[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 213 (Thursday, November 4, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60266-60269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-28767]



[[Page 60265]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Commerce





_______________________________________________________________________



International Trade Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Bearings; Notices

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 1999 / 
Notices  

[[Page 60266]]



DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-588-604]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Over Four Inches, and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 
From Japan

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

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Tapered 
Roller Bearings, Over Four Inches, and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, from Japan.

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

SUMMARY: On April 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping order on 
tapered roller bearings from Japan (64 FR 15727) 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 and adequate substantive 
comments filed on behalf of domestic interested parties and inadequate 
response (in this case, a waiver) from respondent interested parties, 
the Department determined to conduct an expedited review. As a result 
of this review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping 
order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping 
at the levels indicated in the Final Results of Review section of this 
notice.

For Further Information Contact: Darla D. Brown or Melissa G. Skinner, 
Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3207 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

Effective Date: November 4, 1999.

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'') and 19 CFR 351 (1998) in 
general. 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 order is tapered roller 
bearings (``TRBs'') and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, which 
are 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. Products subject to the finding on TRBs, four 
inches or less in outside diameter (A-588-054) are not included in the 
scope of this order, except for those manufactured by NTN Corporation. 
The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under HTS items 
8482.20.20, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.30, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.90.20, 
8483.90.30, 8483.90.60, and 8484.30.80. While the HTS item numbers are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description 
remains dispositive.
    The Department has made two scope rulings with respect to the 
order. In the first ruling, the Department ruled that green rings which 
had not been heat-treated are within the scope of the 
order.1 The Department also ruled that Koyo's rough 
forgings, including hot forgings, cold forgings, and tower forgings are 
within the scope of the order.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See unpublished scope ruling dated May 16, 1989.
    \2\ See Final Affirmative Determination in Scope Inquiry on 
Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof 
from Japan, 60 FR 6519 (February 2, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

History of the Order

    On August 17, 1987, the Department published its final 
determination of sales at less than fair value (``LTFV'') with respect 
to TRBs from Japan (52 FR 30700). The Department published the 
antidumping duty order on October 6, 1987 (52 FR 37352).
    Over the life of the order, the Department has conducted several 
administrative reviews.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Tapered Roller Bearings, Finished and Unfinished, and 
Parts Thereof, from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 56 FR 41508 (August 21, 1991); Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Finished and Unfinished, and Parts Thereof, from Japan; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 4951 
(February 11, 1992); Tapered Roller Bearings, and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 4960 (February 11, 1992); as 
amended, Tapered Roller Bearings, and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, from Japan; Amendment to Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 9104 (March 16, 1992); Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews; Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and 
Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 
and Components Thereof, from Japan, 58 FR 64720 (December 9, 1993); 
as amended, Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, from Japan and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan, 59 FR 
2594 (January 18, 1994); Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished or Unfinished, from Japan; Affirmation of the Results of 
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, 59 FR 23828 (May 9, 1994); 
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 
from Japan and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in 
Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation 
Unfinished, from Japan in Part of an Antidumping Finding, 61 FR 
57629 (November 7, 1996); Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, 
Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, 
from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews 
and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 (March 13, 1997); Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, and 
Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 
and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 2558 (January 15, 1998); as 
amended, Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; 
Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 
FR 13391 (March 19, 1998); Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan, and 
Tapered Roller Bearings, Finished and Unfinished, and Parts Thereof, 
from Japan: Final Court Decisions and Amended Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 17815 (April 10, 
1998); Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination 
in Part, 63 FR 20585 (April 27, 1998); Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered 
Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and 
Components Thereof, from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 63860 (November 17, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This sunset review covers imports from all known Japanese 
producers/exporters.
    The Department made a duty absorption finding in the final results 
of the 1995-96 administrative review.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 2558 
(January 15, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On April 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the 
antidumping order on TRBs from Japan (64 FR 15727), pursuant to section 
751(c) of the Act. The Department received notices of intent to 
participate on behalf of the Timken Company (``Timken'') and the 
Torrington

[[Page 60267]]

Company (``Torrington''), American NTN Bearing Manufacturing 
Corporation (``ANBM'') and the NTN Bower Corporation, and Koyo 
Corporation of the U.S.A.--Manufacturing Division (``KCUM'') on April 
16, 1999, within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of 
the Sunset Regulations. We received complete substantive responses on 
behalf of Timken and Torrington, ANBM and NTN Bower, and KCUM on May 3, 
1999, within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations 
under section 351.218(d)(3)(i).
    Timken and Torrington claimed interested party status under 19 
U.S.C. 1677(9)(C) as U.S. manufacturers of TRBs. Timken stated that it 
filed the original petition that led to the antidumping order. In 
addition, Timken stated that it has participated in all administrative 
reviews of the order. Torrington, however, stated that it did not 
participate in the original investigation nor any of the administrative 
reviews. ANBM and NTN Bower also claimed interested party status under 
19 U.S.C. 1677(9)(C) as U.S. manufacturers of a domestic like product. 
Additionally, ANBM and NTN Bower stated that they are related to a 
foreign producer/exporter and are importers of subject merchandise. 
ANBM and/or NTN Bower state that they have participated in every 
administrative review of the order, with the exception of the 1994-95 
annual review. KCUM also claimed interested party status under 19 
U.S.C. 1677(9)(C) as a U.S. manufacturer of a domestic like product. 
KCUM stated that it is a division of Koyo Corporation of U.S.A., a 
wholly-owned subsidiary of Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd., a producer in Japan of 
subject merchandise and an importer of subject merchandise. Moreover, 
KCUM stated that it has participated in all administrative reviews 
conducted by the Department.
    On May 3, 1999, the Department received a waiver from Koyo Seiko 
Corp., Ltd. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), the 
Department determined to conduct an expedited, 120-day, review of this 
order.
    On May 12, 1999, the Department received rebuttal comments from 
ANBM and NTN Bower and Timken and Torrington.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ On May 6, 1999, the Department received and granted a 
request from Timken and Torrington for a two working-day extension 
of the deadline for filing rebuttal comments in this sunset review. 
This extension was granted for all participants eligible to file 
rebuttal comments in this review. The deadline for filing rebuttals 
to the substantive comments therefore became May 12, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the 
Department may treat a review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a 
review of a transition order (i.e., an order in effect on January 1, 
1995). On August 5, 1999, the Department determined that the sunset 
review of the antidumping duty order on TRBs from Japan is 
extraordinarily complicated, and extended the time limit for completion 
of the final results of this review until not later than October 28, 
1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Tapered Roller Bearings, 4 Inches and Under From Japan, 
et al.; Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year 
Reviews, 64 FR 42672 (August 5, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination

    In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department 
conducted this review to determine whether revocation of the 
antidumping order would be likely to lead to 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 order, and 
shall provide to the International Trade Commission (``the 
Commission'') the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail 
if the order is revoked.
    The Department's determinations concerning continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin are discussed 
below. In addition, interested parties' comments with respect to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin 
are addressed within the respective sections below.

Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping

    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 bases for 
likelihood determinations. In its Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
Department indicated that determinations of likelihood will be made on 
an order-wide basis (see section II.A.3). In addition, the Department 
indicated that normally it 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).
    In addition to considering the guidance on likelihood cited above, 
section 751(c)(4)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine that revocation of an order is likely to lead to continuation 
or recurrence of dumping where a respondent interested party waives its 
participation in the sunset review. In this instant review, the 
Department received a waiver from Koyo and did not receive a 
substantive response from any other respondent interested party. 
Pursuant to section 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Sunset Regulations, this 
constitutes a waiver of participation.
    In their substantive response, Timken and Torrington argue that 
revocation of the order on TRBs from Japan would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping due, in part, to the fact that 
there has been continuous dumping of subject TRBs for more than twelve 
years (see May 3, 1999, substantive response of Timken and Torrington 
at 8). Timken and Torrington further argue that the Asian financial and 
economic crisis has had the effect of limiting the market for TRBs in 
Japan and the rest of Asia, leaving Japanese TRB producers with excess 
capacity and the need to export more than they have in the past, 
specifically to non-Asian countries. Timken and Torrington maintain 
that the result of the Asian crisis has been a forty percent increase 
of exports of TRBs to the U.S. from 1997 to 1998 (see id. at 12). 
Moreover, Timken and Torrington argue that Japanese selling patterns in 
such non-Asian countries as Canada and Mexico indicate that absent the 
order, Japanese producers would increase exports to the U.S. by 
lowering prices. Timken and Torrington conclude that since the Japanese 
are presently selling in the U.S. at LTFV, even lower prices would mean 
greater levels of dumping (see id. at 13). In sum, Timken and 
Torrington argue that the consistent history of dumping with the 
discipline of the order in place, together with the impact of the Asian 
crisis and Japanese sales activity in other countries demonstrate

[[Page 60268]]

that dumping would continue or recur if the order were revoked.
    In their substantive response, ANBM and NTN Bower (collectively, 
``NTN'') argue that revocation of the order would have minimal, or no, 
impact upon the U.S. market for the following reasons. First, they 
maintain that producers in Japan have invested in production facilities 
in the U.S. since the imposition of the order, thereby decreasing the 
need to import subject merchandise from Japan. They further claim that 
imports from non-subject countries will continue to increase, therefore 
reducing the competitive threat from the subject country to the U.S. 
market. Finally, they argue that the U.S. bearing industry is 
financially secure (see May 3, 1999, substantive response of NTN at 3).
    KCUM, in its substantive response, argues that revocation of the 
antidumping order would not have much of an effect on the U.S. market, 
prices, or the industry for two reasons. First, KCUM maintains that the 
U.S. market and the role of imports in the market have changed 
substantially over the past twenty years, and foreign producers whose 
imports have been subject to the order have moved substantial 
production facilities to the U.S. Therefore, KCUM argues, if the order 
is revoked, KCUM will continue to produce significant quantities of 
bearings in the U.S. because companies would not abandon their U.S. 
production facilities solely in response to the revocation of the 
order. Second, KCUM argues that foreign producers subject to the order 
have much smaller market shares with limited ability to influence 
prices in the market. The conclusion KCUM draws is that the TRB market 
in the U.S. is subject to conditions that affect prices to which the 
existence or revocation of the antidumping order is irrelevant (see May 
3, 1999, substantive response of KCUM at 4-5).
    In their rebuttal comments, Timken and Torrington maintain that the 
existence of manufacturing facilities in the U.S. is not relevant to 
the likelihood determination because despite the fact that such 
facilities have been in operation for many years, dumping of subject 
merchandise from Japan in substantial amounts has continued for many 
years (see May 12, 1999, rebuttal of Timken and Torrington at 3-4). 
Timken and Torrington further argue that any significant effect that 
onshore production was going to have on dumped imports would have 
demonstrated itself by now (see id. at 5). Moreover, Timken and 
Torrington rebut NTN's assertion that revocation will not have any 
effect because non-subject imports of TRBs will increase. Timken and 
Torrington argue that there is no evidence that, should the order be 
revoked, NTN or any other Japanese producer would raise its import 
prices. Timken and Torrington maintain that since Japanese producers 
currently sell at LTFV prices or lower, there is little likelihood that 
foreign producers of non-subject merchandise would be able to increase 
their market share (see id. at 5). Finally, Timken and Torrington rebut 
KCUM's argument that the U.S. market and the role of imports in the 
market have changed substantially over the past twenty years. Timken 
and Torrington maintain that since KCUM does not affirm that market 
conditions will change in any significant way, on the surface, KCUM's 
assertion supports the proposition that dumping will continue if the 
order were revoked because dumping occurs at present (see id. at 4-5).
    NTN, in its rebuttal, argues that Timken and Torrington rely 
heavily on the assumption that the Asian economic situation will 
continue as it has for the foreseeable future. NTN, however, states 
that more recent economic trends indicate that the Japanese, and Asian, 
economies are on the verge of recovery (see May 12, 1999, rebuttal of 
NTN at 2). Finally, NTN maintains that Timken and Torrington also 
heavily rely on the duty absorption rates in arguing likely dumping 
levels. However, NTN points out that the rates cited by Timken and 
Torrington, as well as the order of duty absorption itself, are the 
subject of litigation before the Court of International Trade (see id. 
at 2).
    The Department agrees, based on an examination of the final results 
of administrative reviews, that dumping margins above de minimis levels 
have continued throughout the life of the order for at least one 
Japanese producer/exporter.7 As discussed in section II.A.3 
of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the SAA at 890, and the House Report at 
63-64, if companies continue dumping with the discipline of an order in 
place, the Department may reasonably infer that dumping would continue 
if the discipline were removed. The Department also agrees that imports 
of the subject merchandise have continued throughout the life of the 
order. Since the imposition of the order, imports of TRBs from Japan 
have fluctuated greatly, showing no overall trend.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See footnote 3.
    \8\ The Department bases this determination on information 
submitted by Timken and Torrington in its May 3, 1999, submission, 
as well as U.S. IM146 Reports, U.S. Department of Commerce 
statistics, U.S. Department of Treasury statistics, and information 
obtained from the U.S. International Trade Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this analysis, the Department finds that the existence of 
dumping margins after the issuance of the order is highly probative of 
the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping. A deposit rate 
above a de minimis level continues in effect for exports of the subject 
merchandise for at least one known Japan producer/exporter. Therefore, 
given that dumping has continued over the life of the order and 
respondent interested parties waived their right to participate in this 
review before the Department, we determine that dumping is likely to 
continue or recur if the order were revoked. Whatever relevance the 
arguments of those parties in support of revocation might have had 
concerning possible disincentives for producers and/or exporters to 
dump in the U.S. market, those arguments are mooted by the evidence 
that dumping continues and has continued over the life of the order.

Magnitude of the Margin

    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that it will 
normally provide to the Commission the margin that was determined in 
the final determination in the original investigation. Further, for 
companies not specifically investigated or for companies that did not 
begin shipping until after the order was issued, the Department 
normally will provide a margin based on the ``all others'' rate from 
the investigation. (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.)
    In their substantive response, Timken and Torrington suggest that 
the Department deviate from its general practice of selecting the 
margins from the original investigation due to the fact that two major 
Japanese producers were found to be absorbing duties (see May 3, 1999, 
substantive response of Timken and Torrington at 18). Timken and 
Torrington also point out that where the Department has found duty 
absorption, for companies that were absorbing duties, it will report 
the greater of the margin it would normally report or the most recent 
margin for that company adjusted to account for the Department's 
findings on duty absorption (see id. at 16 and Sunset Policy Bulletin). 
In sum, Timken and Torrington recommend that

[[Page 60269]]

if the Department conducts an expedited review, it should rely on the 
evidence from the 1995-96 administrative review and forward the 
margins, as adjusted for duty absorption, for the companies from this 
review (see id. at 17).
    NTN, in its substantive response, maintains that the dumping margin 
likely to prevail if the order were revoked is 0.00 percent. However, 
NTN alternatively requests that the Department employ margins that were 
determined during one of the more recent administrative reviews of the 
subject merchandise (see May 3, 1999, substantive response of NTN at 3-
4).
    In its substantive response, KCUM states that it cannot predict the 
likely effect of revocation of the order since the existence of the 
order does not have much of an effect on the prices at which bearings 
are sold in the United States, and, hence, on the margins generated on 
those sales (see May 3, 1999, substantive response of KCUM at 5). 
Moreover, KCUM argues that fluctuations in the exchange rate between 
the dollar and the Japanese yen have a significant impact on dumping 
margins (see id. at 6). They argue that the results of past 
administrative reviews reveal that antidumping margins tend to increase 
in periods in which the yen appreciates against the dollar and vice 
versa. As a result, KCUM argues, the margins that would prevail if the 
order were revoked cannot be determined because they are dependent on 
an entirely exogenous factor (see id. at 6). In any case, KCUM 
strenuously objects to the use of the margins calculated in the LTFV 
determination, arguing that the order is hopelessly obsolete and cannot 
serve as a realistic indicator of the market and pricing conditions 
that would exist today if the order were revoked (see id. at 6). 
Therefore, KCUM concludes that the Department should use the results of 
more recent administrative reviews when determining the margins that 
would exist for Koyo (see id. at 7).
    As noted above, the Department determined in the final results of 
the 1995-96 administrative review that two Japanese producers/
exporters, Koyo Seiko and NSK, were absorbing duties.9 
Consistent with the statute and the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
Department will notify the Commission of its findings regarding duty 
absorption when conducting a sunset review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 2558 
(January 15, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Sunset Policy Bulletin refers to the SAA at 885 
and the House Report at 60, and provides that where the Department has 
found duty absorption, the Department normally will report to the 
Commission the higher of the margin that the Department otherwise would 
have reported or the most recent margin for that company, adjusted to 
account for the Department's findings on duty absorption.
    In this case, the margins adjusted to account for the Department's 
duty absorption findings are less than the margins we would otherwise 
report to the Commission. As such, the Department will report to the 
Commission the company-specific and ``all others'' rates from the 
original investigation as contained in the Final Results of Review 
section of this notice.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of 
the antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/ Exporter                     (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd........................................        70.44
NTN Toyo Bearing Co., Ltd..................................        47.05
All Others.................................................        47.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: October 28, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-28767 Filed 11-3-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P