80_FR_48649 80 FR 48493 - Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review

80 FR 48493 - Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 156 (August 13, 2015)

Page Range48493-48497
FR Document2015-19985

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.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 156 (Thursday, August 13, 2015) 
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 156 (Thursday, August 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48493-48497]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[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

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 156 / Thursday, August 13, 2015 / Notices 48493 Department of Commerce, Washington, Affected Public: Business or other for- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DC 20230; phone: (202) 606–9850; fax: profit organizations. (202) 606–5318; email: International Trade Administration Estimated Number of Responses: christopher.stein@bea.gov. 2,700 annually (675 filed each quarter: [A–570–601] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 550 reporting mandatory data, and 125 that would file other responses). Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts I. Abstract Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, The Quarterly Survey of Financial Estimated Time per Response: 10 From the People’s Republic of China: Services Transactions between U.S. hours is the average for those reporting Initiation of Antidumping Duty Financial Services Providers and data, and 1 hour is the average for other Changed Circumstances Review Foreign Persons (BE–185) is a survey responses, but hours may vary considerably among respondents AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, that collects data from U.S. financial because of differences in company size International Trade Administration, services providers that engage in and complexity. Department of Commerce. covered transactions with foreign persons in financial services. A U.S. SUMMARY: The Timken Company (the Estimated Total Annual Burden person must report if it had sales of petitioner) has filed a request for the Hours: 22,500. Department of Commerce (the covered services to foreign persons that Estimated Total Annual Cost to Department) to initiate a changed exceeded $20 million for the previous fiscal year, or that are expected to Public: $0. circumstances review of the exceed that amount during the current Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. antidumping duty order on tapered fiscal year, or if it had purchases of roller bearings (TRBs) and parts thereof Legal Authority: International from the People’s Republic of China covered services from foreign persons Investment and Trade in Services that exceeded $15 million for the (PRC). The petitioner alleges that Survey Act (Public Law 94–472, 22 Shanghai General Bearing Co., Ltd. previous fiscal year, or that are expected U.S.C. 3101–3108, as amended) and to exceed that amount during the (SGBC/SKF), a PRC TRBs producer Section 5408 of the Omnibus Trade and previously revoked from the current fiscal year. Competitiveness Act of 1988. The data collected on the survey are antidumping duty order, has resumed needed to monitor U.S. trade in IV. Request for Comments sales at prices below normal value (NV). services, to analyze the impact of U.S. Therefore, the petitioner requests that trade on the U.S. and foreign economies, Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the Department conduct a review to to compile and improve the U.S. the proposed collection of information determine whether to reinstate the economic accounts, to support U.S. is necessary for the proper performance antidumping duty order with respect to commercial policy on trade in services, of the functions of the Agency, SGBC/SKF. to conduct trade promotion, and to including whether the information will In accordance with section 751(b) of improve the ability of U.S. businesses to have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the identify and evaluate market the Agency’s estimate of the burden Act), and 19 CFR 351.216(b), the opportunities. The data are used in (including hours and cost) of the Department finds the information estimating the financial services proposed collection of information; (c) submitted by the petitioner sufficient to component of the U.S. international warrant initiation of a changed ways to enhance the quality, utility, and transactions accounts and national circumstances review of the clarity of the information to be income and product accounts. antidumping duty order on TRBs from collected; and (d) ways to minimize the the PRC with respect to SGBC/SKF. The The Bureau of Economic Analysis burden of the collection of information period of review (POR) is June 1, 2014, (BEA) is proposing minor additions and on respondents, including through the through May 31, 2015. modifications to the current BE–185 use of automated collection techniques In this changed circumstances review, survey. The effort to keep current or other forms of information we will determine whether SGBC/SKF reporting requirements generally technology. sold TRBs at less than NV subsequent to unchanged is intended to minimize Comments submitted in response to its revocation from the order. If we respondent burden while considering this notice will be summarized and/or determine in this changed the needs of data users. Existing included in the request for OMB circumstances review that SGBC/SKF language in the instructions and approval of this information collection; sold TRBs at less than NV and resumed definitions will be reviewed and they also will become a matter of public dumping, effective on the date of adjusted as necessary to clarify survey record. publication of our final results, we will requirements. direct U.S. Customs and Border II. Method of Collection Dated: August 7, 2015. Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation Glenna Mickelson, of all entries of TRBs manufactured and Form BE–185 is a quarterly report that Management Analyst, Office of Chief exported by SGBC/SKF. must be filed within 45 days after the Information Officer. DATES: Effective date: August 13, 2015. end of each fiscal quarter, or within 90 [FR Doc. 2015–19880 Filed 8–12–15; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: days after the close of the fiscal year. BEA offers its electronic filing option, BILLING CODE 3510–06–P Alice Maldonado, Enforcement and the eFile system, for reporting on Form Compliance, International Trade tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES BE–185. For more information about Administration, U.S. Department of eFile, go to www.bea.gov/efile. Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; III. Data telephone (202) 482–4682. OMB Control Number: 0608–0065. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June Form Number: BE–185. 15, 1987, the Department published the Type of Review: Regular submission. antidumping duty order on TRBs from VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Aug 12, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13AUN1.SGM 13AUN1

48494 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 156 / Thursday, August 13, 2015 / Notices the PRC.1 On February 11, 1997, the its allegation. Specifically, the petitioner roller bearings; and tapered roller Department conditionally revoked the compared invoice prices to an housings (except pillow blocks) TRBs Order with respect to merchandise unaffiliated U.S. customer submitted by incorporating tapered rollers, with or produced and exported by SGBC/SKF,2 SGBC/SKF as part of an application for without spindles, whether or not for based on a finding of three years of no a separate rate in the 2011–2012 automotive use. These products are dumping.3 administrative review on TRBs from the currently classifiable under Harmonized On February 20, 2013, the petitioner PRC to NVs computed using data from Tariff Schedule of the United States alleged that, since its conditional the same segment of the proceeding (HTSUS) item numbers 8482.20.00, revocation from the TRBs Order, there is related to another company, Changshan 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45, evidence that SGBC/SKF has resumed Peer Bearing Co., Ltd. (CPZ/SKF).5 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, dumping TRBs in the United States. The In March 2013, the Department 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80, petitioner notes that SGBC/SKF agreed requested further information from the 8708.70.6060, 8708.99.2300, in writing to reinstatement in the petitioner regarding the basis of its 8708.99.4850, 8708.99.6890, antidumping duty order if it were found allegation, which the petitioner 8708.99.8115, and 8708.99.8180. to have resumed dumping and it supplied in July 2013. Also in July 2013, Although the HTSUS item numbers are requests that, because SGBC/SKF SGBC/SKF objected to the petitioner’s provided for convenience and customs violated this agreement, the Department request for a changed circumstances purposes, the written description of the initiate a changed circumstances review review, and the petitioner responded to scope of the order is dispositive. to determine whether to reinstate SGBC/ those comments in August 2013. SKF into the TRBs Order.4 From August through November 2013, Allegation of Resumed Dumping In its February 2013, submission, the the Department requested that the petitioner provided evidence supporting petitioner provide additional In its February 2013 submission, the information to support and/or clarify its petitioner provided an invoice to an 1 See Antidumping Duty Order; Tapered Roller allegation. The petitioner responded to unaffiliated U.S. customer of SGBC/SKF Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, these requests during the same time as the basis for U.S. price, and it From the People’s Republic of China, 52 FR 22667 period. provided factors of production (FOPs) (June 15, 1987) (TRBs Order). In January 2014, the Department reported by CPZ/SKF in another 2 SGBC/SKF is currently part of a group of companies owned by AB SKF (SKF) in Sweden. See deferred the decision of whether to segment of this proceeding and Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, initiate the changed circumstances surrogate value (SV) information as the Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s review requested by the petitioner, basis for NV. Specifically, the Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of pending a determination in another petitioner’s information was obtained Changed Circumstances Review, 80 FR 19070 (April 9, 2015) and accompanying Issues and Decision changed circumstances review (i.e., from the 2011–2012 administrative Memorandum (SII CCR) at Comment 1. At the time where the Department was examining review on TRBs from the PRC,8 and the of revocation, SGBC was not part of this group. whether SGBC/SKF was the successor petitioner used this information to argue However, the Department conducted a changed in interest to the company that existed that SGBC/SKF sold TRBs at less than circumstances review after the company’s change in ownership, and we found that SGBC/SKF is the at the time of revocation from the NV during that review period. successor in interest to the company as it existed antidumping duty order).6 The The petitioner provided an alternative at the time of revocation. Id. Department completed that successor- allegation in August 2013 to take into 3 The three administrative reviews forming the in-interest changed circumstances account certain objections raised by basis of the revocation are: (1) The June 1, 1991, review in April 2015, finding SGBC/ through May 31, 1992, review; (2) the June 1, 1992, SGBC/SKF.9 In May and June 2015, at through May 31, 1993, review; and (3) the June 1, SKF to be the successor to the revoked the Department’s request, the petitioner 1993, through May 31, 1994, review. See Tapered company.7 provided additional calculations, based Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and In May and June 2015, the Unfinished, From the People’s Republic of China; on data contained in the same source Department requested additional Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative document used to make the initial Reviews, 61 FR 65527 (December 13, 1996) (for the information from the petitioner allegation, to demonstrate that its initial 1991–1992 and 1992–1993 reviews); see also regarding its request for a changed allegation was representative of SGBC/ Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, circumstances review. The petitioner Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s SKF’s broader overall selling practices responded to these requests in the same Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping during the period covered by the 2011– Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part months, and SGBC/SKF submitted 2012 administrative review.10 of Antidumping Duty Order, 62 FR 6189 (February comments related to the former of these 11, 1997) (for the 1993–1994 review) (SGBC/SKF submissions in June 2015. The allegation of resumed dumping Revocation). upon which the Department has based The regulatory provision governing partial Scope of the Review its decision to initiate a changed revocation at the time of SGBC/SKF’s revocation was 19 CFR 353.25 (1997). The relevant language Imports covered by the order are circumstances review is detailed below. remained substantively unchanged when 19 CFR shipments of tapered roller bearings and The sources of data for the adjustments 353.25 was superseded by 19 CFR 351.222 in 1997. parts thereof, finished and unfinished, that the petitioner calculated relating to See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: from the PRC; flange, take up cartridge, NV and U.S. price are discussed in Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments, 61 FR 7308 (February 27, 1996) and hanger units incorporating tapered greater detail in the Changed (1996 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking); see also Circumstances Review Initiation Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final 5 See CCR Request, at 10. Checklist, dated concurrently with this Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27325–26, 27399–402 (May 19, 6 See the memorandum to Christian Marsh, notice. Should the need arise to use any 1997) (Preamble). The portion of 19 CFR 351.222 Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and related to partial revocations of orders as to specific Countervailing Duty Operations, from Alan Ray, of this information as facts available tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES companies has been revoked for all reviews Senior Analyst, Antidumping and Countervailing under section 776 of the Act, we may initiated on or after June 20, 2012. See Modification Duty Operations, entitled ‘‘Deferment of Decision reexamine the information and revise to Regulation Concerning the Revocation of on Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review of the margin calculation, if appropriate. Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders: the Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered Roller Final Rule, 77 FR 29875 (May 21, 2012) (Revocation Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 8 See CCR Request, at Attachment 1. Final Rule). Unfinished, from the People’s Republic of China,’’ 4 See the petitioner’s February 20, 2013, letter to dated January 7, 2014. 9 See the petitioner’s August 9, 2013 submission. the Department (CCR Request). 7 See SII CCR. 10 See the petitioner’s June 24, 2015 submission. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Aug 12, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13AUN1.SGM 13AUN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 156 / Thursday, August 13, 2015 / Notices 48495 1. Export Price (EP) Comments by Interested Parties grounds for the Department to initiate a The petitioner based U.S. price upon As noted above, on July 23, 2013, changed circumstances review.21 sales documents submitted by SGBC/ Similarly, the petitioner disagreed SGBC/SKF submitted comments on the SKF in a separate rate application, dated that use of CPZ/SKF’s FOP information petitioner’s request that the Department October 15, 2012, in the 2011–2012 yields an inaccurate picture of SGBC/ initiate a changed circumstances administrative review on TRBs from the SKF’s production costs. The petitioner review.16 In these comments, SGBC/ PRC. The invoice identifies prices for noted that, in 2008, CPZ/SKF was SKF contended that the evidence three TRB models sold by SGBC/SKF to acquired by SKF, the world’s largest provided by the petitioner fails to an unaffiliated U.S. customer.11 The bearing company.22 Consequently, the provide a reasonable indication that petitioner argued that not only is SKF petitioner subsequently revised its SGBC/SKF has resumed dumping allegation to remove one of these an efficient producer of TRBs, but also because: (1) The petitioner’s allegation as owner of CPZ/SKF, it has improved models from its calculations because it is based on a miniscule sample of U.S. was unable to provide contemporaneous the efficiency of CPZ/SKF’s production sales, rendering the U.S. price data in facilities. Therefore, the petitioner NV information for this product.12 In the allegation unrepresentative of May and June 2015, to demonstrate that claims that CPZ/SKF’s FOPs likely SGBC/SKF’s broader selling experience; provide a conservative estimate of the prices upon which the petitioner (2) the petitioner’s calculations are not based its allegation were representative SGBC/SKFs FOP experience.23 based on SGBC/SKF’s own FOP data, Furthermore, in its September 2013 of SGBC/SKF’s broader selling activity but rather are based on the FOPs during the 2011–2012 review period, submission, the petitioner placed its provided by CPZ/SKF, an entirely TRB product coding system on the the petitioner provided three sets of different company, and the petitioner additional margin calculations based on record of this proceeding; 24 the provided no factual basis to demonstrate petitioner claims that this coding system sales contained in SGBC/SKF’s separate that CPZ/SKF’s FOPs provide an rate application that were made by demonstrates that certain of the TRBs accurate estimate of SGBC/SKF’s own sold by SGBC/SKF to the United States SGBC/SKF to an affiliated U.S. FOPs or that CPZ/SKF’s and SGBC/ importer. are the same as TRBs produced by CPZ/ SKF’s product mixes during the POR SKF (because they have the same part 2. NV were similar; and (3) the petitioner’s numbers),25 and, thus, the CPZ/SKF calculations fail to use the market FOPs used in the allegation are for In accordance with section 773(c)(1) economy steel prices deemed by the products with identical specifications. of the Act, to determine NV, the Department to be the best information to With respect to SGBC/SKF’s final petitioner used the FOPs submitted by value CPZ/SKF’s steel bar purchases argument that the petitioner should CPZ/SKF, the sole respondent in the during the 2011–2011 administrative have used CPZ/SKF’s market economy 2011–2012 administrative review on TRBs from the PRC, and it valued those review.17 Further, SGBC/SKF argued input price submitted in the 2011–2012 FOPs using SV data and surrogate that, even if the small number of U.S. administrative review, the petitioner financial statements taken from the sales covered by petitioner’s allegation stated that there is no information on same segment of the proceeding.13 represented sales below NV, this alone the record indicating that SGBC/SKF In addition, on August 9, 2013, the does not provide an indication of purchased its steel from a market- petitioner provided an alternative overall dumping because it does not economy source, so there is no basis to calculation of NV in order to address take into account the fact that the use anything other than SV data.26 comments made by SGBC/SKF.14 For Department’s current practice is to offset Nonetheless, in order to demonstrate further discussion, see below. lower-priced sales with higher prices on that the facts of this record support the other products.18 According to SGBC/ proposition that SGBC/SKF has likely 3. Alleged Margins of Dumping SKF, initiating a changed circumstances resumed dumping, the petitioner took Based upon the information review with such flaws would be the margin program used by the summarized above, the petitioner unreasonable. Department in the 2011–2012 alleges that there is evidence that SGBC/ On August 9, 2013, the petitioner administrative review on TRBs from the SKF has resumed dumping TRBs in the responded to these comments.19 The United States that is sufficient to petitioner noted that the U.S. price data 21 Id. at 2. Subsequent to this submission, in June warrant initiation of a changed in its allegation were taken from an 2015, the petitioner provided several calculations to circumstances review to determine actual sale made by SGBC/SKF, and support its contention that the margins contained thus it is reasonably likely that the sale in the original allegation are representative of whether SGBC/SKF should be reinstated SGBC/SKF’s selling practices; the petitioner based into the antidumping duty order. The of the products at issue is representative these calculations on additional SGBC/SKF data petitioner estimated a margin of 26 not only of other sales of the same part contained on the record of the 2011–2012 percent. To demonstrate that this numbers (as these products fall within administrative review proceeding. See the SGBC/SKF’s U.S. product line) but also petitioner’s June 24, 2015 submission. margin is representative of SGBC/SKF’s 22 Id. at 3, citing to Tapered Roller Bearings and broader selling experience, the of SGBC/SKF’s other products in Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From the petitioner also calculated several general.20 Moreover, the petitioner People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of additional non-de minimis margins stated that these data were the only the 2008–2009 Administrative Review of the using the data in its May 22, 2015, information reasonably available to it Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 41148, 41151 (July 15, 2010). submission.15 and, therefore, they provide reasonable 23 See the petitioner’s August 9, 2013, submission at 4. 11 Id. petitioner has designated the alternative margins in 24 See the petitioner’s September 3, 2013 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 12 See the petitioner’s August 29, 2013 both submissions as business proprietary. See submission at Attachment 1, Appendix 8. This submission at 2. Changed Circumstances Review Initiation information was originally part of an August 15, 13 See Changed Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist. 2013, submission from SGBC/SKF on the successor- 16 See SGBC/SKF’s letter dated July 23, 2013. Checklist. in-interest changed circumstances review involving 17 Id. 14 See the petitioner’s August 9, 2013 submission SGBC/SKF. 18 Id. at 5. 25 Id. 15 These calculations were revised at the 19 See the petitioner’s August 9, 2013 submission. 26 See the petitioner’s August 9, 2013 submission Department’s request on June 24, 2015. The 20 Id. at 3. at 4. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Aug 12, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13AUN1.SGM 13AUN1

48496 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 156 / Thursday, August 13, 2015 / Notices PRC and tailored it to account for the allegation and supporting precondition to its conditional facts of this case. Specifically, The documentation, we find that the revocation.32 petitioner: (1) Lowered the FOP usage petitioner has provided evidence of With respect to SGBC/SKF’s rates by 10 percent in order to account changed circumstances sufficient to comments regarding the for the possibility that SGBC/SKF is an initiate a review to determine whether representativeness of the U.S. price and even more efficient producer of TRBs SGBC/SKF has resumed dumping and NV data proffered by the petitioner, on than CPZ/SKF; and (2) used CPZ/SKF’s should be reinstated in the TRBs December 18, 2013, the Department market-economy steel price. The Order.28 placed information on the record of this petitioner notes that, even after The Department’s authority to segment of the proceeding which was incorporating these conservative reinstate a revoked company into an submitted in an ongoing successor-in- assumptions, the results still indicate antidumping duty order by means of a interest changed circumstances review that SGBC/SKF has resumed changed circumstances review derives involving SGBC/SKF.33 This dumping.27 from sections 751(b) and (d) of the information relates to the product mix As noted above, in May and June Act.29 In particular, the Department’s of both SGBC/SKF and CPZ/SKF, and it 2015, the petitioner responded to the authority to revoke an order is demonstrates that the type of products Department’s requests for additional expressed in section 751(d) of the Act. shown on SGBC/SKF’s invoice information regarding its request for a The statute, however, provides no represents a significant proportion of changed circumstances review. In these detailed description of the criteria, SGBC/SKF’s product line. We also find submissions, the petitioner explained procedures, or conditions relating to the SGBC/SKF’s concerns relating to the use why it considered the sale covered by Department’s exercise of this authority. of CPZ/SKF’s FOPs to be misplaced. its allegation to be representative of Accordingly, the Department issued With respect to the question of SGBC/SKF’s broader U.S. sales activity regulations setting forth in detail how whether the size of the allegation is and it provided additional calculations the Department will exercise the sufficiently representative of SGBC/ supporting this conclusion. On June 5, authority granted to it under the statute. SKF’s sales activity, we note that, in 2015, SGBC/SKF submitted comments At the time of SGBC/SKF’s revocation response to the Department’s on the petitioner’s May 22, 2015 filing; from the TRBs Order, a Department supplemental questionnaires, the in these comments; SGBC/SKF contends regulation authorized the partial and petitioner provided additional that, despite its claim to the contrary, conditional revocation of orders as to information regarding the petitioner failed to establish that the companies that were determined not to representativeness of the U.S. price data sale at issue is, in fact, representative. have made sales at less than NV for the on May 22, 2015, and June 24, 2015. In Moreover, SGBC/SKF maintains that the equivalent of three consecutive years these submissions, the petitioner used petitioner’s additional calculations are and that certified to the immediate affiliated-party pricing for a substantial not valid because: (1) They are based on quantity of TRBs shipped between reinstatement into an order if they ‘‘irrelevant’’ U.S. transactions between SGBC/SKF and its U.S. affiliate.34 resumed dumping.30 Although the affiliated parties without accompanying Adjusting the prices to approximate the regulatory provision for partial and evidence that a sale to an unaffiliated prices to an unaffiliated U.S. customer conditional revocation of companies party took place; and (2) a ‘‘markup’’ and using the same NV methodology, from orders has since been revoked, we used in these calculations is based, in the petitioner calculated dumping have clarified that all conditionally part, on sales of non-subject products. margins.35 We disagree with SGBC/SKF revoked companies remain subject to According to SGBC/SKF, the standard that these alternative calculations are their certified agreements to be for initiation of reinstatement changed invalid simply because the petitioner reinstated into the order from which circumstances reviews should be higher constructed an export price using a they were revoked if the Department markup which may contain profit rates than the comparatively lower standard finds that the company has resumed that exists for investigations, for both TRBs and other products not dumping.31 For these reasons, subject to the TRBs Order. We find that considering the costs associated with conducting a changed circumstances such reviews and the fact that a revoked review pursuant to section 751(b) of the 32 See, e.g., Sahaviriya, 649 F.3d at 1380; company has already proven that it was Act to determine whether to reinstate Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed not engaged in dumping for three SGBC/SKF into the TRBs Order is Circumstances Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon consecutive years. As a result, SGBC/ consistent with the statute and with the Steel Flat Products from Thailand, 73 FR 18766, SKF submits that the single sale on certification that SGBC/SKF signed as a 18769 (April 7, 2008); see also SGBC/SKF which the petitioner’s allegation is Revocation, 62 FR at 6189 (‘‘In accordance with 19 CFR 353.25(a)(2)(iii), this request was accompanied based is not sufficiently indicative of 28 See Changed Circumstances Review Initiation by certifications from the firm that it had sold resumed dumping for purposes of Checklist. subject merchandise at not less than FMV for a initiating a changed circumstances 29 See Sahaviriya Steel Indus. Pub. Co., Ltd. v. three-year period, including this review period, and United States, 649 F.3d 1371, 1378 (CAFC 2011) would not do so in the future. Shanghai also agreed review. to its immediate reinstatement in the antidumping (Sahaviriya) (‘‘{T} his court holds, applying Initiation of Changed Circumstances Chevron deference, that Commerce reasonably duty order, as long as any firm is subject to this Review interpreted its revocation authority under {section order, if the Department concludes under 19 CFR 751(d) of the Act} to permit conditional revocation 353.22(f) that, subsequent to revocation, it sold the Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act, . . . .’’); Id. at 1380 (finding that Commerce subject merchandise at less than FMV.’’). the Department will conduct a changed properly conducted a changed circumstances 33 See the Product Mix Memo at Attachment I. review for purposes of reconsidering revocation). 34 The prices and quantities were sourced from circumstances review upon receipt of a 30 See 19 CFR 353.25 (1997). As noted above, the the same Separate Rate Application filed by SGBC/ request ‘‘from an interested party for relevant language regarding reinstatement remained SKF used by the petitioner in its resumed dumping tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES review of an antidumping duty order substantively unchanged when 19 CFR 353.25 was allegation. See the petitioner’s May 22, 2015, which shows changed circumstances superseded by 19 CFR 351.222 (1997), and the submission, at Exhibit 1. portion of 19 CFR 351.222 related to partial 35 We note that the margins calculated by the sufficient to warrant a review of the revocations of orders as to specific companies has petitioner in these submissions were treated as order.’’ After examining the petitioner’s been revoked for all reviews initiated on or after business proprietary information. See the June 20, 2012. See 1996 Notice of Proposed petitioner’s May 22, 2015, submission at 3 through 27 See the petitioner’s August 9, 2013, submission Rulemaking; Preamble; Revocation Final Rule. 8; see also the petitioner’s June 24, 2015, at 5 and the petitioner’s June 24, 2015 submission. 31 See Revocation Final Rule, 77 FR at 29882. submission, at Exhibits 1, 2, and 3. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Aug 12, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13AUN1.SGM 13AUN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 156 / Thursday, August 13, 2015 / Notices 48497 the petitioner’s methodology yields a circumstances sufficient to warrant a DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE reasonable approximation of SGBC/ review’’ under section 751(b)(1) of the SKF’s U.S. pricing behavior. Moreover, Act. In the context of a reinstatement International Trade Administration given that the petitioner made no changed circumstances review, the adjustments for numerous selling Renewable Energy and Energy pertinent question is whether there is expenses, we find that the petitioner’s Efficiency Advisory Committee sufficient evidence of resumed methodology is likely conservative. dumping. Based on the foregoing, we AGENCY: International Trade Further, with respect to NV, the find that the petitioner has provided Administration, U.S. Department of petitioner maintains that its TRB sufficient evidence to initiate a changed Commerce product coding system demonstrates circumstances review to examine SGBC/ ACTION: Notice of an open meeting. that the FOPs in its allegation are for the SKF’s pricing and determine whether same basic products as CPZ/SKF’s SUMMARY: The Renewable Energy and SGBC/SKF has resumed dumping because they have the same cone and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee bore width.36 Thus, while the FOP data sufficient to reinstate the company within the TRBs Order. If we determine (RE&EEAC) will hold a meeting on are not specific to SGBC/SKF, we find Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at the U.S. that the FOP data submitted are publicly in this changed circumstances review Department of Commerce Herbert C. available and the product coding system that SGBC/SKF resumed dumping, Hoover Building in Washington, DC. information submitted by the petitioner effective on the date of publication of The meeting is open to the public and provides a reasonable basis to conclude our final results, we will direct CBP to interested parties are requested to that NV is for substantially similar or suspend liquidation of all entries of contact the U.S. Department of identical products. Finally, with respect TRBs manufactured in the PRC and Commerce in advance of the meeting. to SGBC/SKF’s argument that the exported by SGBC/SKF. DATES: September 22, 2015, from petitioner should have used CPZ/SKF’s approximately 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Period of Changed Circumstances market-economy steel purchase prices Daylight Saving Time (DST). Members Review in its calculations, we note that the of the public wishing to participate petitioner provided alternative The Department intends to request must notify Andrew Bennett at the calculations which incorporated these data from SGBC/SKF for the June 1, contact information below by 5:00 p.m. prices and provided the dumping 2014, through May 31, 2015, period in DST on Friday, September 18, 2015, in margins resulting from these order to determine whether SGBC/SKF order to pre-register. calculations. has resumed dumping sufficient to For All Further Information, Please With respect to SGBC/SKF’s Contact: Andrew Bennett, Office of warrant reinstatement within the TRBs comments regarding zeroing or offsets, Energy and Environmental Industries we note that the issue raised by SGBC/ Order. (OEEI), International Trade SKF is implicated only when the Public Comment Administration, U.S. Department of comparison results (i.e., individual Commerce at (202) 482–5235; email: dumping margins) are aggregated to The Department will publish in the Andrew.Bennett@trade.gov. calculate the weighted-average dumping Federal Register a notice of preliminary SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: margin. In this instance, we have results of changed circumstances review Background: The Secretary of examples provided by the petitioner to in accordance with 19 CFR Commerce established the RE&EEAC demonstrate, on an individual 351.221(b)(4) and 351.221(c)(3)(i), pursuant to his discretionary authority comparison basis, that SGBC/SKF has which will set forth the Department’s and in accordance with the Federal sold subject merchandise at less than preliminary factual and legal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) NV.37 As previously noted, we find, conclusions. Pursuant to 19 CFR on July 14, 2010. The RE&EEAC was re- consistent with section 751(b) of the 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will chartered on June 12, 2014. The Act, that this information provided by have an opportunity to comment on the RE&EEAC provides the Secretary of the petitioner constitutes evidence of preliminary results. Unless otherwise Commerce with consensus advice from changed circumstances sufficient to extended, the Department intends to the private sector on the development initiate a review to determine whether issue its final results of review in and administration of programs and SGBC/SKF has resumed dumping and accordance with the time limits set forth policies to enhance the international should be reinstated in the TRBs Order. in 19 CFR 351.216(e). competitiveness of the U.S. renewable We note that initiation of this review energy and energy efficiency industries. does not constitute a conclusive This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and During the September 22nd meeting determination that SGBC/SKF has of the RE&EEAC, committee members resumed dumping on an aggregate basis. 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b) of the Department’s will discuss priority issues identified in During the course of this review, the advance by the Committee Chair and Department will apply its established regulations. Sub-Committee leadership, and hear methodologies regarding offsets. Dated: August 7, 2015. from interagency partners on issues Finally, with respect to SGBC/SKF’s Ronald K. Lorentzen, impacting the competitiveness of the argument that the Department should Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement U.S. renewable energy and energy apply a heightened standard when and Compliance. efficiency industries. determining whether to initiate this [FR Doc. 2015–19985 Filed 8–12–15; 8:45 am] A limited amount of time before the review, the Department notes that the tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES close of the meeting will be available for applicable standard is whether there is BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P pertinent oral comments from members information ‘‘which shows changed of the public attending the meeting. To 36 See the petitioner’s September 3, 2013 accommodate as many speakers as submission at Attachment 1, Appendix 8. possible, the time for public comments 37 See the petitioner’s February 20, 2013 will be limited to two to five minutes submission at Attachment 1. per person (depending on number of VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Aug 12, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13AUN1.SGM 13AUN1


Document Created: 2018-02-23 10:57:14
Document Modified: 2018-02-23 10:57:14
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionNotices
DatesEffective date: August 13, 2015.
ContactAlice 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.
FR Citation80 FR 48493 
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR