Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 48493-48497 [2015-19985]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 156 / Thursday, August 13, 2015 / Notices
Department of Commerce, Washington,
DC 20230; phone: (202) 606–9850; fax:
(202) 606–5318; email:
christopher.stein@bea.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Abstract
The Quarterly Survey of Financial
Services Transactions between U.S.
Financial Services Providers and
Foreign Persons (BE–185) is a survey
that collects data from U.S. financial
services providers that engage in
covered transactions with foreign
persons in financial services. A U.S.
person must report if it had sales of
covered services to foreign persons that
exceeded $20 million for the previous
fiscal year, or that are expected to
exceed that amount during the current
fiscal year, or if it had purchases of
covered services from foreign persons
that exceeded $15 million for the
previous fiscal year, or that are expected
to exceed that amount during the
current fiscal year.
The data collected on the survey are
needed to monitor U.S. trade in
services, to analyze the impact of U.S.
trade on the U.S. and foreign economies,
to compile and improve the U.S.
economic accounts, to support U.S.
commercial policy on trade in services,
to conduct trade promotion, and to
improve the ability of U.S. businesses to
identify and evaluate market
opportunities. The data are used in
estimating the financial services
component of the U.S. international
transactions accounts and national
income and product accounts.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis
(BEA) is proposing minor additions and
modifications to the current BE–185
survey. The effort to keep current
reporting requirements generally
unchanged is intended to minimize
respondent burden while considering
the needs of data users. Existing
language in the instructions and
definitions will be reviewed and
adjusted as necessary to clarify survey
requirements.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
II. Method of Collection
Form BE–185 is a quarterly report that
must be filed within 45 days after the
end of each fiscal quarter, or within 90
days after the close of the fiscal year.
BEA offers its electronic filing option,
the eFile system, for reporting on Form
BE–185. For more information about
eFile, go to www.bea.gov/efile.
Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations.
Estimated Number of Responses:
2,700 annually (675 filed each quarter:
550 reporting mandatory data, and 125
that would file other responses).
Estimated Time per Response: 10
hours is the average for those reporting
data, and 1 hour is the average for other
responses, but hours may vary
considerably among respondents
because of differences in company size
and complexity.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 22,500.
Estimated Total Annual Cost to
Public: $0.
Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory.
Legal Authority: International
Investment and Trade in Services
Survey Act (Public Law 94–472, 22
U.S.C. 3101–3108, as amended) and
Section 5408 of the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988.
IV. Request for Comments
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of
the Agency’s estimate of the burden
(including hours and cost) of the
proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including through the
use of automated collection techniques
or other forms of information
technology.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and/or
included in the request for OMB
approval of this information collection;
they also will become a matter of public
record.
Dated: August 7, 2015.
Glenna Mickelson,
Management Analyst, Office of Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015–19880 Filed 8–12–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–06–P
III. Data
OMB Control Number: 0608–0065.
Form Number: BE–185.
Type of Review: Regular submission.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 Aug 12, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
48493
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–601]
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,
From the People’s Republic of China:
Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Changed Circumstances Review
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Timken Company (the
petitioner) has filed a request for the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) to initiate a changed
circumstances review of the
antidumping duty order on tapered
roller bearings (TRBs) and parts thereof
from the People’s Republic of China
(PRC). The petitioner alleges that
Shanghai General Bearing Co., Ltd.
(SGBC/SKF), a PRC TRBs producer
previously revoked from the
antidumping duty order, has resumed
sales at prices below normal value (NV).
Therefore, the petitioner requests that
the Department conduct a review to
determine whether to reinstate the
antidumping duty order with respect to
SGBC/SKF.
In accordance with section 751(b) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act), and 19 CFR 351.216(b), the
Department finds the information
submitted by the petitioner sufficient to
warrant initiation of a changed
circumstances review of the
antidumping duty order on TRBs from
the PRC with respect to SGBC/SKF. The
period of review (POR) is June 1, 2014,
through May 31, 2015.
In this changed circumstances review,
we will determine whether SGBC/SKF
sold TRBs at less than NV subsequent to
its revocation from the order. If we
determine in this changed
circumstances review that SGBC/SKF
sold TRBs at less than NV and resumed
dumping, effective on the date of
publication of our final results, we will
direct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation
of all entries of TRBs manufactured and
exported by SGBC/SKF.
DATES: Effective date: August 13, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alice Maldonado, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone (202) 482–4682.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June
15, 1987, the Department published the
antidumping duty order on TRBs from
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\13AUN1.SGM
13AUN1
48494
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 156 / Thursday, August 13, 2015 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
the PRC.1 On February 11, 1997, the
Department conditionally revoked the
TRBs Order with respect to merchandise
produced and exported by SGBC/SKF,2
based on a finding of three years of no
dumping.3
On February 20, 2013, the petitioner
alleged that, since its conditional
revocation from the TRBs Order, there is
evidence that SGBC/SKF has resumed
dumping TRBs in the United States. The
petitioner notes that SGBC/SKF agreed
in writing to reinstatement in the
antidumping duty order if it were found
to have resumed dumping and it
requests that, because SGBC/SKF
violated this agreement, the Department
initiate a changed circumstances review
to determine whether to reinstate SGBC/
SKF into the TRBs Order.4
In its February 2013, submission, the
petitioner provided evidence supporting
1 See 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) (TRBs Order).
2 SGBC/SKF is currently part of a group of
companies owned by AB SKF (SKF) in Sweden. See
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s
Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of
Changed Circumstances Review, 80 FR 19070 (April
9, 2015) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum (SII CCR) at Comment 1. At the time
of revocation, SGBC was not part of this group.
However, the Department conducted a changed
circumstances review after the company’s change in
ownership, and we found that SGBC/SKF is the
successor in interest to the company as it existed
at the time of revocation. Id.
3 The three administrative reviews forming the
basis of the revocation are: (1) The June 1, 1991,
through May 31, 1992, review; (2) the June 1, 1992,
through May 31, 1993, review; and (3) the June 1,
1993, through May 31, 1994, review. See Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From the People’s Republic of China;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews, 61 FR 65527 (December 13, 1996) (for the
1991–1992 and 1992–1993 reviews); see also
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s
Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part
of Antidumping Duty Order, 62 FR 6189 (February
11, 1997) (for the 1993–1994 review) (SGBC/SKF
Revocation).
The regulatory provision governing partial
revocation at the time of SGBC/SKF’s revocation
was 19 CFR 353.25 (1997). The relevant language
remained substantively unchanged when 19 CFR
353.25 was superseded by 19 CFR 351.222 in 1997.
See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties:
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for
Public Comments, 61 FR 7308 (February 27, 1996)
(1996 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking); see also
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final
Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27325–26, 27399–402 (May 19,
1997) (Preamble). The portion of 19 CFR 351.222
related to partial revocations of orders as to specific
companies has been revoked for all reviews
initiated on or after June 20, 2012. See Modification
to Regulation Concerning the Revocation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders:
Final Rule, 77 FR 29875 (May 21, 2012) (Revocation
Final Rule).
4 See the petitioner’s February 20, 2013, letter to
the Department (CCR Request).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 Aug 12, 2015
Jkt 235001
its allegation. Specifically, the petitioner
compared invoice prices to an
unaffiliated U.S. customer submitted by
SGBC/SKF as part of an application for
a separate rate in the 2011–2012
administrative review on TRBs from the
PRC to NVs computed using data from
the same segment of the proceeding
related to another company, Changshan
Peer Bearing Co., Ltd. (CPZ/SKF).5
In March 2013, the Department
requested further information from the
petitioner regarding the basis of its
allegation, which the petitioner
supplied in July 2013. Also in July 2013,
SGBC/SKF objected to the petitioner’s
request for a changed circumstances
review, and the petitioner responded to
those comments in August 2013.
From August through November 2013,
the Department requested that the
petitioner provide additional
information to support and/or clarify its
allegation. The petitioner responded to
these requests during the same time
period.
In January 2014, the Department
deferred the decision of whether to
initiate the changed circumstances
review requested by the petitioner,
pending a determination in another
changed circumstances review (i.e.,
where the Department was examining
whether SGBC/SKF was the successor
in interest to the company that existed
at the time of revocation from the
antidumping duty order).6 The
Department completed that successorin-interest changed circumstances
review in April 2015, finding SGBC/
SKF to be the successor to the revoked
company.7
In May and June 2015, the
Department requested additional
information from the petitioner
regarding its request for a changed
circumstances review. The petitioner
responded to these requests in the same
months, and SGBC/SKF submitted
comments related to the former of these
submissions in June 2015.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by the 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
5 See
CCR Request, at 10.
the memorandum to Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, from Alan Ray,
Senior Analyst, Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Operations, entitled ‘‘Deferment of Decision
on Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review of
the Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, from the People’s Republic of China,’’
dated January 7, 2014.
7 See SII CCR.
6 See
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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,
8708.70.6060, 8708.99.2300,
8708.99.4850, 8708.99.6890,
8708.99.8115, and 8708.99.8180.
Although the HTSUS item numbers are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
scope of the order is dispositive.
Allegation of Resumed Dumping
In its February 2013 submission, the
petitioner provided an invoice to an
unaffiliated U.S. customer of SGBC/SKF
as the basis for U.S. price, and it
provided factors of production (FOPs)
reported by CPZ/SKF in another
segment of this proceeding and
surrogate value (SV) information as the
basis for NV. Specifically, the
petitioner’s information was obtained
from the 2011–2012 administrative
review on TRBs from the PRC,8 and the
petitioner used this information to argue
that SGBC/SKF sold TRBs at less than
NV during that review period.
The petitioner provided an alternative
allegation in August 2013 to take into
account certain objections raised by
SGBC/SKF.9 In May and June 2015, at
the Department’s request, the petitioner
provided additional calculations, based
on data contained in the same source
document used to make the initial
allegation, to demonstrate that its initial
allegation was representative of SGBC/
SKF’s broader overall selling practices
during the period covered by the 2011–
2012 administrative review.10
The allegation of resumed dumping
upon which the Department has based
its decision to initiate a changed
circumstances review is detailed below.
The sources of data for the adjustments
that the petitioner calculated relating to
NV and U.S. price are discussed in
greater detail in the Changed
Circumstances Review Initiation
Checklist, dated concurrently with this
notice. Should the need arise to use any
of this information as facts available
under section 776 of the Act, we may
reexamine the information and revise
the margin calculation, if appropriate.
8 See
CCR Request, at Attachment 1.
the petitioner’s August 9, 2013 submission.
10 See the petitioner’s June 24, 2015 submission.
9 See
E:\FR\FM\13AUN1.SGM
13AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 156 / Thursday, August 13, 2015 / Notices
1. Export Price (EP)
The petitioner based U.S. price upon
sales documents submitted by SGBC/
SKF in a separate rate application, dated
October 15, 2012, in the 2011–2012
administrative review on TRBs from the
PRC. The invoice identifies prices for
three TRB models sold by SGBC/SKF to
an unaffiliated U.S. customer.11 The
petitioner subsequently revised its
allegation to remove one of these
models from its calculations because it
was unable to provide contemporaneous
NV information for this product.12 In
May and June 2015, to demonstrate that
the prices upon which the petitioner
based its allegation were representative
of SGBC/SKF’s broader selling activity
during the 2011–2012 review period,
the petitioner provided three sets of
additional margin calculations based on
sales contained in SGBC/SKF’s separate
rate application that were made by
SGBC/SKF to an affiliated U.S.
importer.
2. NV
In accordance with section 773(c)(1)
of the Act, to determine NV, the
petitioner used the FOPs submitted by
CPZ/SKF, the sole respondent in the
2011–2012 administrative review on
TRBs from the PRC, and it valued those
FOPs using SV data and surrogate
financial statements taken from the
same segment of the proceeding.13
In addition, on August 9, 2013, the
petitioner provided an alternative
calculation of NV in order to address
comments made by SGBC/SKF.14 For
further discussion, see below.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3. Alleged Margins of Dumping
Based upon the information
summarized above, the petitioner
alleges that there is evidence that SGBC/
SKF has resumed dumping TRBs in the
United States that is sufficient to
warrant initiation of a changed
circumstances review to determine
whether SGBC/SKF should be reinstated
into the antidumping duty order. The
petitioner estimated a margin of 26
percent. To demonstrate that this
margin is representative of SGBC/SKF’s
broader selling experience, the
petitioner also calculated several
additional non-de minimis margins
using the data in its May 22, 2015,
submission.15
11 Id.
12 See
the petitioner’s August 29, 2013
submission at 2.
13 See Changed Circumstances Review Initiation
Checklist.
14 See the petitioner’s August 9, 2013 submission
at 5.
15 These calculations were revised at the
Department’s request on June 24, 2015. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 Aug 12, 2015
Jkt 235001
Comments by Interested Parties
As noted above, on July 23, 2013,
SGBC/SKF submitted comments on the
petitioner’s request that the Department
initiate a changed circumstances
review.16 In these comments, SGBC/
SKF contended that the evidence
provided by the petitioner fails to
provide a reasonable indication that
SGBC/SKF has resumed dumping
because: (1) The petitioner’s allegation
is based on a miniscule sample of U.S.
sales, rendering the U.S. price data in
the allegation unrepresentative of
SGBC/SKF’s broader selling experience;
(2) the petitioner’s calculations are not
based on SGBC/SKF’s own FOP data,
but rather are based on the FOPs
provided by CPZ/SKF, an entirely
different company, and the petitioner
provided no factual basis to demonstrate
that CPZ/SKF’s FOPs provide an
accurate estimate of SGBC/SKF’s own
FOPs or that CPZ/SKF’s and SGBC/
SKF’s product mixes during the POR
were similar; and (3) the petitioner’s
calculations fail to use the market
economy steel prices deemed by the
Department to be the best information to
value CPZ/SKF’s steel bar purchases
during the 2011–2011 administrative
review.17 Further, SGBC/SKF argued
that, even if the small number of U.S.
sales covered by petitioner’s allegation
represented sales below NV, this alone
does not provide an indication of
overall dumping because it does not
take into account the fact that the
Department’s current practice is to offset
lower-priced sales with higher prices on
other products.18 According to SGBC/
SKF, initiating a changed circumstances
review with such flaws would be
unreasonable.
On August 9, 2013, the petitioner
responded to these comments.19 The
petitioner noted that the U.S. price data
in its allegation were taken from an
actual sale made by SGBC/SKF, and
thus it is reasonably likely that the sale
of the products at issue is representative
not only of other sales of the same part
numbers (as these products fall within
SGBC/SKF’s U.S. product line) but also
of SGBC/SKF’s other products in
general.20 Moreover, the petitioner
stated that these data were the only
information reasonably available to it
and, therefore, they provide reasonable
petitioner has designated the alternative margins in
both submissions as business proprietary. See
Changed Circumstances Review Initiation
Checklist.
16 See SGBC/SKF’s letter dated July 23, 2013.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 See the petitioner’s August 9, 2013 submission.
20 Id. at 3.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
48495
grounds for the Department to initiate a
changed circumstances review.21
Similarly, the petitioner disagreed
that use of CPZ/SKF’s FOP information
yields an inaccurate picture of SGBC/
SKF’s production costs. The petitioner
noted that, in 2008, CPZ/SKF was
acquired by SKF, the world’s largest
bearing company.22 Consequently, the
petitioner argued that not only is SKF
an efficient producer of TRBs, but also
as owner of CPZ/SKF, it has improved
the efficiency of CPZ/SKF’s production
facilities. Therefore, the petitioner
claims that CPZ/SKF’s FOPs likely
provide a conservative estimate of
SGBC/SKFs FOP experience.23
Furthermore, in its September 2013
submission, the petitioner placed its
TRB product coding system on the
record of this proceeding; 24 the
petitioner claims that this coding system
demonstrates that certain of the TRBs
sold by SGBC/SKF to the United States
are the same as TRBs produced by CPZ/
SKF (because they have the same part
numbers),25 and, thus, the CPZ/SKF
FOPs used in the allegation are for
products with identical specifications.
With respect to SGBC/SKF’s final
argument that the petitioner should
have used CPZ/SKF’s market economy
input price submitted in the 2011–2012
administrative review, the petitioner
stated that there is no information on
the record indicating that SGBC/SKF
purchased its steel from a marketeconomy source, so there is no basis to
use anything other than SV data.26
Nonetheless, in order to demonstrate
that the facts of this record support the
proposition that SGBC/SKF has likely
resumed dumping, the petitioner took
the margin program used by the
Department in the 2011–2012
administrative review on TRBs from the
21 Id. at 2. Subsequent to this submission, in June
2015, the petitioner provided several calculations to
support its contention that the margins contained
in the original allegation are representative of
SGBC/SKF’s selling practices; the petitioner based
these calculations on additional SGBC/SKF data
contained on the record of the 2011–2012
administrative review proceeding. See the
petitioner’s June 24, 2015 submission.
22 Id. at 3, citing to 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, 75 FR 41148, 41151 (July
15, 2010).
23 See the petitioner’s August 9, 2013, submission
at 4.
24 See the petitioner’s September 3, 2013
submission at Attachment 1, Appendix 8. This
information was originally part of an August 15,
2013, submission from SGBC/SKF on the successorin-interest changed circumstances review involving
SGBC/SKF.
25 Id.
26 See the petitioner’s August 9, 2013 submission
at 4.
E:\FR\FM\13AUN1.SGM
13AUN1
48496
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 156 / Thursday, August 13, 2015 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
PRC and tailored it to account for the
facts of this case. Specifically, The
petitioner: (1) Lowered the FOP usage
rates by 10 percent in order to account
for the possibility that SGBC/SKF is an
even more efficient producer of TRBs
than CPZ/SKF; and (2) used CPZ/SKF’s
market-economy steel price. The
petitioner notes that, even after
incorporating these conservative
assumptions, the results still indicate
that SGBC/SKF has resumed
dumping.27
As noted above, in May and June
2015, the petitioner responded to the
Department’s requests for additional
information regarding its request for a
changed circumstances review. In these
submissions, the petitioner explained
why it considered the sale covered by
its allegation to be representative of
SGBC/SKF’s broader U.S. sales activity
and it provided additional calculations
supporting this conclusion. On June 5,
2015, SGBC/SKF submitted comments
on the petitioner’s May 22, 2015 filing;
in these comments; SGBC/SKF contends
that, despite its claim to the contrary,
the petitioner failed to establish that the
sale at issue is, in fact, representative.
Moreover, SGBC/SKF maintains that the
petitioner’s additional calculations are
not valid because: (1) They are based on
‘‘irrelevant’’ U.S. transactions between
affiliated parties without accompanying
evidence that a sale to an unaffiliated
party took place; and (2) a ‘‘markup’’
used in these calculations is based, in
part, on sales of non-subject products.
According to SGBC/SKF, the standard
for initiation of reinstatement changed
circumstances reviews should be higher
than the comparatively lower standard
that exists for investigations,
considering the costs associated with
such reviews and the fact that a revoked
company has already proven that it was
not engaged in dumping for three
consecutive years. As a result, SGBC/
SKF submits that the single sale on
which the petitioner’s allegation is
based is not sufficiently indicative of
resumed dumping for purposes of
initiating a changed circumstances
review.
Initiation of Changed Circumstances
Review
Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act,
the Department will conduct a changed
circumstances review upon receipt of a
request ‘‘from an interested party for
review of an antidumping duty order
which shows changed circumstances
sufficient to warrant a review of the
order.’’ After examining the petitioner’s
27 See the petitioner’s August 9, 2013, submission
at 5 and the petitioner’s June 24, 2015 submission.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 Aug 12, 2015
Jkt 235001
allegation and supporting
documentation, we find that the
petitioner has provided evidence of
changed circumstances sufficient to
initiate a review to determine whether
SGBC/SKF has resumed dumping and
should be reinstated in the TRBs
Order.28
The Department’s authority to
reinstate a revoked company into an
antidumping duty order by means of a
changed circumstances review derives
from sections 751(b) and (d) of the
Act.29 In particular, the Department’s
authority to revoke an order is
expressed in section 751(d) of the Act.
The statute, however, provides no
detailed description of the criteria,
procedures, or conditions relating to the
Department’s exercise of this authority.
Accordingly, the Department issued
regulations setting forth in detail how
the Department will exercise the
authority granted to it under the statute.
At the time of SGBC/SKF’s revocation
from the TRBs Order, a Department
regulation authorized the partial and
conditional revocation of orders as to
companies that were determined not to
have made sales at less than NV for the
equivalent of three consecutive years
and that certified to the immediate
reinstatement into an order if they
resumed dumping.30 Although the
regulatory provision for partial and
conditional revocation of companies
from orders has since been revoked, we
have clarified that all conditionally
revoked companies remain subject to
their certified agreements to be
reinstated into the order from which
they were revoked if the Department
finds that the company has resumed
dumping.31 For these reasons,
conducting a changed circumstances
review pursuant to section 751(b) of the
Act to determine whether to reinstate
SGBC/SKF into the TRBs Order is
consistent with the statute and with the
certification that SGBC/SKF signed as a
28 See Changed Circumstances Review Initiation
Checklist.
29 See Sahaviriya Steel Indus. Pub. Co., Ltd. v.
United States, 649 F.3d 1371, 1378 (CAFC 2011)
(Sahaviriya) (‘‘{T} his court holds, applying
Chevron deference, that Commerce reasonably
interpreted its revocation authority under {section
751(d) of the Act} to permit conditional revocation
. . . .’’); Id. at 1380 (finding that Commerce
properly conducted a changed circumstances
review for purposes of reconsidering revocation).
30 See 19 CFR 353.25 (1997). As noted above, the
relevant language regarding reinstatement remained
substantively unchanged when 19 CFR 353.25 was
superseded by 19 CFR 351.222 (1997), and the
portion of 19 CFR 351.222 related to partial
revocations of orders as to specific companies has
been revoked for all reviews initiated on or after
June 20, 2012. See 1996 Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking; Preamble; Revocation Final Rule.
31 See Revocation Final Rule, 77 FR at 29882.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
precondition to its conditional
revocation.32
With respect to SGBC/SKF’s
comments regarding the
representativeness of the U.S. price and
NV data proffered by the petitioner, on
December 18, 2013, the Department
placed information on the record of this
segment of the proceeding which was
submitted in an ongoing successor-ininterest changed circumstances review
involving SGBC/SKF.33 This
information relates to the product mix
of both SGBC/SKF and CPZ/SKF, and it
demonstrates that the type of products
shown on SGBC/SKF’s invoice
represents a significant proportion of
SGBC/SKF’s product line. We also find
SGBC/SKF’s concerns relating to the use
of CPZ/SKF’s FOPs to be misplaced.
With respect to the question of
whether the size of the allegation is
sufficiently representative of SGBC/
SKF’s sales activity, we note that, in
response to the Department’s
supplemental questionnaires, the
petitioner provided additional
information regarding
representativeness of the U.S. price data
on May 22, 2015, and June 24, 2015. In
these submissions, the petitioner used
affiliated-party pricing for a substantial
quantity of TRBs shipped between
SGBC/SKF and its U.S. affiliate.34
Adjusting the prices to approximate the
prices to an unaffiliated U.S. customer
and using the same NV methodology,
the petitioner calculated dumping
margins.35 We disagree with SGBC/SKF
that these alternative calculations are
invalid simply because the petitioner
constructed an export price using a
markup which may contain profit rates
for both TRBs and other products not
subject to the TRBs Order. We find that
32 See, e.g., Sahaviriya, 649 F.3d at 1380;
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon
Steel Flat Products from Thailand, 73 FR 18766,
18769 (April 7, 2008); see also SGBC/SKF
Revocation, 62 FR at 6189 (‘‘In accordance with 19
CFR 353.25(a)(2)(iii), this request was accompanied
by certifications from the firm that it had sold
subject merchandise at not less than FMV for a
three-year period, including this review period, and
would not do so in the future. Shanghai also agreed
to its immediate reinstatement in the antidumping
duty order, as long as any firm is subject to this
order, if the Department concludes under 19 CFR
353.22(f) that, subsequent to revocation, it sold the
subject merchandise at less than FMV.’’).
33 See the Product Mix Memo at Attachment I.
34 The prices and quantities were sourced from
the same Separate Rate Application filed by SGBC/
SKF used by the petitioner in its resumed dumping
allegation. See the petitioner’s May 22, 2015,
submission, at Exhibit 1.
35 We note that the margins calculated by the
petitioner in these submissions were treated as
business proprietary information. See the
petitioner’s May 22, 2015, submission at 3 through
8; see also the petitioner’s June 24, 2015,
submission, at Exhibits 1, 2, and 3.
E:\FR\FM\13AUN1.SGM
13AUN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 156 / Thursday, August 13, 2015 / Notices
the petitioner’s methodology yields a
reasonable approximation of SGBC/
SKF’s U.S. pricing behavior. Moreover,
given that the petitioner made no
adjustments for numerous selling
expenses, we find that the petitioner’s
methodology is likely conservative.
Further, with respect to NV, the
petitioner maintains that its TRB
product coding system demonstrates
that the FOPs in its allegation are for the
same basic products as CPZ/SKF’s
because they have the same cone and
bore width.36 Thus, while the FOP data
are not specific to SGBC/SKF, we find
that the FOP data submitted are publicly
available and the product coding system
information submitted by the petitioner
provides a reasonable basis to conclude
that NV is for substantially similar or
identical products. Finally, with respect
to SGBC/SKF’s argument that the
petitioner should have used CPZ/SKF’s
market-economy steel purchase prices
in its calculations, we note that the
petitioner provided alternative
calculations which incorporated these
prices and provided the dumping
margins resulting from these
calculations.
With respect to SGBC/SKF’s
comments regarding zeroing or offsets,
we note that the issue raised by SGBC/
SKF is implicated only when the
comparison results (i.e., individual
dumping margins) are aggregated to
calculate the weighted-average dumping
margin. In this instance, we have
examples provided by the petitioner to
demonstrate, on an individual
comparison basis, that SGBC/SKF has
sold subject merchandise at less than
NV.37 As previously noted, we find,
consistent with section 751(b) of the
Act, that this information provided by
the petitioner constitutes evidence of
changed circumstances sufficient to
initiate a review to determine whether
SGBC/SKF has resumed dumping and
should be reinstated in the TRBs Order.
We note that initiation of this review
does not constitute a conclusive
determination that SGBC/SKF has
resumed dumping on an aggregate basis.
During the course of this review, the
Department will apply its established
methodologies regarding offsets.
Finally, with respect to SGBC/SKF’s
argument that the Department should
apply a heightened standard when
determining whether to initiate this
review, the Department notes that the
applicable standard is whether there is
information ‘‘which shows changed
circumstances sufficient to warrant a
review’’ under section 751(b)(1) of the
Act. In the context of a reinstatement
changed circumstances review, the
pertinent question is whether there is
sufficient evidence of resumed
dumping. Based on the foregoing, we
find that the petitioner has provided
sufficient evidence to initiate a changed
circumstances review to examine SGBC/
SKF’s pricing and determine whether
SGBC/SKF has resumed dumping
sufficient to reinstate the company
within the TRBs Order. If we determine
in this changed circumstances review
that SGBC/SKF resumed dumping,
effective on the date of publication of
our final results, we will direct CBP to
suspend liquidation of all entries of
TRBs manufactured in the PRC and
exported by SGBC/SKF.
Period of Changed Circumstances
Review
The Department intends to request
data from SGBC/SKF for the June 1,
2014, through May 31, 2015, period in
order to determine whether SGBC/SKF
has resumed dumping sufficient to
warrant reinstatement within the TRBs
Order.
Public Comment
The Department will publish in the
Federal Register a notice of preliminary
results of changed circumstances review
in accordance with 19 CFR
351.221(b)(4) and 351.221(c)(3)(i),
which will set forth the Department’s
preliminary factual and legal
conclusions. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will
have an opportunity to comment on the
preliminary results. Unless otherwise
extended, the Department intends to
issue its final results of review in
accordance with the time limits set forth
in 19 CFR 351.216(e).
This notice is published in
accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.221(b) of the Department’s
regulations.
Dated: August 7, 2015.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015–19985 Filed 8–12–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
36 See the petitioner’s September 3, 2013
submission at Attachment 1, Appendix 8.
37 See the petitioner’s February 20, 2013
submission at Attachment 1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 Aug 12, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
48497
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency Advisory Committee
International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce
ACTION: Notice of an open meeting.
AGENCY:
The Renewable Energy and
Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee
(RE&EEAC) will hold a meeting on
Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at the U.S.
Department of Commerce Herbert C.
Hoover Building in Washington, DC.
The meeting is open to the public and
interested parties are requested to
contact the U.S. Department of
Commerce in advance of the meeting.
DATES: September 22, 2015, from
approximately 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Daylight Saving Time (DST). Members
of the public wishing to participate
must notify Andrew Bennett at the
contact information below by 5:00 p.m.
DST on Friday, September 18, 2015, in
order to pre-register.
For All Further Information, Please
Contact: Andrew Bennett, Office of
Energy and Environmental Industries
(OEEI), International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce at (202) 482–5235; email:
Andrew.Bennett@trade.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background: The Secretary of
Commerce established the RE&EEAC
pursuant to his discretionary authority
and in accordance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.)
on July 14, 2010. The RE&EEAC was rechartered on June 12, 2014. The
RE&EEAC provides the Secretary of
Commerce with consensus advice from
the private sector on the development
and administration of programs and
policies to enhance the international
competitiveness of the U.S. renewable
energy and energy efficiency industries.
During the September 22nd meeting
of the RE&EEAC, committee members
will discuss priority issues identified in
advance by the Committee Chair and
Sub-Committee leadership, and hear
from interagency partners on issues
impacting the competitiveness of the
U.S. renewable energy and energy
efficiency industries.
A limited amount of time before the
close of the meeting will be available for
pertinent oral comments from members
of the public attending the meeting. To
accommodate as many speakers as
possible, the time for public comments
will be limited to two to five minutes
per person (depending on number of
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13AUN1.SGM
13AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 156 (Thursday, August 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48493-48497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19985]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-601]
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Timken Company (the petitioner) has filed a request for
the Department of Commerce (the Department) to initiate a changed
circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller
bearings (TRBs) and parts thereof from the People's Republic of China
(PRC). The petitioner alleges that Shanghai General Bearing Co., Ltd.
(SGBC/SKF), a PRC TRBs producer previously revoked from the antidumping
duty order, has resumed sales at prices below normal value (NV).
Therefore, the petitioner requests that the Department conduct a review
to determine whether to reinstate the antidumping duty order with
respect to SGBC/SKF.
In accordance with section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.216(b), the Department finds the
information submitted by the petitioner sufficient to warrant
initiation of a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty
order on TRBs from the PRC with respect to SGBC/SKF. The period of
review (POR) is June 1, 2014, through May 31, 2015.
In this changed circumstances review, we will determine whether
SGBC/SKF sold TRBs at less than NV subsequent to its revocation from
the order. If we determine in this changed circumstances review that
SGBC/SKF sold TRBs at less than NV and resumed dumping, effective on
the date of publication of our final results, we will direct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all
entries of TRBs manufactured and exported by SGBC/SKF.
DATES: Effective date: August 13, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alice Maldonado, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20230; telephone (202) 482-4682.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 15, 1987, the Department published
the antidumping duty order on TRBs from
[[Page 48494]]
the PRC.\1\ On February 11, 1997, the Department conditionally revoked
the TRBs Order with respect to merchandise produced and exported by
SGBC/SKF,\2\ based on a finding of three years of no dumping.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 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) (TRBs Order).
\2\ SGBC/SKF is currently part of a group of companies owned by
AB SKF (SKF) in Sweden. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of
China: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 80
FR 19070 (April 9, 2015) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum (SII CCR) at Comment 1. At the time of revocation, SGBC
was not part of this group. However, the Department conducted a
changed circumstances review after the company's change in
ownership, and we found that SGBC/SKF is the successor in interest
to the company as it existed at the time of revocation. Id.
\3\ The three administrative reviews forming the basis of the
revocation are: (1) The June 1, 1991, through May 31, 1992, review;
(2) the June 1, 1992, through May 31, 1993, review; and (3) the June
1, 1993, through May 31, 1994, review. See Tapered Roller Bearings
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's
Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews, 61 FR 65527 (December 13, 1996) (for the 1991-1992 and
1992-1993 reviews); see also Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of
China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 62 FR 6189 (February
11, 1997) (for the 1993-1994 review) (SGBC/SKF Revocation).
The regulatory provision governing partial revocation at the
time of SGBC/SKF's revocation was 19 CFR 353.25 (1997). The relevant
language remained substantively unchanged when 19 CFR 353.25 was
superseded by 19 CFR 351.222 in 1997. See Antidumping Duties;
Countervailing Duties: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for
Public Comments, 61 FR 7308 (February 27, 1996) (1996 Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking); see also Antidumping Duties; Countervailing
Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27325-26, 27399-402 (May 19, 1997)
(Preamble). The portion of 19 CFR 351.222 related to partial
revocations of orders as to specific companies has been revoked for
all reviews initiated on or after June 20, 2012. See Modification to
Regulation Concerning the Revocation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Orders: Final Rule, 77 FR 29875 (May 21, 2012)
(Revocation Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 20, 2013, the petitioner alleged that, since its
conditional revocation from the TRBs Order, there is evidence that
SGBC/SKF has resumed dumping TRBs in the United States. The petitioner
notes that SGBC/SKF agreed in writing to reinstatement in the
antidumping duty order if it were found to have resumed dumping and it
requests that, because SGBC/SKF violated this agreement, the Department
initiate a changed circumstances review to determine whether to
reinstate SGBC/SKF into the TRBs Order.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See the petitioner's February 20, 2013, letter to the
Department (CCR Request).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its February 2013, submission, the petitioner provided evidence
supporting its allegation. Specifically, the petitioner compared
invoice prices to an unaffiliated U.S. customer submitted by SGBC/SKF
as part of an application for a separate rate in the 2011-2012
administrative review on TRBs from the PRC to NVs computed using data
from the same segment of the proceeding related to another company,
Changshan Peer Bearing Co., Ltd. (CPZ/SKF).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See CCR Request, at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2013, the Department requested further information from
the petitioner regarding the basis of its allegation, which the
petitioner supplied in July 2013. Also in July 2013, SGBC/SKF objected
to the petitioner's request for a changed circumstances review, and the
petitioner responded to those comments in August 2013.
From August through November 2013, the Department requested that
the petitioner provide additional information to support and/or clarify
its allegation. The petitioner responded to these requests during the
same time period.
In January 2014, the Department deferred the decision of whether to
initiate the changed circumstances review requested by the petitioner,
pending a determination in another changed circumstances review (i.e.,
where the Department was examining whether SGBC/SKF was the successor
in interest to the company that existed at the time of revocation from
the antidumping duty order).\6\ The Department completed that
successor-in-interest changed circumstances review in April 2015,
finding SGBC/SKF to be the successor to the revoked company.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See the memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, from
Alan Ray, Senior Analyst, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, entitled ``Deferment of Decision on Initiation of
Changed Circumstances Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,
from the People's Republic of China,'' dated January 7, 2014.
\7\ See SII CCR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In May and June 2015, the Department requested additional
information from the petitioner regarding its request for a changed
circumstances review. The petitioner responded to these requests in the
same months, and SGBC/SKF submitted comments related to the former of
these submissions in June 2015.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by the 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,
8708.70.6060, 8708.99.2300, 8708.99.4850, 8708.99.6890, 8708.99.8115,
and 8708.99.8180. Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope
of the order is dispositive.
Allegation of Resumed Dumping
In its February 2013 submission, the petitioner provided an invoice
to an unaffiliated U.S. customer of SGBC/SKF as the basis for U.S.
price, and it provided factors of production (FOPs) reported by CPZ/SKF
in another segment of this proceeding and surrogate value (SV)
information as the basis for NV. Specifically, the petitioner's
information was obtained from the 2011-2012 administrative review on
TRBs from the PRC,\8\ and the petitioner used this information to argue
that SGBC/SKF sold TRBs at less than NV during that review period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See CCR Request, at Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner provided an alternative allegation in August 2013 to
take into account certain objections raised by SGBC/SKF.\9\ In May and
June 2015, at the Department's request, the petitioner provided
additional calculations, based on data contained in the same source
document used to make the initial allegation, to demonstrate that its
initial allegation was representative of SGBC/SKF's broader overall
selling practices during the period covered by the 2011-2012
administrative review.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See the petitioner's August 9, 2013 submission.
\10\ See the petitioner's June 24, 2015 submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The allegation of resumed dumping upon which the Department has
based its decision to initiate a changed circumstances review is
detailed below. The sources of data for the adjustments that the
petitioner calculated relating to NV and U.S. price are discussed in
greater detail in the Changed Circumstances Review Initiation
Checklist, dated concurrently with this notice. Should the need arise
to use any of this information as facts available under section 776 of
the Act, we may reexamine the information and revise the margin
calculation, if appropriate.
[[Page 48495]]
1. Export Price (EP)
The petitioner based U.S. price upon sales documents submitted by
SGBC/SKF in a separate rate application, dated October 15, 2012, in the
2011-2012 administrative review on TRBs from the PRC. The invoice
identifies prices for three TRB models sold by SGBC/SKF to an
unaffiliated U.S. customer.\11\ The petitioner subsequently revised its
allegation to remove one of these models from its calculations because
it was unable to provide contemporaneous NV information for this
product.\12\ In May and June 2015, to demonstrate that the prices upon
which the petitioner based its allegation were representative of SGBC/
SKF's broader selling activity during the 2011-2012 review period, the
petitioner provided three sets of additional margin calculations based
on sales contained in SGBC/SKF's separate rate application that were
made by SGBC/SKF to an affiliated U.S. importer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Id.
\12\ See the petitioner's August 29, 2013 submission at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. NV
In accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, to determine NV,
the petitioner used the FOPs submitted by CPZ/SKF, the sole respondent
in the 2011-2012 administrative review on TRBs from the PRC, and it
valued those FOPs using SV data and surrogate financial statements
taken from the same segment of the proceeding.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Changed Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, on August 9, 2013, the petitioner provided an
alternative calculation of NV in order to address comments made by
SGBC/SKF.\14\ For further discussion, see below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See the petitioner's August 9, 2013 submission at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Alleged Margins of Dumping
Based upon the information summarized above, the petitioner alleges
that there is evidence that SGBC/SKF has resumed dumping TRBs in the
United States that is sufficient to warrant initiation of a changed
circumstances review to determine whether SGBC/SKF should be reinstated
into the antidumping duty order. The petitioner estimated a margin of
26 percent. To demonstrate that this margin is representative of SGBC/
SKF's broader selling experience, the petitioner also calculated
several additional non-de minimis margins using the data in its May 22,
2015, submission.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ These calculations were revised at the Department's request
on June 24, 2015. The petitioner has designated the alternative
margins in both submissions as business proprietary. See Changed
Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments by Interested Parties
As noted above, on July 23, 2013, SGBC/SKF submitted comments on
the petitioner's request that the Department initiate a changed
circumstances review.\16\ In these comments, SGBC/SKF contended that
the evidence provided by the petitioner fails to provide a reasonable
indication that SGBC/SKF has resumed dumping because: (1) The
petitioner's allegation is based on a miniscule sample of U.S. sales,
rendering the U.S. price data in the allegation unrepresentative of
SGBC/SKF's broader selling experience; (2) the petitioner's
calculations are not based on SGBC/SKF's own FOP data, but rather are
based on the FOPs provided by CPZ/SKF, an entirely different company,
and the petitioner provided no factual basis to demonstrate that CPZ/
SKF's FOPs provide an accurate estimate of SGBC/SKF's own FOPs or that
CPZ/SKF's and SGBC/SKF's product mixes during the POR were similar; and
(3) the petitioner's calculations fail to use the market economy steel
prices deemed by the Department to be the best information to value
CPZ/SKF's steel bar purchases during the 2011-2011 administrative
review.\17\ Further, SGBC/SKF argued that, even if the small number of
U.S. sales covered by petitioner's allegation represented sales below
NV, this alone does not provide an indication of overall dumping
because it does not take into account the fact that the Department's
current practice is to offset lower-priced sales with higher prices on
other products.\18\ According to SGBC/SKF, initiating a changed
circumstances review with such flaws would be unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See SGBC/SKF's letter dated July 23, 2013.
\17\ Id.
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 9, 2013, the petitioner responded to these comments.\19\
The petitioner noted that the U.S. price data in its allegation were
taken from an actual sale made by SGBC/SKF, and thus it is reasonably
likely that the sale of the products at issue is representative not
only of other sales of the same part numbers (as these products fall
within SGBC/SKF's U.S. product line) but also of SGBC/SKF's other
products in general.\20\ Moreover, the petitioner stated that these
data were the only information reasonably available to it and,
therefore, they provide reasonable grounds for the Department to
initiate a changed circumstances review.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See the petitioner's August 9, 2013 submission.
\20\ Id. at 3.
\21\ Id. at 2. Subsequent to this submission, in June 2015, the
petitioner provided several calculations to support its contention
that the margins contained in the original allegation are
representative of SGBC/SKF's selling practices; the petitioner based
these calculations on additional SGBC/SKF data contained on the
record of the 2011-2012 administrative review proceeding. See the
petitioner's June 24, 2015 submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the petitioner disagreed that use of CPZ/SKF's FOP
information yields an inaccurate picture of SGBC/SKF's production
costs. The petitioner noted that, in 2008, CPZ/SKF was acquired by SKF,
the world's largest bearing company.\22\ Consequently, the petitioner
argued that not only is SKF an efficient producer of TRBs, but also as
owner of CPZ/SKF, it has improved the efficiency of CPZ/SKF's
production facilities. Therefore, the petitioner claims that CPZ/SKF's
FOPs likely provide a conservative estimate of SGBC/SKFs FOP
experience.\23\ Furthermore, in its September 2013 submission, the
petitioner placed its TRB product coding system on the record of this
proceeding; \24\ the petitioner claims that this coding system
demonstrates that certain of the TRBs sold by SGBC/SKF to the United
States are the same as TRBs produced by CPZ/SKF (because they have the
same part numbers),\25\ and, thus, the CPZ/SKF FOPs used in the
allegation are for products with identical specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Id. at 3, citing to 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, 75 FR 41148, 41151 (July 15, 2010).
\23\ See the petitioner's August 9, 2013, submission at 4.
\24\ See the petitioner's September 3, 2013 submission at
Attachment 1, Appendix 8. This information was originally part of an
August 15, 2013, submission from SGBC/SKF on the successor-in-
interest changed circumstances review involving SGBC/SKF.
\25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to SGBC/SKF's final argument that the petitioner
should have used CPZ/SKF's market economy input price submitted in the
2011-2012 administrative review, the petitioner stated that there is no
information on the record indicating that SGBC/SKF purchased its steel
from a market-economy source, so there is no basis to use anything
other than SV data.\26\ Nonetheless, in order to demonstrate that the
facts of this record support the proposition that SGBC/SKF has likely
resumed dumping, the petitioner took the margin program used by the
Department in the 2011-2012 administrative review on TRBs from the
[[Page 48496]]
PRC and tailored it to account for the facts of this case.
Specifically, The petitioner: (1) Lowered the FOP usage rates by 10
percent in order to account for the possibility that SGBC/SKF is an
even more efficient producer of TRBs than CPZ/SKF; and (2) used CPZ/
SKF's market-economy steel price. The petitioner notes that, even after
incorporating these conservative assumptions, the results still
indicate that SGBC/SKF has resumed dumping.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See the petitioner's August 9, 2013 submission at 4.
\27\ See the petitioner's August 9, 2013, submission at 5 and
the petitioner's June 24, 2015 submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, in May and June 2015, the petitioner responded to
the Department's requests for additional information regarding its
request for a changed circumstances review. In these submissions, the
petitioner explained why it considered the sale covered by its
allegation to be representative of SGBC/SKF's broader U.S. sales
activity and it provided additional calculations supporting this
conclusion. On June 5, 2015, SGBC/SKF submitted comments on the
petitioner's May 22, 2015 filing; in these comments; SGBC/SKF contends
that, despite its claim to the contrary, the petitioner failed to
establish that the sale at issue is, in fact, representative. Moreover,
SGBC/SKF maintains that the petitioner's additional calculations are
not valid because: (1) They are based on ``irrelevant'' U.S.
transactions between affiliated parties without accompanying evidence
that a sale to an unaffiliated party took place; and (2) a ``markup''
used in these calculations is based, in part, on sales of non-subject
products. According to SGBC/SKF, the standard for initiation of
reinstatement changed circumstances reviews should be higher than the
comparatively lower standard that exists for investigations,
considering the costs associated with such reviews and the fact that a
revoked company has already proven that it was not engaged in dumping
for three consecutive years. As a result, SGBC/SKF submits that the
single sale on which the petitioner's allegation is based is not
sufficiently indicative of resumed dumping for purposes of initiating a
changed circumstances review.
Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review
Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act, the Department will conduct
a changed circumstances review upon receipt of a request ``from an
interested party for review of an antidumping duty order which shows
changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order.''
After examining the petitioner's allegation and supporting
documentation, we find that the petitioner has provided evidence of
changed circumstances sufficient to initiate a review to determine
whether SGBC/SKF has resumed dumping and should be reinstated in the
TRBs Order.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Changed Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department's authority to reinstate a revoked company into an
antidumping duty order by means of a changed circumstances review
derives from sections 751(b) and (d) of the Act.\29\ In particular, the
Department's authority to revoke an order is expressed in section
751(d) of the Act. The statute, however, provides no detailed
description of the criteria, procedures, or conditions relating to the
Department's exercise of this authority. Accordingly, the Department
issued regulations setting forth in detail how the Department will
exercise the authority granted to it under the statute. At the time of
SGBC/SKF's revocation from the TRBs Order, a Department regulation
authorized the partial and conditional revocation of orders as to
companies that were determined not to have made sales at less than NV
for the equivalent of three consecutive years and that certified to the
immediate reinstatement into an order if they resumed dumping.\30\
Although the regulatory provision for partial and conditional
revocation of companies from orders has since been revoked, we have
clarified that all conditionally revoked companies remain subject to
their certified agreements to be reinstated into the order from which
they were revoked if the Department finds that the company has resumed
dumping.\31\ For these reasons, conducting a changed circumstances
review pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act to determine whether to
reinstate SGBC/SKF into the TRBs Order is consistent with the statute
and with the certification that SGBC/SKF signed as a precondition to
its conditional revocation.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Sahaviriya Steel Indus. Pub. Co., Ltd. v. United
States, 649 F.3d 1371, 1378 (CAFC 2011) (Sahaviriya) (``{T{time}
his court holds, applying Chevron deference, that Commerce
reasonably interpreted its revocation authority under {section
751(d) of the Act{time} to permit conditional revocation . . .
.''); Id. at 1380 (finding that Commerce properly conducted a
changed circumstances review for purposes of reconsidering
revocation).
\30\ See 19 CFR 353.25 (1997). As noted above, the relevant
language regarding reinstatement remained substantively unchanged
when 19 CFR 353.25 was superseded by 19 CFR 351.222 (1997), and the
portion of 19 CFR 351.222 related to partial revocations of orders
as to specific companies has been revoked for all reviews initiated
on or after June 20, 2012. See 1996 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking;
Preamble; Revocation Final Rule.
\31\ See Revocation Final Rule, 77 FR at 29882.
\32\ See, e.g., Sahaviriya, 649 F.3d at 1380; Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Hot-Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand, 73 FR 18766, 18769 (April
7, 2008); see also SGBC/SKF Revocation, 62 FR at 6189 (``In
accordance with 19 CFR 353.25(a)(2)(iii), this request was
accompanied by certifications from the firm that it had sold subject
merchandise at not less than FMV for a three-year period, including
this review period, and would not do so in the future. Shanghai also
agreed to its immediate reinstatement in the antidumping duty order,
as long as any firm is subject to this order, if the Department
concludes under 19 CFR 353.22(f) that, subsequent to revocation, it
sold the subject merchandise at less than FMV.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to SGBC/SKF's comments regarding the
representativeness of the U.S. price and NV data proffered by the
petitioner, on December 18, 2013, the Department placed information on
the record of this segment of the proceeding which was submitted in an
ongoing successor-in-interest changed circumstances review involving
SGBC/SKF.\33\ This information relates to the product mix of both SGBC/
SKF and CPZ/SKF, and it demonstrates that the type of products shown on
SGBC/SKF's invoice represents a significant proportion of SGBC/SKF's
product line. We also find SGBC/SKF's concerns relating to the use of
CPZ/SKF's FOPs to be misplaced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See the Product Mix Memo at Attachment I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the question of whether the size of the allegation
is sufficiently representative of SGBC/SKF's sales activity, we note
that, in response to the Department's supplemental questionnaires, the
petitioner provided additional information regarding representativeness
of the U.S. price data on May 22, 2015, and June 24, 2015. In these
submissions, the petitioner used affiliated-party pricing for a
substantial quantity of TRBs shipped between SGBC/SKF and its U.S.
affiliate.\34\ Adjusting the prices to approximate the prices to an
unaffiliated U.S. customer and using the same NV methodology, the
petitioner calculated dumping margins.\35\ We disagree with SGBC/SKF
that these alternative calculations are invalid simply because the
petitioner constructed an export price using a markup which may contain
profit rates for both TRBs and other products not subject to the TRBs
Order. We find that
[[Page 48497]]
the petitioner's methodology yields a reasonable approximation of SGBC/
SKF's U.S. pricing behavior. Moreover, given that the petitioner made
no adjustments for numerous selling expenses, we find that the
petitioner's methodology is likely conservative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ The prices and quantities were sourced from the same
Separate Rate Application filed by SGBC/SKF used by the petitioner
in its resumed dumping allegation. See the petitioner's May 22,
2015, submission, at Exhibit 1.
\35\ We note that the margins calculated by the petitioner in
these submissions were treated as business proprietary information.
See the petitioner's May 22, 2015, submission at 3 through 8; see
also the petitioner's June 24, 2015, submission, at Exhibits 1, 2,
and 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, with respect to NV, the petitioner maintains that its TRB
product coding system demonstrates that the FOPs in its allegation are
for the same basic products as CPZ/SKF's because they have the same
cone and bore width.\36\ Thus, while the FOP data are not specific to
SGBC/SKF, we find that the FOP data submitted are publicly available
and the product coding system information submitted by the petitioner
provides a reasonable basis to conclude that NV is for substantially
similar or identical products. Finally, with respect to SGBC/SKF's
argument that the petitioner should have used CPZ/SKF's market-economy
steel purchase prices in its calculations, we note that the petitioner
provided alternative calculations which incorporated these prices and
provided the dumping margins resulting from these calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See the petitioner's September 3, 2013 submission at
Attachment 1, Appendix 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to SGBC/SKF's comments regarding zeroing or offsets,
we note that the issue raised by SGBC/SKF is implicated only when the
comparison results (i.e., individual dumping margins) are aggregated to
calculate the weighted-average dumping margin. In this instance, we
have examples provided by the petitioner to demonstrate, on an
individual comparison basis, that SGBC/SKF has sold subject merchandise
at less than NV.\37\ As previously noted, we find, consistent with
section 751(b) of the Act, that this information provided by the
petitioner constitutes evidence of changed circumstances sufficient to
initiate a review to determine whether SGBC/SKF has resumed dumping and
should be reinstated in the TRBs Order. We note that initiation of this
review does not constitute a conclusive determination that SGBC/SKF has
resumed dumping on an aggregate basis. During the course of this
review, the Department will apply its established methodologies
regarding offsets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See the petitioner's February 20, 2013 submission at
Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, with respect to SGBC/SKF's argument that the Department
should apply a heightened standard when determining whether to initiate
this review, the Department notes that the applicable standard is
whether there is information ``which shows changed circumstances
sufficient to warrant a review'' under section 751(b)(1) of the Act. In
the context of a reinstatement changed circumstances review, the
pertinent question is whether there is sufficient evidence of resumed
dumping. Based on the foregoing, we find that the petitioner has
provided sufficient evidence to initiate a changed circumstances review
to examine SGBC/SKF's pricing and determine whether SGBC/SKF has
resumed dumping sufficient to reinstate the company within the TRBs
Order. If we determine in this changed circumstances review that SGBC/
SKF resumed dumping, effective on the date of publication of our final
results, we will direct CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of
TRBs manufactured in the PRC and exported by SGBC/SKF.
Period of Changed Circumstances Review
The Department intends to request data from SGBC/SKF for the June
1, 2014, through May 31, 2015, period in order to determine whether
SGBC/SKF has resumed dumping sufficient to warrant reinstatement within
the TRBs Order.
Public Comment
The Department will publish in the Federal Register a notice of
preliminary results of changed circumstances review in accordance with
19 CFR 351.221(b)(4) and 351.221(c)(3)(i), which will set forth the
Department's preliminary factual and legal conclusions. Pursuant to 19
CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will have an opportunity to
comment on the preliminary results. Unless otherwise extended, the
Department intends to issue its final results of review in accordance
with the time limits set forth in 19 CFR 351.216(e).
This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b) of the Department's
regulations.
Dated: August 7, 2015.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-19985 Filed 8-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
