[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 217 (Tuesday, November 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63026-63030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-30142]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-588-028]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Roller Chain, Other 
Than Bicycle, From Japan

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

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Roller 
Chain, Other Than Bicycle, From Japan.

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

SUMMARY: On July 6, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping finding on 
roller chain, other than bicycle, from Japan (63 FR 26389) pursuant to 
section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). On 
the basis of a notice of intent to participate filed on behalf of the 
domestic industry and substantive comments filed on behalf of the 
domestic industry and respondent

[[Page 63027]]

interested parties, the Department determined to conduct an expedited 
review. As a result of this review, the Department finds that 
revocation of the antidumping finding would be likely to lead to a 
continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the 
Appendix to this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 10, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha V. Douthit or Melissa G. 
Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-3207 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statute and Regulations

    This review was conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of 
the Act. The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset reviews 
are set forth in Procedures for Conducting Five-year (``Sunset'') 
Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 
(March 20, 1998) (``Sunset Regulations''). Guidance on methodological 
or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of sunset 
reviews is set forth in the Department's Policy Bulletin 98:3--Policies 
Regarding the Conduct of Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 
1998) (``Sunset Policy Bulletin'').

Scope

    The merchandise subject to this antidumping finding is roller 
chain, other than bicycle, from Japan. The term ``roller chain, other 
than bicycle'' includes chain, with or without attachments, whether or 
not plated or coated, and whether or not manufactured to American or 
British standards, which is used for power transmissions and/or 
conveyance. This chain consists of a series of alternately-assembled 
roller links and pin links in which the pins articulate inside from the 
bushings and the rollers are free to turn on the bushings. Pins and 
bushings are press fit in their respective link plates. Chain may be 
single strand, having one row of roller links, or multiple strand, 
having more than one row of roller links. The center plates are located 
between the strands of roller links. Such chain may be either single or 
double pitch and may be used as power transmission or conveyor chain. 
This finding also covers leaf chain, which consists of a series of link 
plates alternately assembled with pins in such a way that the joint is 
free to articulate between adjoining pitches. Roller chain is currently 
classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS'') subheadings 7315.11.00 through 7619.90.00. Although the 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, 
the written description remains dispositive.
    This review covers all manufacturers and exporters of roller chain 
from Japan, other than Honda Motor Company and Tsubakimoto Chain, for 
which the finding has been revoked.

Background

    On July 6, 1998, the Department initiated a sunset review of the 
antidumping finding on roller chain, other than bicycle, from Japan (63 
FR 26389), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department 
received a Notice of Intent to Participate from the American Chain 
Association (``ACA'') on July 20, 1998, within the deadline specified 
in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. ACA claimed 
interested party status under section 771(9)(E) of the Act, as a trade 
association, a majority of whose members manufacture roller chain in 
the United States. We received complete substantive responses from ACA 
and from Daido Tsusho Co., Ltd. (``Daido Tsusho'') and Daido 
Corporation (collectively ``Daido'') on August 5, 1998, within the 30-
day deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations under section 
351.218(d)(3)(i). In its substantive response, Daido stated that Daido 
Tsusho is an exporter of the subject merchandise manufactured by Daido 
Kogyo Co., Ltd. (``Daido Kogyo'') and Enuma Chain Manufacturing Co., 
Ltd. (``Enuma''), and that Daido Corporation is a U.S. importer of the 
subject merchandise manufactured by Daido Kogyo and Enuma. 
Additionally, Daido Tsusho stated that it had participated in 
administrative reviews under its former name, Meisei Trading Co., Ltd. 
Daido claimed interested party status as a foreign exporter and United 
States importer of subject merchandise under section 771(9)(A) of the 
Act.
    Using the information on value of exports submitted by Daido and 
the value of imports as reported by the United States Customs Service 
(``Customs'') in its annual reports to Congress on administration of 
the antidumping and countervailing duty laws,1 the 
Department determined that exports by Daido Tsusho Co., Ltd. accounted 
for significantly less than 50 percent of the value of total exports of 
the subject merchandise over the five calendar years preceding the 
initiation of the sunset review. Therefore, the Department determined 
that respondent interested parties provided an inadequate response to 
the notice of initiation, and, in accordance with section 
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the Sunset Regulations, the Department 
determined to conduct an expedited review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This information is available to the public on the Internet 
at ``http://www.ita.doc.gov/import__admin/ records/sunset''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 14, 1998, Daido submitted comments arguing that ACA's 
response to the notice of initiation was inadequate and, thus, the 
Department should conduct a 90-day sunset review and revoke the 
antidumping finding. Daido argued that ACA does not qualify as an 
interested party because four members of ACA that are U.S. 
manufacturers of roller chain are also importers of roller chain from 
Japan. On September 17 1998, we received unsolicited rebuttal comments 
on behalf of ACA. On October 5, 1998, Daido argued that ACA's September 
17 letter should be disregarded and removed from the record because it 
constituted an unauthorized and unsolicited written argument.

Determination

    In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department 
conducted this review to determine whether revocation of the 
antidumping finding would be likely to lead to a continuation or 
recurrence of dumping. Section 752(c) of the Act provides that, in 
making this determination, the Department shall consider the weighted-
average dumping margins determined in the investigation and subsequent 
reviews and the volume of imports of the subject merchandise for the 
period before and the period after the issuance of the antidumping 
finding, and shall provide to the International Trade Commission (``the 
Commission'') the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail 
if the finding is revoked.
    As discussed more fully in the ``Department's Position'' contained 
in the ``Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping'' section of this 
notice, given that dumping has continued over the life of the finding, 
consistent with Section II.A.3. of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
Department determines that dumping is likely to continue if the finding 
were revoked. Further, on the bases discussed more fully in the 
``Department's Position'' contained in the ``Magnitude of the Margin'' 
section of this notice, we determine that the original margins 
calculated by the

[[Page 63028]]

Department are probative of the behavior of the Japanese manufacturers 
and exporters of roller chain and we will report to the Commission the 
company-specific and ``all others'' margins contained in the Appendix 
to this notice.
    Below, we address the issues raised in this sunset review.

Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping

Interested Party Comments
    In its substantive response, ACA argues that the actions taken by 
producers and exporters of Japanese roller chain during the life of the 
finding indicate that ``dumping would persist, and indeed grow worse, 
were the finding revoked.'' (See August 5, 1998, Substantive Response 
of ACA.) With respect to whether dumping continued at any level above 
de minimis after the issuance of the finding, ACA asserts that, as 
documented in the final results of reviews reached by the Department, 
dumping levels have increased during the life of the finding, with 
company-specific margins ranging up to 43.29 percent.
    With respect to whether imports of the subject merchandise ceased 
after the issuance of the finding, ACA observes that the number of 
firms exporting roller chain to the United States has declined 
dramatically in recent years, noting that the first administrative 
review conducted by the Department covered 110 entities, while the more 
recent reviews cover only a handful of firms. While recognizing that 
the Department's figures appear to understate the true volume of the 
imported subject merchandise, ACA notes that information available on 
the Department's web site demonstrates that imports of covered chain in 
1997 surged to the highest level in at least five years.
    In conclusion, ACA argues that the Department should determine that 
there is a likelihood that dumping would continue were the finding 
revoked because (1) dumping margins have been significant and have 
increased over the life of the finding, and (2) certain companies have 
ceased exporting altogether.
    In its substantive response, Daido states that the revocation of 
the dumping finding would likely result in (1) no significant change in 
Japanese roller chain import volumes, (2) no significant change in 
Japanese roller chain prices, and (3) no adverse impact on U.S. roller 
chain manufacturers. (See August 5, 1998, Substantive Response of 
Daido.) In its submission, Daido does not address the fact that dumping 
margins above de minimis continue to exist. Commenting on the question 
of import volumes, Daido states that Japanese chain (including both 
subject and non-subject merchandise) import volumes increased from 
20,215,319 pounds in 1973 to a high point of 38,317,728 pounds in 1985 
and have since moved erratically to 24,459,000 pounds in 1997. 
Additionally, in its August 5, 1998, rebuttal comments, Daido states 
that import values are significantly affected by exchange rate 
fluctuations and the use of value figures is likely to produce mistaken 
conclusions. In its substantive response, Daido did not address the 
issue of whether dumping is likely to continue.
Department's Position
    Drawing on the guidance provided in the legislative history 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), specifically 
the Statement of Administrative Action (``the SAA''), H.R. Doc., No. 
103-316, vol. 1 (1994), the House Report, H.R. Rep. No. 103-826, pt.1 
(1994), and the Senate Report, S. Rep. No. 103-412 (1994), the 
Department issued its Sunset Policy Bulletin providing guidance on 
methodological and analytical issues, including the basis for 
likelihood determinations. The Department clarified that determinations 
of likelihood will be made on an order-wide basis (see section II.A.3. 
of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). Additionally, the Department normally 
will determine that revocation of an antidumping order is likely to 
lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping where (a) dumping 
continued at any level above de minimis after the issuance of the 
order, (b) imports of the subject merchandise ceased after the issuance 
of the order, or (c) dumping was eliminated after the issuance of the 
order and import volumes for the subject merchandise declined 
significantly (see section II.A.3. of the Sunset Policy Bulletin).
    The antidumping finding on roller chain, other than bicycle, from 
Japan was published in the Federal Register as Treasury Decision 73-100 
(38 FR 9226, April 12, 1973). Since that time, the Department has 
conducted numerous administrative reviews. On August 14, 1989, and 
April 23, 1991, the Department revoked the finding with respect to 
imports from Tsubakimoto Chain Company and Honda Motor Company 
effective October 1982 and September 1983, respectively (54 FR 33259 
and 56 FR 18564). The finding remains in effect for all other imports 
of roller chain from Japan.
    We find that the existence of dumping margins after the issuance of 
the finding is highly probative of the likelihood of continuation or 
dumping. Deposit rates above de minimis levels continue in effect for 
exports by several Japanese manufacturers and exporters of roller chain 
(for example, Daido Kogyo; Enuma; Hitachi; Izumi Chain Manufacturing 
Co; Pulton Chain Company, Inc.; Sugiyama Chain Company, Ltd; and Toyota 
Motor Company). As discussed in Section II.A.3. of the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin and the SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, ``[i]f 
companies continue dumping with the discipline of an order in place, it 
is reasonable to assume that dumping would continue if the discipline 
were removed.'' Therefore, absent argument and evidence to the contrary 
and, given that dumping has continued over the life of the finding, the 
Department determines that dumping is likely to continue if the finding 
were revoked.

Magnitude of the Margin

Interested Party Comments:
    In its substantive response, Daido recommends that the Department 
select the dumping margins reported by Customs in the administrative 
reviews conducted immediately after the publication of the dumping 
finding. Specifically, Daido suggests that the Department adopt the 
Customs determinations that sales by Enuma and Daido Kogyo had not been 
made at less than fair value for a period of two years since the 
dumping finding. Indeed, noting that ``it appears'' that certain 
companies ``are not selling roller chain, other than bicycle, from 
Japan at less than fair value,'' in 1977 and 1978, Treasury published 
three Federal Register notices of tentative determinations to modify or 
revoke the finding of dumping on roller chain from Japan with respect 
to merchandise sold by Honda Motor Company, Ltd. and Toyota Motor Sales 
Co., Ltd. and merchandise produced and sold by Enuma and Daido Kogyo 
(see 42 FR 41517 (August 17, 1977), 42 FR 54043 (October 4, 1977), and 
43 FR 30635 (July 17, 1978)). ACA objected to the use of those margins, 
stating that so much time has elapsed that those margins are no longer 
probative and that use of such margins ignores the fact that dumping 
margins have increased over the life of the finding (see August 10, 
1998, Rebuttal Comments of ACA).
    Daido suggests that, alternatively, consistent with the Sunset 
Policy Bulletin, the Department should select the margins from the 
first administrative review conducted by the Department, which 
generally covers the period April

[[Page 63029]]

1, 1979 through March 31, 1980. Daido states that the dumping margin 
for Daido Kogyo and Enuma for that period is 1.18 percent (see 46 FR 
44488 (September 4, 1981)).
    ACA argues in both its substantive response and rebuttal comments 
that margins from 1981 are no longer probative as to the level of 
dumping that would likely occur should the finding be revoked. ACA 
proposes that, for each company which is currently being reviewed or 
which has been reviewed within the past five years, the Department 
should report to the Commission the highest margin determined or 
applied as the margin likely to prevail in the event of revocation. 
Additionally, for companies not currently being reviewed, or not 
reviewed within the past five years, ACA suggests that the Department 
select the highest ``all others'' rate from the past five years. To 
support its position, ACA contends that it is reasonable to expect that 
a company that is dumping with the restraining influence of an 
antidumping finding in place would continue to dump if the finding were 
revoked at a level at least as high as the highest recent level. 
Further, ACA argues that the use of a more recently calculated margin 
provides a better indication of the likely conduct of producers and/or 
exporters than 25-year, or even 18-year old conduct. Finally, ACA 
suggests that employing margins calculated in the most recent five 
years would be consistent with standard five-year reviews to be 
conducted by the Department.
    Daido objects to the use of the highest dumping margins from the 
past 25 years, arguing that, in a case with such a long history as 
this, the best basis for predicting future conduct is past conduct--
excluding aberrational margins found to exist over the many years. 
Daido argues that aberrational margins result from a number of factors 
besides a willful intent to dump, e.g., exchange rate fluctuations and 
clerical errors in reporting data. Daido urges the Department to 
select, as the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail, a zero or de 
minimis margin for Daido Kogyo and Enuma because these companies 
demonstrated a consistent pattern of zero or de minimis margins.
Department's Position
    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that, in a 
sunset review of an antidumping finding for which no company-specific 
margin or all others rate is included in the Treasury finding published 
in the Federal Register, the Department normally will provide to the 
Commission the company-specific margin from the first final results of 
administrative review published in the Federal Register by the 
Department. Additionally, if the first final results do not contain a 
margin for a particular company, the Department normally will provide 
the Commission, as the margin for that company, the first ``new 
shipper'' rate established by the Department for that finding. (See 
section II.B.1. of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.) Exceptions to this 
policy include the use of a more recently calculated margin, where 
appropriate, and consideration of duty absorption determinations. (See 
sections II.B.2 and 3. of the Sunset Policy Bulletin).
    Because Treasury did not publish weighted-average dumping margins 
in its finding, and such margins are not otherwise publicly available, 
the margins determined in the original investigation are not available 
to the Department for use in this sunset review. Under these 
circumstances, the Department normally will select the margin from the 
first administrative review conducted by the Department as the 
magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail if the finding is 
revoked. We note that, to date, the Department has not issued any duty 
absorption findings in this case.
    ACA argues that the Department should abandon its policy of 
selecting the margins from the first administrative review conducted by 
Commerce and, instead, should select the highest margins from the 
recent administrative reviews. In the Sunset Policy Bulletin the 
Department stated that ``a company may choose to increase dumping in 
order to maintain or increase market share'' and that ``the Department 
may, in response to argument from an interested party, provide to the 
Commission a more recently calculated margin for a particular company, 
where, for that particular company, dumping margins increased after the 
issuance of the order.'' (See section II.B.2. of the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin.) The Department's intent was to establish a policy of using 
the original investigation margin as a starting point, thus providing 
interested parties the opportunity and incentive to come forward with 
data which would support a different estimate. ACA, however, merely 
asserts that it is reasonable to expect that a company dumping with the 
restraining influence of an antidumping finding in place would continue 
dumping if the finding were revoked at a level at least as high as the 
highest recent level. Additionally, ACA suggests that the current 
economic crisis in Asia generally, and in Japan in particular, as well 
as the resulting increase in Japanese exports and the attendant surge 
in Japanese imports (including the 1997 surge in covered roller chain 
imports reflected on the Department's web site), provide further 
support for concluding that dumping is likely to continue if the 
finding were revoked. ACA did not, however, present arguments with 
respect to changes in margin levels as related to market share. In 
fact, using the volume and value of Daido Tsusho's exports of subject 
merchandise for five calendar years beginning with 1993, provided in 
Daido's substantive response, we find that, although increasing on a 
value basis over the five years, Daido's exports, on a volume basis, 
actually decreased. This information does not present the Department 
with a picture of the relative market share held by Daido over this 
period. Given the information available to the Department, it is not 
possible to discern whether Daido's recent margins reflect an effort to 
obtain or increase market share.
    With respect to Daido's suggestion that the Department select rates 
established in administrative reviews conducted by Customs, we do not 
agree with ACA that margins dating back to 1977 and 1978 are no longer 
probative because so much time has elapsed. We do agree, however, that 
tentative determinations by Treasury are not an appropriate source of 
margins for the purpose of sunset reviews, because they were never 
finalized and, in fact, when considered by the Department, were 
determined no longer applicable.
    Our review of the margin history over the life of this finding 
demonstrates that, for the most part, margins remained relatively 
constant. Although we recognize that there have been fluctuations, we 
do not view them as demonstrating a consistent pattern of behavior. 
Therefore, we determine that the original margins calculated by the 
Department are probative of the behavior of the Japanese manufacturers 
and exporters of roller chain.

Adequacy

Interested Party Comments
    On September 14, 1998, Daido submitted comments arguing that ACA's 
response to the notice of initiation was inadequate and, thus, the 
Department should conduct a 90-day sunset review and revoke the 
antidumping finding. Daido argued that ACA does not qualify as an 
interested party because four members of ACA that are U.S. 
manufacturers of roller chain are also importers of roller chain from 
Japan. On September 17, 1998, we received

[[Page 63030]]

unsolicited rebuttal comments on behalf of ACA. On October 5, 1998, 
Daido argued that ACA's September 17 letter should be disregarded and 
removed from the record because it constituted an unauthorized and 
unsolicited written argument.
Department's Position
    In an expedited review, the Sunset Regulations provide only for 
comments on the appropriateness of the Department's determination to 
conduct an expedited review based on inadequate response from 
respondent interested parties. See section 351.309(e)(i) of the Sunset 
Regulations, referencing sections 351.218(e)(1)(ii) (B) and (C) 
(inadequate response from a foreign government or respondent interested 
parties, respectively). Daido's and ACA's comments do not address this 
issue. Section 351.218(d)(4) of the Sunset Regulations explicitly 
provides that, in an expedited review, the Department normally will not 
consider any additional information from a party after the time for 
filing rebuttals to substantive responses has expired. Since both 
parties submitted these comments after the deadline had expired, and 
did not request any extension of submission deadlines, we find these 
comments to be untimely and have not considered Daido's September 14, 
1998, and October 5, 1998 submissions, or ACA's September 17, 1998, in 
making our final determination. We note that the parties could have 
submitted comments addressing the adequacy of response by domestic 
interested parties in either the substantive responses that were due on 
August 5, 1998, or August 10, 1998.
    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's regulations. 
Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or 
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to 
comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable 
violation.
    This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance 
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: November 3, 1998.
Holly Kuga,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Manufacturer/Exporter                  Margin  (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A & K Co...................................  1.84
Ajia Kikei Boeki...........................  1.84
APC Corp...................................  0
Asia Machinery.............................  2.00
Auto Dynamics..............................  5.36
C. Itoh....................................  0
Central Automotive.........................  2.00
Cherry Industrial..........................  20.00
Daido Enterprising.........................  2.00
Daido Kogyo Co., Ltd.......................  1.18
Daido Sangyo...............................  5.36
Deer Island................................  43.29
Detroit Industries.........................  5.36
Empire Motor...............................  5.36
Enuma Chain Manufacturing Co...............  1.18
Enuma Chain/Daido..........................  15.92
Enuma Chain/Meisi..........................  15.92
Fee International..........................  1.84
Fuji Lumber................................  0
Fuji Motors (Zenoah).......................  5.36
Fuji Seiko.................................  43.29
Fukoku.....................................  5.36
Hajime.....................................  5.36
Harima Enterprise..........................  0
Henry Abe..................................  5.36
HIC Trading Co., Ltd.......................  0
Hiro Enterprises...........................  0
Hitachi Metals/Hitachi Intl................  2.76
Hitachi Metals/All Other Importers.........  1.84
HKS Japan..................................  20.00
Hodaka Kogyosho............................  5.36
Honda Motor................................  Revoked
I & OC.....................................  5.36
Iketoku....................................  5.36
Izumi Chain Mfg. Co., Ltd..................  6.93
Jeico......................................  0
Kaga Kogyo (Kaga Industries Co., Ltd.).....  0
Kaga/APC...................................  0
Kaga Koken/TK Products.....................  1.00
Karl Mayer Textile.........................  0
Kashima Trading............................  43.29
Katayama Chain Co., Ltd....................  43.29
Kawasaki...................................  1.00
Kokusai....................................  5.36
Marubeni...................................  0
Maruka Machinery...........................  5.36
MC Intl....................................  5.36
Meiho Yoko.................................  43.29
Meisei Trading.............................  1.18
Miewa Trading..............................  3.00
Mitsui.....................................  13.40
Mitsubishi.................................  5.36
Mitsubishi Boeki...........................  34.80
Mitsubishi Motors..........................  5.36
Myasaki Shokai.............................  5.36
Naniwa Kogyo...............................  43.29
Nankai Buhin...............................  5.36
Nickel & Lyons.............................  5.36
Nippo Buhin................................  5.36
Nissan Motor...............................  0
Nissei Company.............................  12.80
Nissho Iwai................................  0
Nomura Shoji...............................  5.36
Oriental Chain.............................  0
Osaka Buhin................................  5.36
Pulton Chain...............................  0
Pulton/HIC Trading.........................  0
Pulton/I&OC................................  0
Refac Intl.................................  5.36
Rocky Asia.................................  6.93
Royal Industires...........................  2.00
Ryobi Ltd..................................  2.00
Sanko Co...................................  9.37
Schneider Engineering......................  2.00
Shima Trading..............................  6.99
Shinyei Kaisha.............................  5.36
Shinyo Ind.................................  43.29
Sugiyama/Fuji Lumber.......................  0
Sugiyama/Harima Enterprise.................  0
Sugiyama/HKK...............................  15
Sugiyama/I & OC............................  0
Sugiyama/All Others........................  0
Sumitomo Shoji Kaisha......................  5.36
Suzuki Motor...............................  0
Tabard.....................................  43.29
Taikyo Sangyo..............................  0
Taiyo Shokai...............................  43.29
Takara Auto Parts..........................  29.52
Takasago (currently RK Excel)..............  5.36
Tanaka Kogyo...............................  5.36
Tashiro....................................  5.36
Tatsumiya Kogyo............................  2.00
TEC Engineering............................  5.36
Teijin Shojhi Kaisha Ltd...................  5.36
TK Products................................  1.00
Tokyo Enterprise...........................  5.36
Tokyo Incentive............................  5.36
Tokyo Ryuki Seizo..........................  0
Tosho......................................  5.36
Toyo Kogyo Mazda...........................  0
Toyo Menka Kaisha..........................  5.36
Toyota Motor Sales.........................  43.29
Tsubakimoto Chain..........................  Revoked
Tsujimoto Shokai...........................  5.36
United Trading Co..........................  5.36
Universal Trading..........................  5.36
Y-K Brothers Shokai........................  5.36
Yamaha Motor...............................  2.00
Yamakyu Chain..............................  9.37
Yoshida Auto...............................  43.29
Yoshimura..................................  5.36
Zushi Industries...........................  5.36
All Other Firms............................  15.92
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 98-30142 Filed 11-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P