[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 213 (Thursday, November 4, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60326-60332]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-28780]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-412-801]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Antifriction Bearings 
From the United Kingdom

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset reviews: 
antifriction bearings from the United Kingdom.

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

SUMMARY: On April 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (the 
``Department'') initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders 
on ball bearings, cylindrical roller bearings, and spherical plain 
bearings (collectively, antifriction bearings) from the United Kingdom 
(64 FR 15727) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the ``Act''). On the basis of notices of intent to participate 
and adequate substantive responses filed on behalf of domestic 
interested parties and inadequate response from respondent interested 
parties, the Department determined to conduct expedited reviews. As a 
result of these reviews, the Department finds that revocation of the 
antidumping duty orders 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: Eun W. Cho 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-
1698 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

Effective Date: November 4, 1999.

Statute and Regulations

    This review was conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(c) 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 products covered by these orders are antifriction bearings 
(``AFBs'') from the U.K., which includes ball bearings (``BBs'') and 
cylindrical roller bearings (``CRBs'') and parts thereof. For a 
detailed description of the products covered by these orders, including 
a compilation of all pertinent scope determinations, refer to the 
notice of final results of expedited sunset reviews on antifriction 
bearings from Japan, publishing concurrently with this notice.

History of the Order

    The antidumping duty orders on antifriction bearings from the 
United Kingdom were published in the Federal Register on May 15, 1989 
(54 FR 20910).1 In those orders, the Department announced 
the weighted-average dumping margins for the following companies and 
all others:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Final Determinations of Sales at Less than Fair Value; 
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 
Thereof from the United Kingdom, 54 FR 19120 (May 3, 1989), as 
amended, Antidumping Duty Orders and Amendments to the Final 
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Ball Bearings, and 
Cylindrical Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof From the United 
Kingdom, 54 FR 20910 (May 15, 1989). The crux of the amendment was 
to reflect the International Trade Commission's determination that 
critical circumstances for certain respondents did not exist, which 
was contrary to the affirmative findings thereof by the Department, 
and to correct ministerial errors.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cylindrical
                                                    Ball        roller
                    Company                       bearings     bearings
                                                 (``BBs'')    (``CRBs'')
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barden Corporation (U.K.) Ltd.; the Barden                   ...........
 Corporation.(Barden) *.......................
NSK Bearings Europe, Ltd. RHP Bearings; RHP           44.02        43.36
 Bearings, Inc. (NSK/RHP).....................
SKF (U.K.) Limited (SKF)......................        61.14         (**)
All-others....................................        54.27       43.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Barden was not subjected to the original antidumping investigation.
** SKF made no shipments or sales pertaining to this category during the
  period of investigation.


[[Page 60327]]

    The Department has conducted numerous administrative reviews since 
that time.2 The order remains in effect for all 
manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise. We note that, 
in the 1995-1996 and 1997-1998 administrative reviews, the Department 
found that duty absorption had occurred with respect to NSK/RPH and 
Barden's exports of the subject merchandise to the United 
States.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts Thereof From the United Kingdom; Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 56 FR 31769 (July 11, 
1991), as amended, Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts Thereof From Germany; et al., Amended Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 32755 
(June 17, 1997); Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et al.; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 57 FR 28360 (June 24, 
1992), as amended, Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
Romania, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, and the United Kingdom; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 57 FR 32969 
(July 24, 1992), as amended, Antifriction Bearings (Other Than 
Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, 
Italy, Japan, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; Amendment to Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 57 FR 59080 
(December 14, 1992), as amended, Antifriction Bearings (Other Than 
Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et al.; 
Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 
FR 8908 (February 23, 1998); Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Revocation in Part of an Antidumping Duty 
Order, 58 FR 39729 (July 26, 1993), as amended, Antifriction 
Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From 
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, 
and the United Kingdom; Amendment to Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews, 58 FR 42288 (August 9, 1993), as 
amended, Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) 
and Parts Thereof From France, et al.; Amended Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 18877 (April 16, 
1998); Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) 
and Parts Thereof From France, et al.; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews, Partial Termination of Administrative 
Reviews, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Orders, 60 FR 
10900 (February 28, 1995), as amended, Antifriction Bearings (Other 
Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From the United 
Kingdom; Notice of United States Court of International Trade 
Decision, 62 FR 42745 (August 8, 1997), as amended, Antifriction 
Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From 
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, Sweden, and the United 
Kingdom; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 62 FR 45795 (August 29, 1997); Antifriction Bearings (Other 
Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, 
Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, 64 
FR 49442 (September 13, 1999); Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative 
Reviews, 61 FR 66472 (December 17, 1996), as amended, Antifriction 
Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From 
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden and the 
United Kingdom; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 61963 (November 20, 1997); 
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and 
Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, 
Sweden, and the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 33320 (June 18, 1998), as amended, 
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 
Thereof From Italy, Romania, and the United Kingdom; Amended Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 40878 
(July 31, 1998). Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
Romania, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 64 FR 35590 (July 1, 1999).
    \3\ See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 54043 (October 17, 
1997); and Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 64 FR 35590 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On April 1, 1999, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the 
antidumping duty orders on AFBs from the U.K. (64 FR 15727) pursuant to 
section 751(c)(6)(A)(i) of the Act. The Department received Notices of 
Intent to Participate on behalf of Link-Belt Bearing Division (``Link-
Belt''), The Torrington Company (``Torrington''), MPB Corporation 
(``MPB''), Roller Bearing Company of America, Inc. (``RBC''), NSK 
Corporation (``NSK''), and New Hampshire Ball Bearings, Inc. (``NHBB'') 
4 on April 16, 1999, within the deadline specified in 
section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. Also, the 
Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of The 
Barden Corporation (U.K.) Ltd. and The Barden Corporation (collectively 
referred to as ``Barden'') on April 14, 1999.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In their Notices of Intent to Participate, both NSK and NHBB 
stipulated that they are affiliated with British exporter(s) and are 
domestic importers of the subject merchandise.
    \5\ Although the Sunset Regulations do not require a respondent 
interested party to file a Notice of Intent to Participate, Barden 
filed the notice anyway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We received complete substantive responses on behalf of Torrington, 
RBC, and NHBB on May 3, 1999 and on behalf of NSK on April 30, 1999. 
Torrington, RBC, NSK, and NHBB claimed interested-party status as 
wholesalers, manufacturers, and producers of domestic like products 
under section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department received a complete 
substantive response from Barden on May 3, 1999. Barden claimed 
interested-party status under section 771(9)(A) of the Act as a 
producer, exporter, and importer of the subject merchandise. The 
Department received all the above substantive responses within 30-day 
deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations under section 
351.218(d)(3)(i).
    Also, except NHBB, all the above interested parties, both domestic 
and respondent, filed rebuttal comments according to section 
351.218(d)(4) of the Sunset Regulations. Moreover, NSK and NHBB filed 
additional comments purportedly pertaining to the propriety of the 
Department's decision to execute an expedited, 120-day, sunset 
review.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See adequacy section of this notice, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department also received, on May 3, 1999, a Waiver of 
Participation on behalf of SKF USA Inc. and SKF (U.K.) Limited 
(collectively referred to as ``SKF''), within the deadline and 
according to the contents specified in section 351.218(d)(2) of the 
Sunset Regulations. SKF claimed interested-party status under section 
771(9)(A) of the Act as a foreign producer and importer of the subject 
merchandise.
    On May 21 and May 24, 1999, we informed the International Trade 
Commission (``Commission'') that, on the basis of inadequate response 
from respondent interested parties, we were conducting expedited sunset 
reviews of these orders consistent with 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). 
(See letter to Lynn Featherstone, Director, Office of Investigations 
from Jeffrey A. May, Director, Office of Policy.)
    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). Therefore, on August 5, 1999, the Department determined that the 
sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from the U.K. are 
extraordinarily complicated and extended the time limit for completion 
of the final results of these reviews until not later than October 28, 
1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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 these reviews to determine whether revocation of the 
antidumping duty

[[Page 60328]]

orders would be likely to lead to the 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 duty order, 
and it shall provide to the Commission the magnitude of the margin of 
dumping likely to prevail if the order is revoked.
    The Department's determinations concerning adequacy, continuation 
or recurrence of dumping, and the magnitude of the margin are discussed 
below. In addition, interested parties' comments with respect to the 
continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin 
are addressed within the respective sections below.

Adequacy

    As noted above, we notified the Commission that we intended to 
conduct expedited reviews of these orders. On June 10, 1999, we 
received comments on behalf of NHBB and NSK regarding our determination 
to conduct expedited reviews. Rather than arguing the propriety of the 
Department's decision to execute an expedited sunset review, both NSK 
and NHBB offered new arguments. In their submissions, both parties 
assert that most of the domestic interested parties that submitted 
substantive responses are in favor of revocation of the Department's 
various antidumping duty orders on antifriction bearings. These parties 
also offered new argument regarding the likely effect of revocation of 
these orders.
    The magnitude of domestic support for continuation or revocation of 
an order, however, does not enter into the Department's determination 
of adequacy of participation nor, for that matter, the Department's 
determination of likelihood. The Department made clear in its 
regulations that a complete substantive response from one domestic 
interested party would be considered adequate for purpose of continuing 
a sunset review (see section 351.218(e)(1)). Nowhere in the statute or 
legislative history is there reference to consideration of domestic 
industry support during the course of a sunset review (other than the 
statutory provision that, if there is no domestic industry interest in 
continuation of the order, the Department will revoke the order 
automatically). In fact, the Senate Report (at 46) makes clear that the 
purpose of adequacy determinations in sunset reviews is for the 
Department to determine whether to issue a determination based on the 
facts available without further fact-gathering. Further, the statute, 
at section 751(c)(1), specifies that the Department is to determine 
whether revocation of an order would be likely to lead to continuation 
or recurrence of dumping. Section 752(c) specifies that the Department 
is to consider the weighted-average dumping margins determined in the 
investigation and subsequent reviews, as well as the volume of imports 
of the subject merchandise for the period before and the period after 
the issuance of the order.

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.2.) In addition, the Department 
indicated that normally it will determine that revocation of an 
antidumping duty 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 the instant reviews, the 
Department received a waiver of participation from one respondent 
interested party, SKF. However, at the same time, the Department also 
received a complete substantive response from another respondent 
interested party, Barden.
    Torrington and MPB assert that dumping of the subject merchandise 
would resume if the antidumping duty orders were revoked. (See May 3, 
1999, joint substantive response of Torrington and MPB at 6.) In 
support of their assertion, Torrington and MPB point to continued 
dumping of the subject merchandise at levels above de minimis after the 
issuance of the orders. Likewise, while urging the Department to 
conclude that the dumping of the subject merchandise would continue or 
recur if the orders were revoked, RBC claims that dumping margins have 
continued to exist above the de minimis level since the issuance of the 
orders. (See May 3, 1999, Substantive Response of RBC at 4 and 5.)
    With respect to the import volumes of the subject merchandise, 
while insisting that the consideration of the import volumes is 
irrelevant because dumping of the subject merchandise did not cease 
after the issuance of the orders, Torrington and MPB argue that the 
post-order declines in import volumes of the subject merchandise 
provide additional support for their claim that resumption of dumping 
is likely were the orders revoked. (See May 3, 1999, Substantive 
Response of Torrington at 9.) Between 1988 and 1989, Torrington and MPB 
indicate that imports of the BBs from the United Kingdom fell 32 
percent in value. Id. Also, Torrington and MPB state that the post-
order import value of CRBs in each year is lower than the pre-order 
import value thereof. Id. at 10.
    On the other hand, NSK argues that revocation of the orders is not 
likely to lead to the recurrence of dumping of the subject merchandise. 
(See April 30, 1999, Substantive Response of NSK at 3.) In support of 
its contention, NSK appears to argue that the dumping margins of the 
subject merchandise have declined over time and the market share of the 
subject merchandise remained steady.8 Id. at 14. NSK 
advocates that the Department's methodology in calculating the 
weighted-average dumping margins in the original investigation was 
flawed,9 that the domestic interested parties lack domestic 
industry support (therefore their opposition to revocation of the

[[Page 60329]]

order is insufficient),10 and that conditions and trends in 
the U.S. market for bearings are such that producers of the domestic 
like product prefer the U.S. domestic production.11 
Therefore, by incorporating all the above factors, the only logical 
conclusion that can be drawn, according to NSK, is that continuation or 
recurrence of dumping is unlikely if the orders are revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ However, when NSK presents information that is relevant with 
respect to the sunset reviews, it does not put forth order-specific 
factual information or evidence. In other words, NSK only makes 
general references. For example, NSK states that the dumping margins 
for many of the most significant foreign producers and exporters 
have decreased over time (NSK's substantive response at 5) and that 
dumping margins from various countries have declined while subject 
importations have remained at or around 20 percent of the U.S. 
market share (id. at 14).
    \9\ In effect, NSK is asking the Department to retroactively 
apply a post-World Trade Organization (``WTO'') methodology to a 
pre-WTO antidumping duty determination.
    \10\ But see section 351.281(e)(i)(A) of the Sunset Regulation. 
A complete substantive response from at least one domestic 
interested party would suffice for the Department to conclude that 
the domestic interested parties have provided adequate response to a 
notice of initiation. Also, see adequacy section of this notice.
    \11\ As a result, NSK argues that it has expanded its BB 
production facilities in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Clarinda, Iowa, 
and has built new facilities in Franklin and Liberty, Indiana. 
According to NSK, these were expanded to strengthen its 
competitiveness as a U.S. producer of BBs in the U.S. market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, NHBB argues that revocation of the orders would not 
result in continuation or recurrence of dumping. (See NHBB's May 3, 
1999, substantive response at 5-6.) According to NHBB, 
internationalization of ball bearing production a significant portion 
of bearing producers from the countries subject to antidumping duty 
orders have production facilities in the United States. Thus, NHBB 
claims that the profit motive of those foreign parent companies would 
preclude any future dumping because such dumping would undercut the 
U.S. domestic price structure, thereby causing injury to the very 
industry of which foreign owners are a part. Id NHBB also asserts that 
import volumes have not declined since the time of the original 
investigation while, at the same time, dumping margins have declined 
significantly. Id.
    Barden, on the other hand, notes that the likely effects of 
revocation would be a status quo at current low dumping margins or even 
further reduced de minimis levels. (See May 3, 1999, Substantive 
Response of Barden at 5.) Barden acknowledges that the value and volume 
of imports of the subject merchandise declined substantially 
immediately after the issuance of the orders and that its export volume 
of the subject merchandise in 1998 is much less than that of 1987 
before the order. Id. at 6.
    As for the consideration of the weighted-average dumping margins, 
although Barden deems its most recently determined dumping margin of 
2.89 percent statistically insignificant and de minimis,12 
Barden does not negate outright the existence of current dumping margin 
(Id. at 5.) nor does Barden try to argue that dumping of the subject 
merchandise did not exist for any other investigated or reviewed 
periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ However, Barden's suggestion that 2 percent is the de 
minimis standard in an administrative review does not comport with 
law. In an administrative review, the Department will treat as de 
minimis any weighted-average dumping margin that is less than 0.5 % 
ad valorems or the equivalent specific rate. See section 
351.106(c)(1) of the Sunset Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Barden spends the majority of its resources and energy trying to 
convince the Department why Barden would not increase, and perhaps may 
even decrease, its dumping margins in the future. In support of this 
notion, Barden stresses that it has shifted and continues to shift its 
production of the subject merchandise to its U.S. facilities, that its 
dumping margins have been decreasing over time, that it should not bear 
the margins from the original investigation (because it did not 
participate in the original investigation), that removing home market 
sales below the cost of production in the profit component of 
constructed value is utterly improper and bears absolutely no relation 
to the actual, profit realized on sales of foreign like product, and 
that the subject merchandise, which is a highly differentiated and 
mature industrial product with multifarious application, tends to breed 
a certain percentage of random or intrinsic dumping. Id. at 
6-9.
    In its rebuttal, Torrington argues that Barden's own admission of 
decreased import volumes of the subject merchandise after the issuance 
of the orders strongly supports Torrington's suggestion that 
continuation or recurrence of dumping is likely should the Department 
revoke the orders. (See May 12, 1999, Rebuttal Comments of the 
Torrington at 14.) Torrington again insists that continued dumping at 
levels above de minimis since the issuance of the orders should lead 
the Department to determine that recurrence or continuation of dumping 
likely. Id.
    Similarly, in its rebuttal comments, RBC argues that the Department 
should determine that revocation of the orders is likely to lead to the 
continuation or recurrence of dumping of the subject merchandise 
because the import volumes of the subject merchandise substantially 
declined and dumping continued after the issuance of the orders. (See 
May 12, 1999, Rebuttal Comments of RBC at 2-3.)
    NSK argues, while insisting that the Department should conduct a 
full sunset review rather than an expedited (120-day) review, that the 
major domestic bearing companies do not agree with the position of 
Torrington and RBC that revocation of the orders would be likely to 
lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping.13 (See NSK's 
May 12, 1999, Rebuttal Comments at 2-3.) NSK also claims that 
Torrington's other-factors argument, which was primarily based on a 
history of below-cost-sales argument, is irrelevant to the instant 
review.14 Id. at 6-7. Last, NSK insists that the lack of 
industry support should be a crucial factor for the Department to 
consider in determining the sunset review.15 Id. 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ NSK identifies NHBB, NTN Bearing Corporation of America, 
FAG Bearings Corporation, Koyo Corporation of U.S.A., NTN Bearing 
Corporation of America, American NTN Bearing Manufacturing 
Corporation, and NTN-BCA Corporation as opposing Torrington's view. 
NSK deems this list overwhelming evidence of record that recurrence 
or continuation is not likely if the orders were revoked.
    \14\ According to NSK, the fact that British producers/
manufacturers could sustain or even increase their exports of the 
subject merchandise to the United States while, at the same time, 
substantially reducing the weighted-average dumping margins would 
indicate that a history of below-the-cost-sale argument does not 
amount much.
    \15\ See, however, footnote 11, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its rebuttal, Barden notes that, between 1993 and 1997, imports 
of the subject merchandise increased 50 percent and that dumping 
margins have declined over time. (See May 6, 1999, Rebuttal Submission 
of Barden, at 4.) Barden argues that the Department should acknowledge 
that, during the above five-year period, imports of the subject 
merchandise have increased or remained stable and that dumping margins 
have steadily decreased. Id. at 6. Therefore, should the orders be 
revoked, Barden contends, dumping is not likely to recur or continue. 
Id.
    As indicated in section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
SAA at 890, and House Report at 63-64, the Department considers whether 
dumping continued at any level above de minimis after the issuance of 
the order. If companies continue dumping with the discipline of an 
order in place, the Department may reasonably infer that dumping would 
continue were the discipline removed. After examining the published 
findings with respect to the weighted-average dumping margins in 
previous administrative reviews, the Department agrees with the 
domestic interested parties that the weighted-average dumping margins 
at levels above de minimis have persisted over the life of the orders 
and currently remain in place for all U.K. producers and exporters of 
the subject merchandise, in general, and Barden, in 
particular.16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See footnote 2 and 3, supra. The relevant rates for Barden 
in the BB order and the subsequently administrative reviews are as 
follows: all others-rate for BBs in the order--54.27; first review--
14.73; second review--0.85; third review--7.57; fourth review--4.65; 
fifth review--1.48; sixth review--did not participate; seventh 
review--3.99; eighth review--6.63; ninth review--2.89.

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

[[Page 60330]]

    In addition, consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the 
Department also considered the volume of imports before and after the 
issuance of the orders. The data supplied by the domestic interested 
parties and those of the United States Census Bureau IM146s and the 
Commission Data indicate that, since the imposition of the orders, the 
import volumes of the subject merchandise have declined substantially. 
Although the import volumes of the subject merchandise during the 
period 1994-1998 have stabilized and shown an increasing trend, as 
Barden argued in its substantive response, the highest volume since the 
issuance of the orders, that of 1997, is still well below the pre-order 
import volume. (See May 3, 1999, Substantive Response of Barden at 6.) 
Therefore, the Department determines that the import volumes of the 
subject merchandise decreased significantly after the issuance of the 
orders.
    Given that dumping has continued over the life of the orders and 
that import volumes of the subject merchandise decreased significantly 
after the issuance of the orders, the Department agrees with 
Torrington, MPB, and RBC that dumping is likely to continue if the 
orders were revoked.
    Insofar as the Department made this determination based on the fact 
that dumping continued at levels above de minimis and that the import 
volumes of the subject merchandise declined substantially after the 
issuance of the orders, it is not necessary for the Department to 
address Torrington's arguments regarding a history of below-cost-sales 
of the subject merchandise in the British market, NSK's contention that 
the U.S. market conditions and trends are such that future dumping of 
the subject merchandise is not likely, NHBB's claim that the shifts of 
production facilities by respondent interested parties and their 
consequent profit motive preclude future dumping, and Barden's 
stipulations that the exports of the subject merchandise invariably 
engender a certain percentage of random or intrinsic dumping, nor is it 
necessary for the Department to discuss any effects thereof upon this 
finding.

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 will 
normally 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.)
    The Department, in its notice of the antidumping duty orders on 
antifriction bearings from the U.K., established both company-specific 
and all-others weighted-average dumping margins for the subject 
merchandise from the United Kingdom (54 FR 20910, May 15, 
1989).17 Since the antidumping orders, we have determined 
twice that duty absorption has occurred with respect to NSK/RHP and 
Barden's exports of the subject merchandise.18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See footnote 1, supra.
    \18\ See footnote 3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In their substantive response, at 13-16, Torrington and MPB argue 
that the likely-to-prevail dumping margins, if the order were revoked, 
are either the ones determined for each company in the original 
investigation or the most recently calculated margins adjusted to 
incorporate duty-absorption rates, whichever are larger. Similarly, RBC 
raises the duty-absorption issue; however, in the end, RBC just 
advocates that the Department should apply the margins from the 
original investigation. (See May 3, 1999, Substantive Response of RBC 
at 6.)
    NSK advocates that the Department should reject the weighted-
average dumping margins determined in the original investigation and 
should instead calculate the likely-to-prevail margins based on the 
average-to-average methodology.19 (See NSK's substantive 
response at 5 and 7.) NSK argues that, if the Department follows NSK's 
suggestion and use the average-to-average method, the Department would 
find that the likely-to-prevail dumping margins would be de 
minimis.20 Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ As for reasons, NSK claims that the Department departed 
from its standard procedure in the investigation in order to 
complete the case in a fair and timely manner, that the Department's 
liberal usage of best information available seriously skewed the 
results of the investigation, and that the Department did not use an 
average-to-average methodology in calculating the margins. However, 
see the SAA at 891. (The SAA explicitly and unequivocally prohibits 
the Department, in a sunset review, from calculating margins except 
under the most extraordinary circumstances.)
    \20\ According to NSK, this would result for many of the 
interested parties that export most, if not all, the ball bearings 
from relevant countries. Therefore, the Department is not even sure 
whether British producers/manufacturers, such as Barden, are 
included in NSK's argument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHBB insists that it would be illogical for respondent companies 
with such significant investments in the United States to undercut 
their interests in the United States by dumping in the future. (See 
NHBB's May 3, 1999, substantive response at 6-8.) Also, NHBB claims 
that, since the dumping margins have declined significantly from the 
margins found in the original investigation, the Department should not 
report margins from the original investigation. Id. Furthermore, in 
light of changes of methodology in calculating antidumping duty margins 
to reflect the WTO agreements, NHBB believes that it would be unfair to 
use the rates found in the original investigation, which preceded the 
WTO agreements. Id.
    Also, NHBB argues that the Department arbitrarily presumed the 
existence of duty absorption in the 1995-1996 and 1997-1998 
administrative reviews, thereby making it impossible for respondent 
interested parties to rebut. To wit, NHBB contends that the 
Department's current approach pertaining to duty absorption is 
unreasonable, illogical, circular, groundless, without statutory 
support, and therefore contrary to law. Id. at 8-10.
    Meantime, in its substantive response, at 9, Barden argues that the 
dumping margin that is likely to prevail is either 2.89 percent found 
in the most recent administrative review or one that is even lower 
because its dumping margins have been declining while at the same time 
its export of the subject merchandise remained steady.
    In its rebuttal, Torrington argues that Barden's suggestion to 
select a more recently calculated margin ignores the Department's duty-
absorption findings. (See Torrington's rebuttal response at 4 and 14.) 
Moreover, even in the absence of duty-absorption findings,21 
Torrington contends that the Department should select the investigation 
margins as the margins which would likely to prevail because such 
margins reflect the behavior of exporters without the discipline of the 
orders in place. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ In its rebuttal, Torrington rejects respondent's arguments, 
which denounce and reject the Department's duty-absorption findings, 
by denoting the duty-absorption principle delineated in the Sunset 
Policy Bulletin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, RBC argues, in its rebuttal, that the Department should 
choose the margins from the original investigations because such 
margins are the best gauge for understanding the behavior of

[[Page 60331]]

exporters without the discipline of an order in place. (See RBC's 
rebuttal response at 3.) Also, RBC asserts that Barden's attempt to 
find a defect in the Department's calculation in determining weighted-
average is not persuasive. Id.
    NSK, in its rebuttal comments at 3-5, disagrees with Torrington's 
suggestion that the Department should consider the duty-absorption 
findings. Instead, NSK urges the Department to refrain from utilizing 
information obtained from the duty-absorption investigations which, 
according to NSK, violated the antidumping law.22
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ NSK deems the Department' duty-absorption investigation 
ultra vires. Furthermore, NSK argues that, even if the Department 
was authorized to conduct such duty-absorption investigations, the 
Department's use of presumption in the investigation did not fulfill 
its legal obligations. Thus, NSK argues that the Department should 
wait until the court has ruled on this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, in its rebuttal response at 2-6, Barden opposes 
Torrington and RBC's suggestion that the Department choose the margins 
from the original investigations as the likely-to-prevail margins 
because the margins determined in the original investigations are 
obsolete. Barden argues that because its dumping margins have declined 
and its imports have increased or remained stable, the Department 
should use more recently calculated margins. Barden asserts further 
that, in any event, there is no mandatory requirement that these 
original margins be selected as likely-to-prevail margins were the 
orders revoked--in short, the Department should not presume that 
dumping would continue at the original investigation margins. Id. In 
addition, Barden reiterates that the duty-absorption findings should 
not be used by the Department because the findings were not calculated 
in accordance with the statue.23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See May 6, 1999, Barden's Rebuttal to Domestic Party 
Substantive Responses at 5. Barden considers the Department's 
interpretation, expressed in the Sunset Policy Bulletin, too 
expansive, thus unlawful in applying ``transition orders'' under 
751(c)(6)(C) of the Act to duty absorption. In other words, Barden 
argues that the Department should not have done the duty-absorption 
investigations in administrative reviews that were initiated in 1996 
and 1998. In addition, Barden argues that the methodology chosen by 
the Department in calculation of duty-absorption rates is arbitrary 
and capricious. Last, Barden notes its objection to the duty 
absorption findings is pending with the Court of International 
Trade. Therefore, it contends that the Department should not use the 
duty-absorption findings in the instant sunset reviews. Id. at 9-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We agree with Torrington, MPB, and RBC that, normally, we will 
provide a margin from the original investigation because that is the 
rate that reflects the behavior of exporters absent the discipline of 
the order. As noted above, exceptions to this policy include the use of 
a more recently calculated margin, where appropriate, and consideration 
of duty-absorption determinations.
    With respect to NSK and NHBB's argument concerning the magnitude of 
the margin likely to prevail, we disagree. As discussed above, we do 
find that there is a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of 
dumping. Furthermore, we find the level of dumping likely to prevail is 
best reflected by the dumping margins we calculated in the original 
investigations. Specifically, the Department finds that there is no 
basis to reject margins calculated in an investigation because of 
subsequent changes in methodology. Since such changes do not invalidate 
margins calculated under the prior methodology. Therefore, the dumping 
margins from the original investigation are the only rates which 
reflect the behavior of exporters without the discipline of the order, 
regardless of the methodology used to calculate that margin or the use 
of best information available (see section 752(c)(3) of the Act).
    With respect to Barden's argument that we should use a more 
recently calculated margin, we do not agree. By Barden's own admission, 
the import volume of the subject merchandise declined immediately after 
the imposition of the orders and thereafter stabilized at the lower 
level.24 Moreover, during the period 1994 through 1995, the 
increases of Barden's export of the subject merchandise to the United 
States correspond with increased weighted-average dumping margins found 
by the Department. For example, after steady decline of the weighted-
average margins, in the 1995-1996 administrative review, the Department 
found that Barden's margin increased from 1.48 percent to 3.99 percent. 
Coincidently, during the same period, Barden's exports increased. 
Similarly, Barden's further increase (from 3.99 to 6.63 percent) of the 
weighted-average margins during the 1996-1997 administrative review 
coincided with further increased imports of the subject merchandise. 
However, when Barden's weighted-average dumping margins declined (from 
6.63 to 2.89 percent) in the 1997-1998 review, so did the import volume 
of the subject merchandise. Thus, Barden's situation does not merit 
consideration of a more recently calculated margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Barden notes that import figures are leveling off over the 
past five years after falling immediately after the issuance of the 
orders (see May 3, 1999, Substantive Response of Barden at 6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, but for the consideration of duty-absorption findings, 
the Department would have determined that the likely-to-prevail dumping 
margins for all British producers/exporters are those from the original 
investigation were the orders revoked.25
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ As for Barden's argument that it was not party to the 
original investigation, and therefore should not be subjected to the 
margins from the original investigation, section II.B.1 of the 
Sunset Policy Bulletin provides that 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. Inasmuch as Barden did not participate in the 
original investigation, the all-others rate from the original 
investigation, as amended, is the appropriate one to report to the 
Commission as the rate that is likely to prevail if the order is 
revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section II.B.3.b of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the SAA at 885, and 
the House Report at 60, provide that, if the Department has found duty 
absorption, the Department normally will provide to the Commission the 
higher of the margin that the Department otherwise would have reported 
to the Commission or the most recent margin for that company adjusted 
to account for the Department's findings on duty absorption. The 
Department explained that it normally will adjust a company's most 
recent margin to reflect its findings on duty absorption by 
incorporating the amount of duty absorption to those sales for which 
the Department found duty absorption.
    In the most recent review,26 the Department found that 
duty absorption existed on Barden's exports of BBs (19.43 percent) and 
NSK-RHP's exports of BBs (31.46 percent) and CRBs (47.88 percent) to 
the United States. Consistent with the statute and the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin, the Department will notify the Commission of its findings 
regarding such duty absorption for the Commission to consider in 
conducting its sunset review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
Romania, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 64 FR 35590 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin, we adjusted the most 
recent margins to account for duty-absorption findings: 27 
for Barden, the adjusted rate for BBs is 3.45 percent; for NSK/RHP, the 
adjusted rates for BBs and CRBs are 27.63 percent and 72.65 percent, 
respectively. (See October 4, 1999, Memorandum to File Regarding 
Calculation of the Likely to Prevail

[[Page 60332]]

Margins.) For Barden's BBs, the all-others rate from the original 
investigation is higher than the absorption-adjusted rate. For NSK/RHP, 
the rate from the original investigation is higher than the absorption-
adjusted rate for BBs, whereas the opposite is true for CRBs. 
Therefore, we will report to the Commission the rates as contained in 
the Final Results of Review section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ With respect to methodology, also see Preliminary Results 
of Sunset Review: Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico, 64 FR 
46651 (August 26, 1999), and Final Results of Expedited Sunset 
Review: Brass Sheet and Strip from Germany, 64 FR 49767 (September 
14, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Results of Review

    Based on the above analysis, the Department finds that the 
revocation of the antidumping duty orders would likely lead to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Margin (percent)
            Manufacturer/ Exporter             -------------------------
                                                    BBs          CRBs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barden........................................        54.27  ...........
NSK/RHP.......................................        44.02        72.65
All others....................................        54.27        43.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. 99-28780 Filed 11-3-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P