[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 213 (Thursday, November 4, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60317-60321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-28778]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-588-054]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less, from Japan

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: Tapered 
roller bearings, four inches or less, from Japan.

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

SUMMARY: On April 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping finding 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 
finding 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 Part 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 finding is tapered 
roller bearings (``TRBs''), four inches or less in outside diameter 
when assembled, including inner race or cone assemblies and outer races 
or cups, sold either as a unit or separately, from Japan. The scope of 
the finding was clarified in 1981. At that time, the Department ruled 
that TRBs that are greater than four inches in outer diameter were 
outside the scope. Moreover, the Department found that unfinished TRB 
components (cups, cones, and retainers) that had been forged and rough 
machined but not finished were outside the scope.1 The 
subject merchandise is currently classifiable under HTS items 
8482.20.00 and 8482.99.30. While the HTS item numbers are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description remains 
dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Certain Components Thereof 
from Japan; Clarification of Scope of Antidumping Finding, 46 FR 
40350 (August 10, 1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

History of the Finding

    On September 6, 1974, the Treasury Department (``Treasury'') 
published its antidumping determination of sales at less than fair 
value (``LTFV'') (39 FR 32337). On August 18, 1976, Treasury published 
its Final Affirmative Antidumping Duty Determination, T.D. 76-227 (41 
FR 34974). Treasury did not publish any dumping margins in its original 
finding.
    Over the life of the finding, the Department has conducted several 
administrative reviews.2 This sunset

[[Page 60318]]

review covers imports from all known Japanese producers/exporters, 
except NTN Toyo Bearing Company, Ltd. and NTN Bearing Corporation of 
America, for which the finding was revoked.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Certain Components Thereof 
from Japan; Final Results of Administrative Review and Revocation in 
Part of Antidumping Finding, 47 FR 25757 (June 15, 1982); Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Certain Components Thereof from Japan; Final 
Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding, 49 FR 8976 
(March 9, 1984); Tapered Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in 
Outside Diameter from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 55 FR 22369 (June 1, 1990); Tapered Roller 
Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter from Japan; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 38720 
(September 20, 1990); Tapered Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in 
Outside Diameter, and Certain Components Thereof, from Japan; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 26054 (June 
6, 1991); as amended, Tapered Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in 
Outside Diameter, and Certain Components Thereof, from Japan; 
Amendment to Final Results of Antidumping Finding Administrative 
Review, 56 FR 31113 (July 9, 1991); Tapered Roller Bearings Four 
Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Certain Components Thereof, 
from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
56 FR 65228 (December 16, 1991); Tapered Roller Bearings Four Inches 
or Less in Outside Diameter, and Certain Components Thereof, from 
Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 
FR 4975 (February 11, 1992); as amended, Tapered Roller Bearings 
Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Certain Components 
Thereof, from Japan; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 57 FR 9105 (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, Four Inches or 
Less in Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Final Results 
and Partial Termination of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
59 FR 56035 (November 10, 1994); Tapered Roller Bearings, Four 
Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from 
Japan; Affirmation of the Results of Redetermination Pursuant to 
Court Remand, 60 FR 3624 (January 18, 1995); as amended, Tapered 
Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less In Outside Diameter, and 
Components Thereof, from Japan; Amendment to Affirmation of the 
Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, 60 FR 45398 
(August 31, 1995); Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less In 
Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Amendment to 
the Final Results of Review, 60 FR 62386 (December 6, 1995); 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 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, 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); 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); Tapered Roller Bearings, 
Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, 
from Japan: Final Court Decisions and Amended Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 64 FR 15729 (April 1, 
1999).
    \3\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Certain Components Thereof 
from Japan; Final Results of Administrative Review and Revocation in 
Part of Antidumping Finding, 47 FR 25757 (June 15, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 finding on TRBs, four inches and under, 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 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, 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 finding. In 
addition, Timken stated that it has participated in all administrative 
reviews of the finding. 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. 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 participated in all administrative reviews 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 
finding.
    On May 12, 1999, the Department received rebuttal comments from 
ANBM and NTN Bower and Timken.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ On May 6, 1999, the Department received and granted a 
request from Timken 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 finding on TRBs, four inches and under, 
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 finding 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 
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.
    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.

[[Page 60319]]

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 a 
antidumping finding 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 finding, (b) imports of the subject merchandise 
ceased after the issuance of the finding, or (c) dumping was eliminated 
after the issuance of the finding 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 a finding 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 of participation 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 its substantive response, Timken argues that revocation of the 
finding on TRBs from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping due to the fact that there has been continuous 
dumping for more than twenty-five years of significant import volumes 
of subject TRBs and Japanese producers have continued to export 
significant quantities of subject merchandise to the United States (see 
May 3, 1999, substantive response of Timken at 7). Timken further 
argues that the Asian financial 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. Timken maintains that the result has been a forty 
percent increase of exports of TRBs to the U.S. from 1997 to 1998 (see 
id. at 10). Moreover, Timken argues that Japanese selling patterns in 
Canada and Mexico indicate that absent the finding, Japanese producers 
would increase exports to the U.S. by lowering prices. Timken concludes 
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 11). In 
sum, Timken argues that the consistent history of dumping with the 
discipline of the finding in place, together with the impact of the 
Asian financial crisis and Japanese sales behavior in other countries 
demonstrate that dumping would continue or recur if the finding were 
revoked.
    In their substantive response, ANBM and NTN Bower (collectively, 
``NTN'') argue that revocation of the finding would have a minimal, if 
any, impact upon the U.S. market for the following reasons. First, they 
maintain that producers in the subject country have invested in 
production facilities in the U.S. since the imposition of the finding, 
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 finding 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 finding have moved substantial 
production facilities to the U.S. Therefore, KCUM argues, if the 
finding is revoked, KCUM will continue to produce significant 
quantities of bearings in the U.S. Second, KCUM argues that foreign 
producers subject to the finding 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 
finding is irrelevant (see May 3, 1999, substantive response of KCUM at 
4-5).
    In its rebuttal comments, Timken states 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 (see May 12, 1999, rebuttal of 
Timken at 3-4). Timken further argues 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 rebuts 
NTN's assertion that revocation will not have an effect because non-
subject imports of TRBs will increase. Timken argues that there is no 
evidence that, should the finding be revoked, NTN or any other Japanese 
producer would raise its import prices. Timken maintains that since 
Japanese producers sell at current 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 5-6). Finally, 
Timken rebuts 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 maintains 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 
finding were revoked because dumping occurs at present (see id. at 4-
5).
    NTN, in its rebuttal, argues that Timken relies 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 in 
general, are on the verge of recovery (see May 12, 1999, rebuttal of 
NTN at 1-2). Finally, NTN maintains that Timken also heavily relies on 
the duty absorption rates in arguing likely dumping levels. However, 
NTN points out that the rates cited by Timken, as well as the finding 
of duty absorption itself, are the subject of litigation before the 
Court of International Trade (see id. at 1-2).
    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 finding for many Japanese 
producers/exporters.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 a finding in 
place, the Department may reasonably infer that dumping would continue 
if the

[[Page 60320]]

discipline were removed. The Department also agrees that following the 
imposition of the finding, imports of the subject merchandise have 
continued throughout the life. Since that time, imports of TRBs from 
Japan have fluctuated greatly, showing no overall trend.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See footnote 2.
    \8\ The Department bases this determination on information 
submitted by Timken 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 finding 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 
finding 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 finding 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 finding 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.) Further, the Sunset Policy Bulletin states that in a sunset 
review of an antidumping finding where the original investigation was 
conducted by Treasury and no company-specific margin or ``all others'' 
rate was included in the Treasury finding, the Department normally will 
provide to the Commission the company-specific margin from the first 
administrative review published by the Department in the Federal 
Register. For any company not covered in the first administrative 
review, the Department normally will provide to the Commission, as the 
margin for any new company not reviewed by Treasury, the first ``new 
shipper'' rate established by the Department for that order (see 
section II.B.1).
    As noted above, Treasury, in its original finding, did not publish 
any dumping margins. Therefore, consistent with section II.B.1 of the 
Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department normally will select the 
company-specific margins from the first final results of administrative 
review conducted by the Department as the magnitude of the margin of 
dumping likely to prevail if the finding is revoked. Exceptions to this 
rule include the use of a more recently calculated rate, where 
appropriate, and consideration of duty absorption findings.
    In its substantive response, Timken recommends that the Department 
report the following dumping margins to the Commission: 20.56 percent 
for Koyo Seiko, 17.42 percent for NSK, and the new shipper's rate of 
18.07 percent for all companies not reviewed in the first review period 
(see May 3, 1999, substantive response of Timken at 14). Moreover, 
Timken suggests 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 id. at 15-16). Timken also points out that in the Sunset 
Policy Bulletin the Department stated that where it has found company-
specific duty absorption, 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 15 and Sunset Policy Bulletin). In sum, Timken recommends 
that 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 16).
    NTN, in its substantive response, maintains that the dumping margin 
likely to prevail if the order is revoked would be 0.00 percent. 
However, NTN alternatively requests that the Department employ margins 
that were determined during the more recent administrative reviews of 
the subject merchandise (see May 3, 1999, substantive response of NTN 
at 3).
    In its substantive response, KCUM states that it cannot predict the 
likely effect of revocation of the finding since the existence of the 
finding 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 
finding 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 determined in the first 
administrative review conducted by the Department, arguing that the 
finding is hopelessly obsolete and cannot serve as a realistic 
indicator of the market and pricing conditions that would exist today 
if the finding 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).
    Because no information is available regarding the magnitude of the 
margins calculated by Treasury, the Department normally would find that 
the margins calculated in its first administrative review are probative 
of the behavior of exporters absent the discipline of the order. 
Although both NTN and KCUM suggest that margins from the more recent 
administrative reviews are more appropriate than margins from the first 
administrative review, they merely cite to the age of such margins. 
They do not demonstrate, based on a pattern of decreasing margins 
coupled with steady or increasing imports, that the more recent margins 
are probative of the behavior of exporters absent the discipline of the 
order. Therefore, the Department finds that the margins from the first 
administrative review are probative of the behavior of Japanese 
producers/exporters of subject merchandise absent the disciple of the 
order.
    As noted above, the Department determined in the final results of 
the 1995-96 administrative review that two Japanese producers/
exporters, Koyo

[[Page 60321]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 margins from the first administrative review 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..............................................        20.56
Nippon Seiko K.K. Ltd. (NSK)...............................        17.42
Auto Dynamics International of Japan.......................        18.07
Caterpillar Mitsubishi, Ltd................................        16.92
Deer Island Industries, Ltd................................         9.80
Nachi Fujikoshi Corp./Kanematsu-Gosho, Ltd./Nachi America..         8.30
Nachi Fujikoshi Corp./Kanematsu/Gosho, Ltd./Nachi Western..        18.07
Nachi Fujikoshi Corp./Kanematsu/Gosho, Ltd./ all other              8.30
 purchasers................................................
Kobe Steel.................................................        18.07
Komatsu, Ltd...............................................        18.07
Kubota, Ltd................................................        18.07
Maekawa Bearing Manufacturing Co., Ltd.....................         0.71
Maekawa Bearing Manufacturing Co., Ltd./Daido Enterprising         16.92
 Co., Ltd..................................................
Maekawa Bearing Manufacturing Co., Ltd./Hajime Industries,         16.92
 Ltd.......................................................
Maekawa Bearing Manufacturing Co., Ltd./Taisei Industries,         16.92
 Ltd.......................................................
Maekawa Bearing Manufacturing Co., Ltd./Schneider                  18.07
 Engineering, Ltd..........................................
Marubeni Corp..............................................        18.07
Mitsubishi Corp............................................        16.92
Nachi Fujikoshi Corp.......................................        18.07
Naniwa Kogyo Co., Ltd......................................        18.07
Nichimen Co................................................        16.92
Nissho-Iwai Co., Ltd.......................................        16.92
Sumitomo Shoji Kaisha......................................         3.40
Sumitomo Yale Co., Ltd.....................................        16.92
Tatsumiya Kogyo Co., Ltd...................................        18.07
Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd........................................         3.40
Toyosha Co., Ltd...........................................        16.92
United Trading Co., Ltd....................................         9.80
All Others.................................................        18.07
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                  Third country resellers                     (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Mogul Canada, Ltd..................................        18.07
Flanders Enterprises, Ltd..................................        16.92
John Deere Welland Works (Canada)..........................        18.07
Nachi Canada, Ltd..........................................        18.07
Superior Bearing Industrial Supplies, Ltd. (Canada)........        18.07
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. 99-28778 Filed 11-3-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P