[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