections 772(a) and (b) of 
the Act, as appropriate. Due to the extremely large volume of U.S. 
transactions that occurred during the period of review and the 
resulting administrative burden involved in calculating individual 
margins for all of these transactions, we sampled CEP sales in 
accordance with section 777A of the Act. When a selected firm made more 
than 10,000 CEP sales transactions to the United States of merchandise 
subject to a particular order, we reviewed CEP sales that occurred 
during sample weeks. We selected one week from each two-month period in 
the review period, for a total of six weeks, and analyzed each 
transaction made in those six weeks. The sample weeks are as follows: 
June 7, 2009-June 13, 2009; July 5, 2009-July 11, 2009; October 18, 
2009-October 24, 2009; November 1, 2009-November 7, 2009; January 10, 
2010-January 16, 2010; March 28, 2010-April 3, 2010. We reviewed all EP 
sales transactions which the respondents we selected for individual 
examination made during the period of review.
    We calculated EP and CEP based on the packed F.O.B., C.I.F., or 
delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, 
the United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for discounts 
and rebates. See 19 CFR 351.401(c) and 351.102(b)(38). We also made 
deductions for any movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    Certain companies received freight revenues or packing revenues 
from the customer for certain U.S. sales. In Certain Orange Juice from 
Brazil: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 46584 (August 11, 2008) (OJ Brazil), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7 and in 
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 6857 
(February 11, 2009) (PRC Bags), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 6, the Department determined to treat such 
revenues as an offset to the specific expenses for which they were 
intended to compensate. Accordingly, we have used the revenues of the 
particular respondents as an offset to their respective expenses.
    Consistent with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we calculated CEP by 
deducting selling expenses associated with economic activities 
occurring in the United States which includes commissions, direct 
selling expenses, and U.S. repacking expenses. In accordance with 
sections 772(d)(1) and (2) of the Act, we also deducted those indirect 
selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the 
United States and the profit allocated to expenses deducted under 
section 772(d)(1) of the Act in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 
772(f) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we 
computed profit based on the total revenues realized on sales in both 
the U.S. and home markets, less all expenses associated with those 
sales. We then allocated profit to expenses incurred with respect to 
U.S. economic activity based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to 
total expenses for both the U.S. and

[[Page 22376]]

home markets. Finally, we made an adjustment for profit allocated to 
these expenses in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
    With respect to NTN, because it reported fiscal-year expenses, we 
recalculated technical-service expenses, certain U.S. inland-freight 
expenses, indirect selling expenses, and repacking expenses using an 
allocation on the basis of fiscal-year value of sales instead of its 
reported allocation on the basis of value of sales during the period of 
review. Also, with respect to NTN, we recalculated the reported 
inventory-carrying costs consistent with the methodology described in 
Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, et al.: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Rescission of Reviews in 
Part, 73 FR 52823 (September 11, 2008) (AFBs 18), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 13.
    With respect to SNR, because it reported inland-freight expenses 
and international-freight expenses applicable to its U.S. sales on the 
basis of value, we recalculated these expenses on the basis of weight. 
See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, et al.: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 12170, 12173 
(March 9, 2006), unchanged in Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from 
France, et al.: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 71 FR 40064 (July 14, 2006) (AFBs 16), and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.
    With respect to NSK Ltd., we reclassified certain expenses 
associated with Japanese workers in the United States as indirect 
selling expenses and deducted them from CEP consistent with the 
methodology described in AFBs 16 and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 26.
    With respect to subject merchandise to which value was added in the 
United States prior to sale to unaffiliated U.S. customers, e.g., parts 
of bearings that were imported by U.S. affiliates of foreign exporters 
and then further processed into other products which were then sold to 
unaffiliated parties, we determined that the special rule for 
merchandise with value added after importation under section 772(e) of 
the Act applied to all firms that added value in the United States with 
the exception of Asahi.
    Section 772(e) of the Act provides that, when the subject 
merchandise is imported by an affiliated person and the value added in 
the United States by the affiliated person is likely to exceed 
substantially the value of the subject merchandise, we shall determine 
the CEP for such merchandise using the price of identical or other 
subject merchandise sold by the exporter or producer to an unaffiliated 
customer if there is a sufficient quantity of sales to provide a 
reasonable basis for comparison and we determine that the use of such 
sales is appropriate. If there is not a sufficient quantity of such 
sales or if we determine that using the price of identical or other 
subject merchandise is not appropriate, we may use any other reasonable 
basis to determine CEP.
    To determine whether the value added is likely to exceed 
substantially the value of the subject merchandise, we estimated the 
value added based on the difference between the averages of the prices 
charged to the first unaffiliated purchaser for the merchandise as sold 
in the United States and the averages of the prices paid for the 
subject merchandise by the affiliated purchaser. Based on this 
analysis, we determined that the estimated value added in the United 
States by the further-manufacturing firms accounted for at least 65 
percent of the price charged to the first unaffiliated customer for the 
merchandise as sold in the United States. See 19 CFR 351.402(c) for an 
explanation of our practice on this issue. Therefore, we preliminarily 
determine that the value added is likely to exceed substantially the 
value of the subject merchandise for Mori Seiki Co., Ltd., NSK Ltd., 
NSK U.K., NTN, Schaeffler KG, SKF France, and SKF Italy. Also, for 
these firms, we determine that there was a sufficient quantity of sales 
remaining to provide a reasonable basis for comparison and that the use 
of these sales is appropriate. For the analysis of the decision not to 
require further-manufactured data, see the Department's company-
specific preliminary analysis memoranda dated concurrently with this 
notice. Accordingly, for purposes of determining dumping margins for 
the sales subject to the special rule, we have used the weighted-
average dumping margins calculated on sales of identical or other 
subject merchandise sold to unaffiliated persons.
    For Asahi, we determined that the special rule did not apply 
because the value added in the United States did not exceed 
substantially the value of the subject merchandise. Consequently, Asahi 
submitted responses to our further-manufacturing questionnaire which 
included the costs of the further processing performed by Asahi in the 
United States. We analyzed these sales in the same manner as non-
further-manufactured products but deducted the value of further 
manufacturing incurred in the United States and an amount for profit 
attributable to the further manufacturing. We used the data reported in 
Asahi's questionnaire responses to calculate the further-manufacturing 
expense which we deducted from U.S. prices.
    There were no other claimed or allowed adjustments to EP or CEP 
sales by the respondents. For further descriptions of our analysis, see 
the company-specific preliminary analysis memoranda dated concurrently 
with this notice.

Home-Market Sales

    Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home-market and 
U.S. sales and absent any information that a particular market 
situation in the exporting country did not permit a proper comparison, 
we determined that the quantity of foreign like product sold by all 
respondents in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper 
comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United 
States pursuant to section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Each company's 
quantity of sales in its home market was greater than five percent of 
its sales to the U.S. market. Therefore, in accordance with section 
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value on the prices at 
which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the 
exporting country in the usual commercial quantities and in the 
ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same 
level of trade as the EP or CEP sales.
    Due to the extremely large number of home-market transactions that 
occurred during the period of review and the resulting administrative 
burden involved in examining all of these transactions, we sampled 
sales to calculate normal value in accordance with section 777A of the 
Act. When a selected firm had more than 10,000 home-market sales 
transactions on a country-specific basis, we used sales in sample 
months that corresponded to the sample weeks which we selected for U.S. 
CEP sales, sales in a month prior to the period of review, and sales in 
the month following the period of review. The sample months were March 
2009, June 2009, July 2009, October 2009, November 2009, January 2010, 
March 2010, and June 2010.
    The Department may calculate normal value based on a sale to an 
affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the 
affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made to 
parties not affiliated with the exporter or producer, i.e., sales were 
made at

[[Page 22377]]

arm's-length prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). We excluded from our 
analysis sales to affiliated customers for consumption in the home 
market that we determined not to be at arm's-length prices. To test 
whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices, we compared the 
prices of sales of comparable merchandise to affiliated and 
unaffiliated customers, net of all rebates, movement charges, direct 
selling expenses, and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in 
accordance with our practice, when the prices charged to an affiliated 
party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices 
charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise comparable to that sold 
to the affiliated party, we determined that the sales to the affiliated 
party were at arm's-length prices. See Antidumping Proceedings: 
Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186 
(November 15, 2002). We included in our calculation of normal value 
those sales to affiliated parties that were made at arm's-length 
prices. See company-specific preliminary analysis memoranda dated 
concurrently with this notice.

Cost of Production

    In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, in the last completed 
segment of the relevant country-specific proceeding we disregarded 
below-cost sales for Asahi, NSK Ltd., NSK U.K., NTN, Schaeffler Italia 
S.r.l., Schaeffler KG, SKF France, SKF Italy, and SNR. Therefore, for 
the instant reviews, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 
that sales by all of the above companies of the foreign like product 
under consideration for the determination of normal value in these 
reviews may have been made at prices below the cost of production (COP) 
as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Pursuant to section 
773(b)(1) of the Act, we conducted COP investigations of sales by these 
firms in the respective home markets.
    With respect to myonic, on November 15, 2010, The Timken Company 
alleged that myonic sold the foreign like product in Germany at prices 
below the COP during the period of review. Based on the information on 
the record and pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we found we 
had reasonable grounds to initiate a COP investigation with respect to 
myonic. See the December 16, 2010, Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill 
entitled ``Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Germany: Request to 
Initiate Cost Investigation for myonic GmbH.''
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed 
in producing the foreign like product, the selling, general, and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses, and all costs and expenses incidental 
to packing the merchandise. With respect to NTN, we recalculated the 
reported general and administrative expenses by including expenses 
associated with replacing the defective product with respect to sales 
made to a certain customer category. With respect to Schaeffler KG, we 
did not allow Schaeffler KG's claimed interest income as an offset to 
its interest expenses because Schaeffler KG did not demonstrate that 
the interest income was short-term in nature. In our COP analysis, we 
used the home-market sales and COP information provided by each 
respondent in its questionnaire responses or, in the case of Schaeffler 
Italia S.r.l., additional COP information provided by its largest 
supplier.
    After calculating the COP and in accordance with section 773(b)(1) 
of the Act, we tested whether home-market sales of the foreign like 
product were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of 
time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We compared 
model-specific COPs to the reported home-market prices less any 
applicable movement charges, discounts, and rebates.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less 
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities 
within an extended period of time. When 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product during the period of review were 
at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales 
because they were made in substantial quantities within an extended 
period of time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act and 
because, based on comparisons of prices to weighted-average COPs for 
the period of review, we determined that these sales were at prices 
which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period 
of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Based on 
this test, we disregarded below-cost sales with respect to Asahi, 
myonic, NSK Ltd., NSK U.K., NTN, Schaeffler Italia S.r.l., Schaeffler 
KG, SKF France, SKF Italy, and SNR. See the relevant company-specific 
preliminary analysis memoranda dated concurrently with this notice.

Model-Match Methodology

    For all respondents, where possible, we compared U.S. sales with 
sales of the foreign like product in the home market. Specifically, in 
making our comparisons, if an identical home-market model was reported, 
we made comparisons to weighted-average home-market prices that were 
based on all sales which, where appropriate, passed the COP test of the 
identical product during the relevant month. We calculated the 
weighted-average home-market prices on a level of trade-specific basis. 
If there were no contemporaneous sales of an identical model, we 
identified the most similar home-market model.
    To determine the most similar model, we limited our examination to 
models sold in the home market that had the same bearing design, load 
direction, number of rows, and precision grade. Next, we calculated the 
sum of the deviations (expressed as a percentage of the value of the 
U.S. model's characteristics) of the inner diameter, outer diameter, 
width, and load rating for each potential home-market match and 
selected the bearing with the smallest sum of the deviations. If two or 
more bearings had the same sum of the deviations, we selected the model 
that was sold at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale and was the 
closest contemporaneous sale to the U.S. sale. If two or more models 
were sold at the same level of trade and were sold equally 
contemporaneously, we selected the model with the smallest difference-
in-merchandise adjustment.
    Finally, if no bearing sold in the home market had a sum of the 
deviations that was less than 40 percent, we concluded that no 
appropriate comparison existed in the home market. For a full 
discussion of the model-match methodology we have used in these 
reviews, see Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, et 
al.: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 25538, 25542 (May 13, 2005), and Ball 
Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, et al.: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 54711 (September 16, 
2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 2, 
3, and 5.

Normal Value

    Home-market prices were based on the packed, ex-factory, or 
delivered prices to affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers. When 
applicable, we made adjustments for differences in packing and for 
movement expenses in

[[Page 22378]]

accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. Where 
companies received freight or packing revenues from the home-market 
customer, we offset these expenses in accordance with OJ Brazil and PRC 
Bags as discussed above. With respect to NTN, we recalculated the 
reported inventory-carrying costs consistent with the methodology 
described in AFBs 18 and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 13. We also made adjustments for differences in cost 
attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the 
merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.411 and for differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For 
comparisons to EP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by 
deducting home-market direct selling expenses from, and adding U.S. 
direct selling expenses to, normal value. For comparisons to CEP, we 
made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-market direct 
selling expenses from normal value. We recalculated Schaeffler KG's 
home-market imputed expenses using the interest rate we calculated 
based solely on loans denominated in the currency in which the home-
market sales were made (i.e., Euros). We also made adjustments, when 
applicable, for home-market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. 
commissions in EP and CEP calculations.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based 
normal value, to the extent practicable, on sales at the same level of 
trade as the EP or CEP. If normal value was calculated at a different 
level of trade, we made an adjustment, if appropriate and if possible, 
in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See ``Level of 
Trade'' section below.

Constructed Value

    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used 
constructed value as the basis for normal value when there were no 
usable sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market. We 
calculated constructed value in accordance with section 773(e) of the 
Act. We included the cost of materials and fabrication, SG&A expenses, 
U.S. packing expenses, and profit in the calculation of constructed 
value. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based 
SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by each 
respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign 
like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the 
home market.
    When appropriate, we made adjustments to constructed value in 
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.410, and 19 
CFR 351.412 for circumstance-of-sale differences and level-of-trade 
differences. For comparisons to EP, we made circumstance-of-sale 
adjustments by deducting home-market direct selling expenses from and 
adding U.S. direct selling expenses to constructed value. For 
comparisons to CEP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by 
deducting home-market direct selling expenses from constructed value. 
We also made adjustments, when applicable, for home-market indirect 
selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and CEP comparisons.
    When possible, we calculated constructed value at the same level of 
trade as the EP or CEP. If constructed value was calculated at a 
different level of trade, we made an adjustment, if appropriate and if 
possible, in accordance with sections 773(a)(7) and (8) of the Act.

Level of Trade

    To the extent practicable, we determined normal value for sales at 
the same level of trade as the U.S. sales (either EP or CEP). When 
there were no sales at the same level of trade, we compared U.S. sales 
to home-market sales at a different level of trade. The normal-value 
level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the home market. 
When normal value is based on constructed value, the level of trade is 
that of the sales from which we derived SG&A and profit.
    To determine whether home-market sales were at a different level of 
trade than U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and 
selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer 
and the unaffiliated customer. If the home-market sales were at a 
different level of trade from that of a U.S. sale and the difference 
affected price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent 
price differences between the sales on which normal value is based and 
home-market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we 
made a level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 
See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 
FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997).
    Where the respondent reported no home-market levels of trade that 
were equivalent to the CEP level of trade and where the CEP level of 
trade was at a less advanced stage than any of the home-market levels 
of trade, we were unable to calculate a level-of-trade adjustment based 
on the respondent's home-market sales of the foreign like product. 
Furthermore, we have no other information that provides an appropriate 
basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment. For CEP sales in 
such situations, to the extent possible, we determined normal value at 
the same level of trade as the U.S. sale to the first unaffiliated 
customer and made a CEP-offset adjustment in accordance with section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The CEP-offset adjustment to normal value was 
subject to the so-called ``offset cap,'' calculated as the sum of home-
market indirect selling expenses up to the amount of U.S. indirect 
selling expenses deducted from CEP (or, if there were no home-market 
commissions, the sum of U.S. indirect selling expenses and U.S. 
commissions).
    For a company-specific description of our level-of-trade analyses 
for these preliminary results, see Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill, dated 
concurrently with this notice, entitled ``Ball Bearings and Parts 
Thereof from Various Countries: 2009/2010 Level-of-Trade Analysis,'' on 
file in the CRU in the General Issues record (A-100-001).

Weighted-Average Margin

    In order to derive a single weighted-average margin for each 
respondent, we weight-averaged the EP and CEP weighted-average margins 
(using the EP and CEP, respectively, as the weighting factors). To 
accomplish this when we sampled CEP sales, we first calculated the 
total dumping margins for all CEP sales during the review period by 
multiplying the sample CEP margins by the ratio of total days in the 
review period to days in the sample weeks. We then calculated a total 
net value for all CEP sales during the review period by multiplying the 
sample CEP total net value by the same ratio. Finally, we divided the 
combined total dumping margins for both EP and CEP sales by the 
combined total value for both EP and CEP sales to obtain the weighted-
average margin.

Preliminary Results of Changed-Circumstances Review

    On January 14, 2011, Schaeffler Technologies GmbH & Co. KG 
(Schaeffler Technologies) requested that the Department initiate a 
changed-circumstances review to determine whether Schaeffler 
Technologies is the successor-in-interest to Schaeffler KG. On February 
24, 2011, we initiated a

[[Page 22379]]

changed-circumstances review pursuant to the request from Schaeffler 
Technologies. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From Germany: 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed-Circumstances Review, 76 FR 
10335 (February 24, 2011). We also announced that we would conduct the 
changed-circumstances review in the context of the 2009/2010 
administrative review.
    In determining whether one company is the successor to another for 
purposes of applying the antidumping duty law, the Department examines 
a number of factors including, but not limited to, changes in 
management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customer 
base. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Japan: Initiation and 
Preliminary Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, 71 FR 14679, 14680 
(March 23, 2006), unchanged in Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Changed-Circumstances Review: Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from 
Japan, 71 FR 26452 (May 5, 2006) (collectively CCR Japan), and 
Industrial Phosphoric Acid From Israel; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944 (February 14, 1994). 
Although no single or even several of these factors will necessarily 
provide a dispositive indication of succession, generally the 
Department will consider one company to be a successor to another 
company if its resulting operation is similar to that of its 
predecessor. See CCR Japan and Brass Sheet and Strip From Canada; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460 (May 13, 
1992), at Comment 1. Thus, if the evidence demonstrates that, with 
respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new 
company operates as the same business entity as the prior company, the 
Department will assign the new company the cash-deposit rate of its 
predecessor. Id. See also Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the 
Republic of Korea; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 
Circumstances Review, 63 FR 14679 (March 26, 1998), unchanged in 
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Korea; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 63 FR 20572 (April 27, 
1998), in which the Department found that a company which only changed 
its name and did not change its operations is a successor-in-interest 
to the company before it changed its name.
    In its request dated January 14, 2011, Schaeffler Technologies 
provided information to demonstrate that it is the successor-in-
interest to Schaeffler KG.
    We preliminarily determine that Schaeffler Technologies is the 
successor-in-interest to Schaeffler KG. In its January 14, 2011, 
submission, Schaeffler Technologies provided evidence supporting its 
claim to be the successor-in-interest to Schaeffler KG. Specifically, 
Schaeffler Technologies demonstrated that, while the business 
concerning ball bearings conducted by Schaeffler KG has been 
transferred to Schaeffler Technologies as part of a reorganization 
process, the management, production facilities, supplier relationships, 
and customer base are materially not affected. All of Schaeffler KG's 
employees and managers remained with Schaeffler Technologies after the 
transfer was consummated and continue to be employed by Schaeffler 
Technologies. See January 14, 2011, submission from Schaeffler 
Technologies at 5. The production facilities now used by Schaeffler 
Technologies are the same as those used by Schaeffler KG and have not 
been modified or supplemented after the transfer. Id. at 6. Schaeffler 
Technologies continues to deal with the same suppliers with which 
Schaeffler KG dealt prior to the transfer and, Schaeffler Technologies 
claims, any changes in supplier relationships that might occur stem 
from ordinary commercial considerations not related to the transfer. 
Id. at 6. Finally, there have been no changes to the customer base of 
Schaeffler Technologies from that which existed under Schaeffler KG 
except those that result from the normal acquisition or loss of 
particular customers in the ordinary course of business. Id. at 6.
    In summary, Schaeffler Technologies has presented evidence to 
support its claim of successorship. The record indicates that the 
February 1, 2010, transfer of Schaeffler KG's bearings business to 
Schaeffler Technologies has not changed the operations of the company 
in a meaningful way. The management, production facilities, supplier 
relationships, and customer base of Schaeffler Technologies are 
substantially unchanged from their status or circumstances prior to the 
acquisition. The record evidence demonstrates that the new entity 
operates essentially in the same manner as the predecessor company. 
Based on the above, we preliminarily determine that Schaeffler 
Technologies is the successor-in-interest to Schaeffler KG.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

    As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine that the 
following percentage weighted-average dumping margins on ball bearings 
and parts thereof from various countries exist for the period May 1, 
2009, through April 30, 2010:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                          Company                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 FRANCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcatel Vacuum Technology..................................         5.12
Audi AG....................................................         5.12
AVIAC......................................................        66.42
Avio.......................................................         5.12
Bosch Rexroth SAS..........................................         5.12
Caterpillar Group Services S.A.............................         5.12
Caterpillar Materials Routiers S.A.S.......................         5.12
Caterpillar S.A.R.L........................................         5.12
Dassault Aviation..........................................         5.12
Eurocopter SAS.............................................        66.42
Groupe Intertechnique......................................        66.42
Kongskilde Limited.........................................         5.12
Perkins Engines Company Limited............................         5.12
SKF France, S.A. and SKF Aerospace S.A.S...................         4.88
SNECMA.....................................................        66.42
SNR Roulements S.A. and SNR Europe.........................         7.60
Technofan..................................................        66.42
Volkswagon AG..............................................         5.12
Volkswagen Zubehor GmbH....................................         5.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 GERMANY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audi AG....................................................         6.26
BAUER Machinen GmbH........................................         6.26
Bosch Rexroth AG...........................................         6.26
BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgerate GmbH......................         6.26
Caterpillar S.A.R.L........................................         6.26
Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG.............................         6.26
Kongskilde Limited.........................................         6.26
Myonic GmbH................................................        11.42
Robert Bosch GmbH..........................................         6.26
Robert Bosch GmbH Power Tools and Hagglunds Drives.........         6.26
The Schaeffler Group, Schaeffler KG, and Schaeffler                 3.67
 Technologies GmbH.........................................
SKF GmbH...................................................         6.26
Volkswagon AG..............................................         6.26
Volkswagen Zubehor GmbH....................................         6.26
W & H Dentalwerk Burmoos GmbH..............................         6.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  ITALY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audi AG....................................................        12.32
Bosch Rexroth S.p.A........................................        12.32
Caterpillar Overseas S.A.R.L...............................        12.32
Caterpillar of Australia Pty. Ltd..........................        12.32
Caterpillar Group Services S.A.............................        12.32
Caterpillar Mexico, S.A. de C.V............................        12.32
Caterpillar Americas C.V...................................        12.32
Eurocopter.................................................        69.99
Hagglunds Drives S.r.l.....................................        12.32
Kongskilde Limited.........................................        12.32
Perkin Engines Company Limited.............................        12.32
Schaeffler Italia S.r.l., WPB Water Pump Bearing GmbH & Co.         2.87
 KG, and The Scchaeffler Group.............................

[[Page 22380]]

 
SKF Industries S.p.A., Somecat S.p.A., and SKF RIV-SKF             14.50
 Officine di Villar Perosa S.p.A...........................
SNECMA.....................................................        69.99
Volkswagen AG..............................................        12.32
Volkswagen Zubehor GmbH....................................        12.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  JAPAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd.......................................         3.46
Audi AG....................................................        11.36
Bosch Corporation..........................................        11.36
Bosch Packaging Technology K.K.............................        11.36
Bosch Rexroth Corporation..................................        11.36
Caterpillar Japan Ltd......................................        11.36
Caterpillar Overseas S.A.R.L...............................        11.36
Caterpillar Group Services S.A.............................        11.36
Caterpillar Brazil Ltd.....................................        11.36
Caterpillar Africa Pty. Ltd................................        11.36
Caterpillar of Australia Pty. Ltd..........................        11.36
Caterpillar S.A.R.L........................................        11.36
Caterpillar Americas Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V.............        11.36
Caterpillar Logistics Services China Ltd...................        11.36
Caterpillar Mexico, S.A. de C.V............................        11.36
Hagglunds Ltd..............................................        11.36
Hino Motors Ltd............................................        11.36
JTEKT Corporation (formerly known as Koyo Seiko Co.).......        11.36
Kongskilde Limited.........................................        11.36
Mazda Motor Corporation....................................        11.36
Mori Seiki Co., Ltd........................................         3.50
Nachi-Fujikoshi Corporation................................        11.36
Nissan Motor Company, Ltd..................................        11.36
NSK Ltd....................................................         9.28
NTN Corporation and NTN Kongo Corporation 13.43............
Perkins Engines Company Limited............................        11.36
Tsubakimoto Precision Products Co., Ltd....................        73.55
Volkswagen AG..............................................        11.36
Volkswagen Zubehor GmbH....................................        11.36
Yamazaki Mazak Trading Corporation.........................        11.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             UNITED KINGDOM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcatel Vacuum Technology..................................         5.90
Bosch Rexroth Ltd..........................................         5.90
Caterpillar S.A.R.L........................................         5.90
Caterpillar Group Services S.A.............................         5.90
Caterpillar of Australia Pty Ltd...........................         5.90
Caterp