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; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Termination in Part, and Intent To Revoke in Part

[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 1995)]

[Notices]

[Pages 22349-22354]

From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[FR Doc No: 95-11160]

========================================================================

Notices

Federal Register

________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules

or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings

and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings,

delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are examples of documents

appearing in this section.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Notices

[[Page 22349]]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588-6-04, A-588-054]

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;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews,

Termination in Part, and Intent To Revoke in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty

administrative reviews, termination in part, and intent to revoke in

part.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests by the petitioner and one respondent,

the Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted

administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on Tapered Roller

Bearings (TRBs) and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan

(A-588-604), and of the finding on TRS, Four Inches or Less in Outside

Diameter, and Corportae Thereof, from Japan (A-588-054). The review of

the A-588-054 finding covers 3 manufacturers/exporters of the subject

merchandise and 10 resellers/exporters of the subject merchandise to

the United States during the period October 1, 1992 through September

30, 1993. Of these, two firms reported no shipments of the subject

merchandise during the review period. The review of the A-588-604 order

covers 5 manufacturers/exporters, 10 resellers/exporters, and 18

forging producers, and the period October 1, 1992 through September 30,

1993. Of these, five firms reported no shipments of the subject

merchandise during the review period.

We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below

the foreign market value (FMV). If these preliminary results are

adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct

U.S. Customs to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference

between the United States price (USP) and the FMV.

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary

results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 5, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Valerie Turoscy or John Kugelman, Office of Antidumping Compliance,

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 18, 1976, the Treasury Department published in the

Federal Register (41 FR 34974) the antidumping finding on TRBs from

Japan, and on October 6, 1987, the Department published the antidumping

duty order on TRBs from Japan (52 FR 37352). On October 18, 1993 (58 FR

53709), the Department published the notice of ``Opportunity to Request

an Administrative Review'' for both TRB cases. The petitioner, the

Timken Co. (Timken), and one respondent requested administrative

reviews. We initiated the A-588-054 and A-588-604 administrative

reviews for the period October 1, 1992 through September 30, 1993, on

November 17, 1993 (58 FR 60600). The Department has now conducted these

reviews for all firms except Koyo Seiko Company, Ltd. (Koyo), in

accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the

Tariff Act). We will publish our preliminary results for this period

with respect to Koyo at a later date.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by the A-588-054 finding are sales or entries of

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. This merchandise is classified under the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 8482.20.00 and 8482.99.30.

Imports covered by the A-588-604 order include TRBs and parts

thereof, finished and unfinished, which are flange, take-up cartridge,

and hanger units incorporating TRBs, and tapered roller housings

(except pillow blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or without

spindles, whether or not for automotive use. Products subject to the A-

588-054 finding are not included within the scope of this order, except

for those manufactured by NTN Toyo Bearing Co., Ltd. (NTN). This

merchandise is currently classifiable under HTS item numbers

8482.99.30, 8483.20.40, 8482.20.20, 8483.20.80, 8482.91.00, 8484.30.80,

8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, and 8483.90.60. These HTS item numbers and

those for the A-588-054 finding are provided for convenience and

Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.

On February 2, 1995, the Department published in the Federal

Register its final scope determination regarding Koyo's rough forgings

(60 FR 6519). Because we determined that these forgings were within the

scope of the A-588-604 order on TRBs from Japan, we have considered

such forgings within the scope of the A-588-604 order for these

preliminary review results.

The period of review (POR) for the order and the finding is October

1, 1992 through September 30, 1993. These reviews cover TRB sales by

four TRB manufacturers/exporters (NSK Ltd. (NSK), NTN, Nachi-Fujikoshi

Corporation (Nachi), and Maekawa Bearing Mfg., Co., Ltd. (Maekawa)),

and 10 resellers/exporters (Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (Honda), Fuji Heavy

Industries, Ltd. (Fuji), Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. (Kawasaki),

Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. (Yamaha), Sumitomo Corporation (Sumitomo),

Itochu Co., Ltd. (Itochu), Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd. (Suzuki), Nigata

Converter Co., Ltd. (Nigata), Toyosha Co., Ltd. (Toyosha), and MC

International (MC Int'l)). These reviews also cover U.S. sales of

forgings by NTN and 18 other firms originally identified as Japanese

forging producers (Daido Steel Co., Ltd., Asakawa Screw Co., Ltd., Fuse

Rashi Co., Ltd., Hamanaka Nut Mfg. Co., Ltd., Ichiyanagi Tekko, Isshi

Nut Industries, Kawada Tekko, Kinki Maruseo Nut Kogyo Kumiai, Kitazawa

Valve Co., Ltd. (Kitz Corp.), Nittetsu Bolten (Nittetsu), Shiga Bolt,

Shinko Bolt, Sugiura Seisakusho, Sumikin [[Page 22350]] Seiatsu, Toyo

Valve Co., Unytite Fastener Mfg., Co., Ltd. (Unytite Kogyo), Gotoh Nut

Seisakusho, and Kawada Tekkosho). We are terminating our review for 14

of these 18 firms as described below.

Best Information Available (BIA)

Total BIA

For the purposes of these preliminary results, in accordance with

section 776(c) of the Tariff Act, for several firms we applied a rate

based on BIA. We determined the rate to use as BIA according to the

``two-tiered'' BIA methodology outlined in Antifriction Bearings (Other

Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, et. al.;

Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Reviews, Partial

Termination of Administrative Reviews, and Revocation in Part of

Antidumping Duty Orders, 60 FR 10900, 10907 (February 28, 1995) (AFBs).

Based on this methodology we used BIA as follows:

1. When a company refused to provide the information requested in

the form required, or otherwise significantly impeded these

proceedings, we used as total BIA the higher of (1) the highest rate

found for any firm for the same class or kind of merchandise in the

same country of origin in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation

or prior administrative reviews; or (2) the highest rate found in this

review for any firm for the same class or kind of merchandise in the

same country of origin.

2. When a company substantially cooperated with our requests for

information including, in some cases, verification, but failed to

provide complete or accurate information in a timely manner or in the

form required or was unable to substantiate it, we used as total BIA

the higher of (1) the highest rate ever applicable to that firm for the

same class or kind of merchandise from either the LTFV investigation or

a prior administrative review (or, if the firm had never before been

investigated or reviewed, the ``all others'' rate from the LTFV

investigation), or (2) the highest calculated rate in this review for

any firm for the class or kind of merchandise from the same country of

origin. See AFBs and Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. United States,

Court No. 94-1112 (June 30, 1994, CAFC).

Thus, for first-tier (non-cooperative) BIA in these reviews we have

used for the A-588-604 review the highest calculated rate for any firm

in the history of the order (i.e., 40.37 percent, the rate for NSK in

the 1988-89 A-588-604 review), and for the A-588-054 review we have

used the highest calculated rate for any firm in the history of the A-

588-054 finding (i.e., 47.63 percent, the rate for Koyo in the 1987-88

A-588-054 review). Listed below is a company-by-company summary of the

total BIA used in these reviews.

A. First-Tier (Non-Cooperative) BIA

(i) Yamaha, Toyosha, Nigata, and Suzuki: None of these firms

responded to our questionnaire in either the A-588-054 or the A-588-604

review. Therefore, based on the above criteria, as first-tier BIA for

each of these firms in the A-588-604 review, we used 40.37 percent, and

for each of these firms in the A-588-054 review, we used 47.63 percent.

(ii) Nachi: Since Nachi did not respond to our questionnaire in the

A-588-604 review, we applied to Nachi a first-tier BIA rate of 40.37

percent in that review.

(iii) Ichiyanagi Tekko, Nittetsu, and Sumikin Seiatsu: These three

forgoing producers, which are involved only in the A-588-604 review,

did not respond to our questionnaire. As a result, for each firm we

used a first-tier BIA rate of 40.37 percent.

B. Second-Tier (Cooperative) BIA

Because Kawasaki submitted a majority of its information in an

untimely manner and because its timely submitted information was an

inadequate basis for analysis, we used a total BIA rate for Kawasaki

for both reviews. However, because Kawasaki was not uncooperative, in

that it supplied the Department with substantive responses to our

questionnaires, we used a second-tier BIA rate. Because the highest

rate for Kawasaki in any previous A-588-054 review was zero (0.0)

percent and Kawasaki was not party to the LTFV investigation, we have

used the highest calculated rate for any firm from this A-588-054

review as total BIA for Kawasaki (NSK's 11.67 percent). Because

Kawasaki has never before been party to an A-588-604 review or the A-

588-604 LTFV investigation, we have used, as cooperative BIA for

Kawasaki in the A-588-604 review, the A-588-604 ``all others'' rate

from the LTFV investigation of 36.52 percent.

No Shipments

Resellers

Three resellers, Honda, Fuji, and MC In'tl, made no shipments of A-

588-604 subject merchandise during the review period. Furthermore, none

of these three firms was a party to the A-588-604 LTFV investigation or

any prior reviews of the A-588-604 case. Because their shipments have

never been reviewed individually, we have not assigned an individual

rate to any of these firms for the A-588-604 review. If any of these

firms begin shipping subject merchandise at some future date, the

entries will receive deposit rates attributable to the manufacturer(s)

of the subject merchandise.

Manufacturers

Because Nachi and Maekawa did not make any shipments of merchandise

subject to the A-588-054 case during the review period, their

calculated rates from the last period in which they made shipments will

continue to apply to A-588-054 merchandise (18.07 percent for Nachi and

zero (0) percent for Maekawa). Maekawa also made no shipments of

merchandise subject to the A-588-604 case during the review period. We

have not assigned an individual rate to Maekawa, which was not a party

to the LTFV investigation or any prior review of the A-588-604 case. If

Maekawa, a manufacturer, were to begin shipping at some future date,

the entries would receive the A-588-604 LTFV ``all others'' rate of

36.52 percent.

Concerning those firms described in Timken's initiation request as

possible forging producers, only one of the 18 firms, Daido Steel Co.,

Ltd. (Daido), reported that it actually produced forgings used in the

manufacture of TRBs. However, Daido also indicated that it did not sell

these forgings to the United States, but rather only sold such

merchandise to companies in Japan. Because this firm had no U.S.

shipments of this merchandise during the review period and has never

been involved in an A-588-604 review or the LTFV investigation, we have

not assigned an individual rate to Daido for the A-588-604 reveiw. If

Daido were to begin shipping at some future date, the entries would

receive the A-588-604 LTFV ``all others'' rate of 36.52 percent.

Termination in Part

Twelve of the 18 producers with forging operations reported that

they did not produce the forgings which have been found to be within

the scope of the order, but rather only produced non-scope merchandise

such as nuts, bolts, and valves. As a result, because these firms do

not produce or sell subject merchandise, we are terminating the A-588-

604 review for the following 12 firms: Asakawa Screw Co., Ltd., Fuse

Rashi Co., Ltd., Hamanaka Nut Mfg. Co., Ltd., Isshi Nut Industries,

Kawada Tekko, Kinki Maruseo Nut Kogyo Kumiai, Kitz Corp., Shiga Bolt,

Shinko [[Page 22351]] Bolt, Sugiura Seisakusho, Toyo Valve Co., and

Unytite Kogyo.

We initiated reviews (58 FR 60600) of two other supposed forging

producers, Kawada Tekkosho and Gotoh Nut Seisakusho. We are also

terminating the A-588-604 review of these two firms because Kawada

Tekkosho is not a separate firm but simply another name for Kawada

Tekko, and, as indicated in a December 1, 1993, letter from the

petitioner, Gotoh Nut Seisakusho is no longer in business.

Our termination of the A-588-604 review for these 14 firms does not

constitute a revocation of these firms from the order. If any of the

above 14 firms ever becomes a manufacturer/exporter of TRBs or forgings

used in the production of TRBs, its sales to the United States will be

subject to the order.

Resellers/Shippers

Of the 11 resellers covered by these reviews, we have determined

that Sumitomo and Itochu are mere shippers of the subject merchandise

and do not warrant their own margins. Itochu and Sumitomo contract with

larger Japanese companies/suppliers to ship TRBs from the suppliers to

the suppliers' U.S. subsidiaries. Because these supplies knew at the

time of sale to Itochu and Sumitomo that these TRBs were destined for

the United States, and because Itochu and Sumitomo had no influence

over the sales prices or quantities of these shipments, we have

determined that the suppliers' rates, and not unique Sumitomo or Itochu

rates, should be applied for cash deposit and appraisement purposes.

See Antifriction bearings (Other than Tapered Roller Bearings) and

parts thereof from Germany, et al.; Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 56 FR 31692, 31747 (July 11, 1991).

USP

The Department used exporter's sales price (ESP) for NSK, NTN,

Honda, Fuji, and MC Int'l, and purchase price, as defined in section

772 of the Tariff Act, for NTN's sales to Caterpillar and certain of

Fuji's sales to calculate USP. ESP was based on the packed, delivered

price to unrelated purchasers in the United States. We made

adjustments, where applicable, for foreign pre-sale inland freight,

foreign inland freight, air freight, ocean freight, marine insurance,

export inspection fees, brokerage and handling, U.S. inland freight,

U.S. duty, commissions to unrelated parties, U.S. credit, discounts,

rebates, sales allowances, billing adjustments, technical service

expenses, warranties, packing expenses incurred in the United States,

and indirect selling expenses (which include inventory carrying costs,

warehouse transfer expenses, advertising, other U.S.-incurred selling

expenses, and export selling expenses). For NTN, we also adjusted ESP

for value added in further manufacturing, including an allocation of

profit earned on U.S. sales.

NTN`s and Fuji's purchase price sales were based on the sales price

to the unrelated purchaser in the United States. We made adjustments to

purchase price, where appropriate, for foreign pre-sale inland freight,

foreign inland freight, ocean freight, marine insurance, brokerage and

handling, U.S. duty, U.S. inland freight, export inspection fees, and

rebates,

We also adjusted USP (purchase price and ESP) for taxes in

accordance with our practice as outlined in Silicomanganese from

Venezuela, Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,

59 FR 31204, June 17, 1994 (Silicomanganese).

No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

FMV

Because the home market was viable for NTN, NSK, Honda, and Fuji,

we compared U.S. sales with sales of such or similar merchandise in the

home market.

In general, the Department relies on monthly weighted-average

prices in the calculation of FMV. In consideration of the significant

volume of home market sales involved in these reviews, consistent with

section 777A of the Tariff Act, we used an average of respondents' home

market sales for each review period. To determine whether an annual

average was representative of the transactions under consideration, we

performed the following three-step test (see AFBs). First, we compared

the annual weighted-average home market price for each model with each

of its 12 monthly weighted-average prices for each review period. We

calculated the proportion of each model's sales for which the annual

weighted-average price did not vary more than plus or minus 10 percent

from the monthly weighted-average prices. Second, we compared the

volume of sales of all models for which annual weighted-average prices

did not vary more than plus or minus 10 percent from the monthly

weighted-average prices with the total volume of sales of TRBs. If the

annual weighted-average price of at least 90 percent of the sales of

TRBs for a given firm did not vary more than plus or minus 10 percent

from the monthly weighted-average price, we considered the annual

weighted-average price to be representative of the transactions under

consideration for that firm. Third, we tested whether there was any

correlation between fluctuations in price and time for each model.

Where the correlation coefficient was less than 0.05 (where a

coefficient approaching 1.0 indicates a direct relation between price

and time), we concluded that there was no significant relation between

price and time. Because the annual weighted-average prices for TRBs

sold by NSK, Fuji, MC Int'l and NTN in each case during the review

period did not vary meaningfully from the monthly weighted-average

prices of sales, and because there was no correlation between price and

time, we considered the annual weighted-average prices for each review

period to be representative of the transactions under consideration.

Therefore, we calculated a single FMV for each model sold by NSK, MC

Int'l, and NTN on an annual weighted-average basis.

Because Honda sold all its TRBs to all its customers in the home

market according to a single price list (which changed only once during

the review period), it was unnecessary for us to calculate a single FMV

for each model sold by Honda on an annual weighted-average basis.

Based on petitioner's allegations and the Department's previous

determinations of sales made below the cost of production (COP), in

accordance with section 773(b) on the Tariff Act, we determined that

there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that, for this

review period, NTN and NSK made sales of subject merchandise in the

home market at prices less than the COP. As a result, we investigated

whether NTN or NSK sold such or similar merchandise in the home market

at prices below the COP. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.51(c) we

calculated COP for NTN and NSK as the sum of reported materials, labor,

factory overhead, and general expenses, and compared COP to home market

prices, net of price adjustments and discounts.

In accordance with section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, in determining

whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we

examined whether such sales were made in substantial quantities over an

extended period of time, and whether such sales were made at prices

which permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time

in the normal course of trade.

In accordance with our normal practice, for each model for which

less than 10 percent, by quantity, of the home market sales during the

POR were [[Page 22352]] made at prices below the COP, we included all

sales of the model in the computation of FMV. For each model for which

10 percent or more, but less than 90 percent, of the home market sales

during the POR were priced below the merchandise's COP, we excluded

form the calculation of FMV those home market sales which were priced

below the merchandise's COP, provided that these below-cost sales were

made over an extended period of time. For each model for which 90

percent or more of the home market sales during the POR were priced

below the COP and were made over an extended period of time, we

disregarded all sales of that model in our calculation and, in

accordance with section 776(b) of the Tariff Act, we used the

constructed value (CV) of those models, as described below. See, for

example, Mechanical Transfer Presses from Japan, Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 9958 (March 2, 1994).

In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, to

determine whether sales below cost had been made over an extended

period of time, we compared the number of months in which sales below

cost occurred for a particular model to the number of months in which

that model was sold. If the model was sold in fewer than three months,

we did not disregard below-cost sales unless there were below-cost

sales of that model in each month sold. If a model was sold in three or

more months, we did not disregard below-cost sales unless there were

sales below cost in at least three of the months in which the model was

sold. We used CV as the basis for FMV when an insufficient number of

home market sales were made at prices above COP. 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, 58 FR 64720, 64729 (December 8, 1993).

In the case of NTN and NSK, we compared each firm's individual home

market prices with annual COPs. We tested each firm's home market

prices on a model-specific basis and found, for each firm, (1) Models

where more than 90 percent of the home market sales were made at below-

COP prices and were made over an extended period of time, (2) other

models where between 10 and 90 percent of home market sales were made

at below-COP prices and over an extended period of time, and (3) yet

other models where less than 10 percent of home market sales were made

at below-COP prices. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and

Strip from Korea, 56 FR 16306 (April 22, 1991).

Because NTN and NSK provided no indication that their below-cost

sales of models within the ``greater than 90 percent'' and the

``between 10 and 90 percent'' categories were at prices that would

permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time and in

the normal course of trade, we disregarded those sales of models within

the ``10 to 90 percent'' category which were made below cost over an

extended period of time. In addition, as a result of our COP test for

home market sales of models within the ``greater than 90 percent''

category, we based FMV on CV for all U.S. sales for which there were

insufficient sales of the comparison home market model at or above COP.

Finally, where we found, for certain of NTN's and NSK's models, home

market sales for which less than 10 percent were made at below-COP

prices, we used all home market sales of these models in our

comparisons.

We used CV as FMV for those U.S. sales for which there were

insufficient sales of the comparison home market model at or above COP,

and for those U.S. sales for which there was no sale of such or similar

merchandise in the home market. We calculated CV in accordance with

section 773(e) of the Tariff Act. We included the cost of materials,

labor, and factory overhead in our calculations. Where the actual

selling, general, and administrative expense (SG&A) were less than the

statutory minimum of 10 percent of the cost of manufacture (COM), we

calculated SG&A as 10 percent of the COM. Where the actual profits were

less than the statutory minimum of 8 percent of the COM plus SG&A, we

calculated profit as 8 percent of the sum of COM plus SG&A. Based on

our verification of NSK's cost response, we adjusted NSK's reported COP

and CV to reflect the actual COP of related-party inputs.

In accordance with section 773 of the Tariff Act, for those U.S.

models for which we were able to find a home market such or similar

match that had sufficient above-cost sales, we calculated FMV based on

the packed, F.O.B., ex-factory, or delivered prices to related

purchasers (where an arm's-length relationship was demonstrated) and

unrelated purchasers in the home market. We made adjustments, where

applicable, for post-sale inland freight, and for home market direct

expenses such as credit, commissions, and warranties. We also made

adjustments for discounts, rebates and differences in physical

characteristics. In addition, for comparison to ESP sales, we adjusted

FMV for indirect selling expenses (which include advertising, inventory

carrying costs, pre-sale inland freight, and other selling expenses) in

the home market, limiting the home market indirect selling expense

deductions by the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the

United States. In situations where a U.S. sale with no commission was

compared to a home market sale with a commission, the Department

limited the deduction from FMV for home market indirect selling

expenses by the amount of U.S. indirect selling expenses less the home

market commission amount, rather than the entire amount of U.S.

indirect expenses. In cases where a commission was granted on the U.S.

sale only, we increased the amount classified as U.S. indirect selling

expenses by the amount of the U.S. commission for comparison to home

market indirect selling expenses. The deduction from FMV for home

market indirect selling expenses was limited by the amount of the

enhanced U.S. indirect selling expenses. We also adjusted FMV for the

Japanese consumption tax in accordance with our decision in

Silicomanganese, and, after decucting home market packing, we added to

FMV packing expenses incurred in Japan for U.S. sales.

For comparison to purchase price sales, pursuant to section 773 of

the Tariff Act, we added to FMV, where applicable, U.S. packing,

credit, and direct advertising. We adjusted FMV for the Japanese

consumption tax in accordance with our decision in Silicomanganese, and

for comparison to both ESP and purchase price sales, NTN requested and

received a level-of-trade adjustment to FMV based on certain home

market indirect expenses.

Because MC Int'l did not sell TRBs in the home market during the

review period, but rather only exported TRBs to the United States and

other third-country markets, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of

the Tariff Act, we determined that, for MC Int'l, the home market was

not viable. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.48, for MC Int'l we based

FMV on third-country sales.

In selecting the appropriate third-country market to use for

comparison purposes, we first determined which third-country markets

had adequate volumes of sales within the meaning of 19 CFR

353.49(b)(1). We determined that the volume of sales to a third-country

market was adequate if the quantity of sales of such or similar

merchandise equalled or exceeded five percent of the quantity of sales

in the United States. We then selected the third-country market with

the largest volume of sales, and with an [[Page 22353]] organization

and development most like that of the United States, as the most

appropriate market for comparison, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.49(b)(2) and 19 CFR 353.49(b)(3). Therefore, for MC Int'l's sales

of TRBs to the first unrelated customer in the United States, we based

FMV on MC Int'l's sales in Germany. In addition, we applied to MC

Int'l's German sales the identical price stability test described above

and because the annual weighted-average prices for TRBs sold by MC

Int'l in Germany did not vary meaningfully from the monthly weighted-

average prices of sales, and because there was no correlation between

price and time, we considered the annual weighted-average German prices

to be representative of the transactions under consideration.

Therefore, we calculated a single FMV for each model sold by MC Int'l

in Germany on an annual weighted-average basis.

No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Intent To Revoke

As a result of these preliminary results, we intend to revoke the

A-588-054 finding with respect to Honda. Based on the fact that we

found no margins for Honda's sales for the periods from January 1977

through July 1980, on September 1, 1981, we published in the Federal

Register (46 FR 43864) our tentative determination to revoke the A-588-

054 finding with respect to Honda. Based on the fact that Honda's

margin was again zero (0.0) percent for the period from August 1, 1980

through September 1, 1981 (the ``gap period''), on May 14, 1984, we

published in the Federal Register (49 FR 20356) our intent to revoke

Honda from the finding. However, the 1980-81 preliminary results for

Honda and the accompanying intent to revoke have no official standing.

This is due to events surrounding the 1984 change in the law which

required the Department to conduct administrative reviews upon request.

On August 30, 1985, we sent letters to all interested TRB parties

asking them to indicate the periods and companies for which the

Department had not issued final results of review so that parties could

request a review. Because we had not yet published a final results

notice for Honda for the 1980-81 period, this period was included in

our letters. In our August 13, 1985, Federal Register publication of

our transition provisions concerning administrative reviews upon

request, we explicitly stated that if preliminary results were

completed, but a request for review was not received, we would not

issue final results and the preliminary results would have no force or

effect. (See Antidumping and Countervailing Duties; Administrative

Reviews on Request; Transition Provisions, 50 FR 32557 (August 13,

1985).) Because we did not receive a request to review Honda for the

1980-81 period, we did not issue final results, we did not finalize

Honda's revocation, and the May 14, 1984, preliminary results and

intent to revoke have no official standing.

In November 1992, when we initiated these 1992-93 reviews, Honda

requested final revocation from the A-588-054 finding. However, given

the above-described events, we are unable to issue a final revocation

at this time. Rather, we must return to the intent to revoke stage of

the A-588-054 proceeding. While the intent to revoke notice normally

covers the ``gap period,'' it has been the Department's policy in

similar situations where revocation proceedings were begun, but never

finalized and a significant backlog exists, to conduct an ``update''

review of the most recent one-year period, in lieu of the ``gap

period'' (see Television Receivers, Monochrome and Color, from Japan;

Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Reviews, 55 FR 35916

(September 4, 1990), and Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle, from Japan;

Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review and Determination

Not to Revoke in Part, 56 FR 50093 (October 3, 1991)). We have

determined that this review constitutes such an update review.

We have reviewed and verified Honda for the 1992-93 period and have

preliminarily found no margin for Honda for the period October 1, 1992

through September 30, 1993. Because Honda made no sales of merchandise

covered by the A-588-054 finding at LTFV for at least three consecutive

years (January 1977 through September 1981) and because there is no

evidence on the record to indicate the likelihood of Honda's resumption

of sales at LTFV in the future, we intend to revoke Honda from the A-

588-054 finding in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act and

19 CFR 353.25. If Honda's margin does not change for our final results

of this review, we will proceed with Honda's final revocation in our

final results notice. As provided for in section 353.25(2)(iii) of the

Department's regulations, Honda has agreed in writing to an immediate

suspension of liquidation and reinstatement in the finding if

circumstances develop which indicate that TRBs and certain components

thereof exported by Honda and thereafter imported into the United

States are being sold at less than fair value. If this finding is

revoked with respect to Honda, the revocation will apply to entries of

TRBs and certain components thereof subject to the A-588-054 case

exported by Honda, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption

on or after September 1, 1981, the date of the original tentative

revocation, and for which liquidation remains suspended.

On May 14, 1984, the Department also published in the Federal

Register (49 FR 20356) the tentative determination to revoke the A-588-

054 finding with respect to Fuji, Kawasaki, Yamaha, and Suzuki.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.25(a), revocation of a finding or order is

discretionary on the part of the Secretary. Because, for these

preliminary results, we have determined margins for each of these firms

for the A-588-054 review (whether calculated or the result of BIA), we

have determined that they do not meet the requirement in 19 CFR

353.25(a)(ii) that they are unlikely to sell merchandise in the future

at less than FMV. Therefore, we will not consider further revocation

proceedings for any of these firms at this time.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our comparison of USP to FMV we preliminarily

determine that the following margins exist for the period October 1,

1992 through September 30, 1993:

For the A-588-054 Review

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

Manufacturer/Reseller/Exporter Margin(%)

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

Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp........................................ \1\18.07

NSK Ltd..................................................... 11.67

Fuji........................................................ 1.81

Honda....................................................... 0

Kawasaki.................................................... 11.67

Yamaha...................................................... 47.63

MC Int'l.................................................... 0.45

Maekawa..................................................... \1\0

Toyosha..................................................... 47.63

Nigata...................................................... 47.63

Suzuki...................................................... 47.63

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

\1\No shipments or sales subject to this review. Rate is from the last

relevant segment of the proceeding in which the firm had shipments/

sales.

For the A-588-604 Review

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

Manufacturer/Reseller/Exporter Margin(%)

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

NTN.......................................................... 14.06

Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp......................................... 40.37

NSK Ltd...................................................... 10.39

Fuji......................................................... (\2\)

Honda........................................................ (\2\)

Kawasaki..................................................... 36.52

[[Page 22354]]

Yamaha....................................................... 40.37

MC Int'l..................................................... (\2\)

Maekawa...................................................... (\2\)

Toyosha...................................................... 40.37

Nigata....................................................... 40.37

Suzuki....................................................... 40.37

Daido........................................................ (\2\)

Ichiyanagi Tekko............................................. 40.37

Nittetsu Bolten.............................................. 40.37

Sumikin Seiatsu.............................................. 40.37

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

\2\No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has no rate

from any segment of this proceeding.

Interested parties may request disclosure within 5 days of the date

of publication of this notice and may request a hearing within 10 days

of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after

the date of publication or the first business day thereafter. Case

briefs and/or written comments from interested parties may be submitted

no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs

and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in those

comments, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of

publication of this notice. The Department will publish the final

results of these administrative reviews including the results of its

analysis of issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing.

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual

differences between the USP and FMV may vary from the percentages

stated above.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the

final results of these administrative reviews, as provided for by

section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act. A cash deposit of estimated

antidumping duties shall be required on shipments of TRBs from Japan as

follows:

(1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be those

rates established in the final results of these reviews;

(2) For previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed

above,the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific

rate published for the most recent period;

(3) If the exporter is not a firm covered in these reviews, a prior

review, or the original LTFV investigations, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent

period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and

(4) If neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered

in these or any previous reviews conducted by the Department, the cash

deposit rate for the A-588-054 case will be 18.07 percent and 36.52

percent for the A-588-604 case (see Preliminary 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 51,058, 51,061 (September 30, 1993)).

All U.S. sales by each respondent will be subject to one deposit

rate according to the proceeding.

The cash deposit rate has been determined on the basis of the

selling price to the first unrelated customer in the United States. For

appraisement purposes, where information is available, the Department

will use the entered value of the merchandise to determine the

appraisement rate.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate

regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation

of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply

with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping duties.

These administrative reviews and this notice are in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR

353.22.

Dated: April 27, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 95-11160 Filed 5-4-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M