Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Antifriction Bearings From Japan

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588-804]

Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Antifriction Bearings

From Japan

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset reviews:

antifriction bearings from Japan.

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

SUMMARY: On April 1, 1999, the U.S. Department of Commerce (``the

Department'') initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders

on ball bearings (``BBs''), cylindrical roller bearings (``CRBs''), and

spherical plain bearings (``SPBs'') (collectively, antifriction

bearings) from Japan pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (``the Act''). On the basis of a notice of intent to

participate and an adequate response filed on behalf of a domestic

interested party and inadequate response from respondent interested

parties in each of these reviews, the Department conducted expedited

sunset 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 Result of Review section of this notice.

For Further Information Contact: Scott E. Smith 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, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-

6397 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

Effective Date: November 4, 1999.

Statute and Regulations

These reviews were conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of

the Act. The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset reviews

are set forth in Procedures for Conducting Five-year (``Sunset'')

Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516

(March 20, 1998) (``Sunset Regulations''), and 19 CFR 351(1998) in

general. Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to

the Department's conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in the

Department's Policy Bulletin 98:3--Policies Regarding the Conduct of

Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (``Sunset Policy

Bulletin'').

Scope

The products covered by these orders, antifriction bearings (other

than tapered roller bearings), mounted or unmounted, and parts thereof

(AFBs), constitute the following three types of subject merchandise:

Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof: These products include all AFBs

that employ balls as the roller element. Imports of these products are

classified under the following categories: antifriction balls, ball

bearings with integral shafts, ball bearings (including radial ball

bearings) and parts thereof, and housed or mounted ball bearing units

and parts thereof. Imports of these products are classified under the

following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings: 3926.90.45,

4016.93.00, 4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.19.5010, 8431.20.00,

8431.39.0010, 8482.10.10, 8482.10.50, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00,

8482.99.05, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.2580, 8482.99.6595, 8483.20.40,

8483.20.80, 8483.50.8040, 8483.50.90, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30,

8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.60.80, 8708.70.6060,

8708.70.8050, 8708.93.30, 8708.93.5000, 8708.93.6000, 8708.93.75,

8708.99.06, 8708.99.31, 8708.99.4960,

[[Page 60276]]

8708.99.50, 8708.99.5800, 8708.99.8080, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00,

8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, and 8803.90.90.

Cylindrical Roller Bearings, Mounted or Unmounted, and Parts

Thereof: These products include all AFBs that employ cylindrical

rollers as the rolling element. Imports of these products are

classified under the following categories: antifriction rollers, all

cylindrical roller bearings (including split cylindrical roller

bearings) and parts thereof, housed or mounted cylindrical roller

bearing units and parts thereof. Imports of these products are

classified under the following HTS subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00,

4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.19.5010, 8431.20.00, 8431.39.0010,

8482.40.00, 8482.50.00, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.25, 8482.99.35,

8482.99.6530, 8482.99.6560, 8482.99.70, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80,

8483.50.8040, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 8708.50.50,

8708.60.50, 8708.93.5000, 8708.99.4000, 8708.99.4960, 8708.99.50,

8708.99.8080, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, and

8803.90.90.

Spherical Plain Bearings, Mounted or Unmounted, and Parts Thereof:

These products include all spherical plain bearings that employ a

spherically shaped sliding element and include spherical plain rod

ends. Imports of these products are classified under the following HTS

subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00, 4016.93.00, 4016.93.10,

4016.93.50, 6909.50,10, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.30, 8485.90.00,

8708.93.5000, 8708.99.50, 8803.10.00, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00,

8803.30.00, and 8803.90.90.

The Department notes that the HTS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope

of this proceeding is dispositive. Furthermore, we note that the size

or precision grade of a bearing does not influence whether the bearing

is covered by the orders. These orders cover all the subject bearings

and parts thereof (inner race, outer race, cage, rollers, balls, seals,

shields, etc.) outlined above with certain limitations. With regard to

finished parts, all such parts are included in the scope of these

orders. For unfinished parts, such parts are included if (1) they have

been heat-treated, or (2) heat treatment is not required to be

performed on the part. Thus, the only unfinished parts that are not

covered by these orders are those that will be subject to heat

treatment after importation.

The ultimate application of a bearing also does not influence

whether the bearing is covered by the orders. Bearings designed for

highly specialized applications are not excluded. Any of the subject

bearings, regardless of whether they may ultimately be utilized in

aircraft, automobiles, or other equipment, are within the scopes of

these orders.1

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

\1\ There have been a number of clarifications to the scopes of

these orders. For a complete listing, see Appendix A.

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

History of the Orders

The Department published its less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'')

determination of antifriction bearings from Japan on May 3,

1989.2 In this determination, the Department published the

following weighted-average dumping margins for these companies with

respect to BBs: 73.55 for Koyo; 106.61 for Minebea; 48.69 for Nachi;

42.99 for NSK; 21.36 for NTN; and 45.83 for all other producers and/or

exporters. The Department also published the following weighted-average

dumping margins for these companies with respect to CRBs: 51.21 for

Koyo; 4.00 for Nachi; 12.28 for NSK; 9.30 for NTN; and 25.80 for all

other producers and/or exporters. In addition, the Department published

the following weighted-average dumping margins for these companies with

respect to SPBs: 84.26 for Minebea; 92.00 for NTN; and 84.33 for all

other producers and/or exporters. Since that time, the Department has

conducted nine administrative reviews.3 With respect to duty

absorption, the Department issued duty absorption findings in the 1995-

1996 and 1997-1998 administrative reviews.4

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

\2\ See Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value;

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof From Japan, 54 FR 19101 (May 3, 1989).

\3\ See Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value;

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof From Japan, 54 FR 19101 (May 3, 1989); Antifriction Bearings

(Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From Japan;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 56 FR

31754 (July 11, 1991); 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); 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); 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); 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); Antifriction Bearings (Other

Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From Japan;

Amendment to Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 59 FR 9469 (February 28, 1994); 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);

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof From Japan and Germany; Amendment to Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 60 FR 10967 (February 28,

1995); Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings)

and Parts Thereof From Japan; Amended Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 65264 (December 19, 1995);

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, Sweden, and

the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR

66472 (December 17, 1996); Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered

Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From Germany, Italy, Japan, and

the United Kingdom: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 3003 (January 21, 1997); Antifriction

Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 2081

(January 15, 1997); Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller

Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and

Singapore; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 62 FR 14391 (March 26, 1997); Antifriction Bearings (Other

Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From Japan 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, Romania, Singapore, Sweden and the

United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 62 FR 54043 (October 17, 1997); 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 Parts 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); Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews, 64 FR 35590 (July 1, 1999).

\4\ 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); 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 Japan, pursuant to section 751(c)

of the Act. By April 16, 1999, within the deadline specified in section

[[Page 60277]]

351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulation, we received notices of

intent to participate from the following: Link-Belt Bearing Division

(``Link-Belt''); The Torrington Company (``Torrington'') and MPB

Corporation (``MPB''); Koyo Corporation of U.S.A.--Manufacturing

Division (``KCUM''); NTN Bearing Corporation of America (``NBCA''),

American NTN Bearing Manufacturing Corporation (``ANBM'') and NTN-BCA

Corporation (``NTN-BCA'') (collectively (``NTN''); Roller Bearing

Company of America, Inc. (``RBC''); New Hampshire Ball Bearings, Inc.

(``NHBB''), and NSK Corporation. Each of these parties claimed status

as domestic interested parties on the basis that they are a domestic

producer, manufacturer, or wholesaler of one or more of the products

subject to these orders.5

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

\5\ Torrington, RBC, and NHBB filed with respect to BBs, CRBs,

and SPBs. Link-Belt, MPB, and NTN filed with respect to BBs and

CRBs. KCUM and NSK filed with respect to BBs only.

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

Within the deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations under

section 351.218(d)(3)(i), on May 3, 1999, the Department received

complete substantive responses from each of these domestic interested

parties, with the exception of Link-Belt. In addition, Koyo Seiko Corp.

Ltd., and Koyo Corporation of the U.S.A. (collectively ``Koyo'')

notified the Department that they would not file a substantive response

in the reviews of the AFB orders. Finally, we received a complete

substantive response on behalf of Nippon Pillow Block Manufacturing

Company Limited, Nippon Pillow Block Sales Company Limited, and FYH

Bearing Units USA, Inc. (collectively ``Nippon Pillow Block''). Nippon

Pillow Block asserts that it is a foreign manufacturer and exporter of

BBs and is, therefore, an interested party within the meaning of

section 771(9)(A) of the Act. We received rebuttal comments from

Torrington and MPB (collectively ``the companies'') and from NTN on May

12, 1999, within the deadline.

On May 21, 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 Japan 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.6

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

\6\ See Tapered Roller Bearings, 4 Inches and Under From Japan,

et. al.: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year

Reviews, 64 FR 42672 (August 5, 1999).

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

Determination

In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department

conducted these reviews to determine whether revocation of the

antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping. Section 752(c) of the Act provides that, in

making this determination, the Department shall consider the weighted-

average dumping margins determined in the investigation and subsequent

reviews and the volume of imports of the subject merchandise for the

period before and the period after the issuance of the antidumping duty

order. Pursuant to section 752(c)(3) of the Act, the Department shall

provide to the Commission the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail

if the order is revoked.

The Department's determinations concerning adequacy, continuation

or recurrence of dumping, and magnitude of the margin are discussed

below. In addition, the parties' comments with respect to adequacy, 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 MPB and Torrington supporting our

determination to conduct expedited reviews. NHBB and NSK Corporation

also submitted comments on whether expedited sunsets review were

warranted. In their submissions, both parties assert that most of the

domestic interested parties that submitted substantive responses are in

favor of revocation of the orders. These parties also offered new

argument regarding the likely effect of revocation of the 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 Rep. No. 103-412 at 46

(2nd Session)) 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 basis 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

[[Page 60278]]

subject merchandise declined significantly (see section II.A.3).

In their substantive response, Torrington and MPB argue that

revocation of the antidumping duty orders on the subject merchandise

would be likely to lead to continuation of dumping. They base this

conclusion on the fact that dumping continued at levels above de

minimis levels after the issuance of the orders. RBC also argues that

given that dumping margins continue to exist after the issuance of the

orders, the Department must conclude that dumping would be likely to

continue or recur if the orders were revoked. Torrington and MPB also

assert that an examination of import volumes is not necessary because

dumping continued. Using pre-and post-order statistics for complete

unmounted BBs, which Torrington and MPB assert is the only category for

which statistics are available on a consistent basis, they nonetheless

argue that post-order declines in import volume provide strong

additional support for a determination the dumping is likely to

continue or recur were the orders revoked. In conclusion, Torrington

and MPB assert that no ``good cause'' exists to consider other factors,

such as sales below the cost of production. However, if the Department

were to consider other factors, it should acknowledge that, in each

review period, it has found that home market sales by Japanese

producers were below the cost of production, requiring that such sales

be disregarded for purposes of determining foreign market value or

normal value.

NHBB and NSK Corporation assert that revocation of the orders is

not likely to result in continuation or recurrence of dumping. NHBB

bases its assertion on the fact that dumping would undercut the U.S.

domestic price structure, thus causing injury to the very industry of

which foreign owners are a part. NSK Corporation appears to support its

assertion on the basis that the margin of dumping would be no higher

than the margin found in the most recent administrative review (i.e.,

2.30 percent). KCUM and NTN argue that revocation of the antidumping

duty orders would not be likely to have much of an effect on the U.S.

market, prices, or the industry, or would it result in no or minimal

impact upon the U.S. market. In addition, the respondent interested

party in the review of Bbs, Nippon Pillow Block, asserts that

revocation or the order would have minimal or de minimis effects on the

BB market in the United States and the operations of the domestic

producers. Further, Nippon Pillow Block argues that dumping would not

be likely to continue or resume, although it also suggests that, if the

order were revoked, the antidumping duty margin likely to prevail is

2.30 percent.

In their rebuttal comment, Torrington and MPB assert that the

Department should take into account the submitter's affiliation in its

consideration of comments of various parties filing as domestic

producers. Further, citing to Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From

Thailand; Final Results of Changed Circumstances Countervailing Duty

Review and Revocation of Countervailing Duty Order, 61 FR 20799, 20800

(May 8, 1996), they argue that the Department has recognized that

domestic producers who are affiliated with subject foreign producers

and exporters do not have a common ``stake'' with the petitioner in the

maintenance of the order. Additionally, Torrington and MPB argue that

other parties' comments addressing issues other than margins and import

volumes should not be considered unless such parties establish ``good

cause'' to consider such additional factors, which, in these reviews,

they have not done.

In its rebuttal comments, NTN argues that the factors discussed in

Torrington's, MPB's, and RBC's responses do not indicate that

revocation of the orders would be likely to lead to the continuation or

recurrence of dumping. NTN asserts that the inclusion by RBC of margins

from companies which do not currently ship to the United States and

which have not been the subject of recent reviews is distortive of the

current situation. Further, NTN asserts that the responses rely heavily

on duty absorption determinations that are the subject of litigation

before the Court of International Trade.

As discussed in section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the

SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, existence of dumping margins

after the order is highly probative of the likelihood of continuation

or recurrence of dumping. If companies continue to dump with the

discipline of an order in place, the Department may reasonably infer

that dumping would continue if the discipline of the order were

removed. Thus, as noted above, in determining whether revocation of an

order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, the

Department considers the margins determined in the investigation and

subsequent administrative reviews and the volume of imports. Whatever

relevance the arguments of NHBB, NSK Corporation, KCUM, and NTN

concerning possible disincentives for producers and/or exporters to

dump in the U.S. market might have had is mooted by the evidence that

dumping continues and has continued over the lives of the orders.

In the instant proceedings, dumping margins above de minimis

continue to exist with respect to each of the orders. Therefore, given

that dumping has continued over the life of the orders, the Department

determines that dumping is likely to continue if the orders were

revoked. Because we have based this determination on the fact that

dumping continued at levels above de minimis, we have not addressed the

comments submitted by Torrington and MPB with respect to ``good

cause,'' nor have we addressed the arguments of other interested

parties regarding the condition of the U.S. market.

Magnitude of the Margin

In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that,

consistent with the SAA and House Report, the Department will normally

provide to the Commission a margin from the investigation because that

is the only calculated rate that reflects the behavior or exporters

without the discipline of an order in place. Further, for companies not

specifically investigated or for companies that did not begin shipping

until after the order was issued, the Department wil 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.)

In their substantive response, Torrington and MPB argue that the

margins that are likely to prevail should the orders be revoked are the

dumping margins found for each company in the original investigation

(as opposed to margins calculated in succeeding annual administrative

reviews), including margins based on best information available, except

where the most current margin, increased by the Department's duty

absorption determination, exceeds the original investigation margin.

With respect to BBs, RBC argues that the margins from the original

investigation are the margins likely to prevail were the order revoked.

NHBB argues that the dumping margins likely to prevail if the

orders were revoked are de minimis. NHBB goes on to argue that it would

be illogical for companies with significant U.S. bearings investments

to undercut that investment by dumping. In

[[Page 60279]]

addition, NHBB argues that the Department should not report margins

from the original investigation, asserting that the SAA provides that,

in certain instances, it is more appropriate to rely on a more recently

calculated margin. NHBB also asserts that one such instance is where,

as in the AFB cases, dumping margins have declined over the lives of

the orders and imports have remained steady or increased. Finally, NHBB

argues that, in light of changes in the methodology used to calculate

antidumping duty margins introduced by the Uruguay Round, use of

margins calculated by the Department prior to the URAA would be unfair

and would be contrary to the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article

VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.

Similarly, NSK Corporation argues that the margins likely to

prevail are de minimis. As support, NSK Corporation argues that, were

the orders not in existence, the Department would apply the average-to-

average methodology used in an investigation as opposed to the

transaction-to-average methodology common to administrative reviews to

measure the extent of any dumping. In such a case, NSK Corporation

states that it believes any margin found would be below the two percent

de minimis level applicable in investigations. NSK Corporation argues

that further that the Department's unorthodox approach during the

original investigation, plus the liberal use of best information

available, skewed the results of the original investigation seriously,

rendering those results inappropriate indicators of the magnitude of

the margin likely to prevail were the orders revoked. Finally, NSK

Corporation also argues that dumping margins have declined over time

with respect to importations of BBs while, at the same time,

importations have remained at or around 20 percent of the U.S. market.

As support, it cites to The Economic Effects of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Orders and Suspension Agreements, USITC Pub. 2900,

Inv. No. 332-334, at 14-26--14-31 (June 1995).

KCUM argues that it cannot predict the effect revocation would have

on the margins because the existence of the orders does not have much

of an effect on prices. Further, KCUM states that any likely margins

are dependent on an entirely exogenous factor, such as the fluctuation

in the exchange rate between the dollar and the Japanese yen. KCUM

asserts that the Department cannot rely on the margins from the

original investigation as (1) the final determinations were almost 10

years ago and thus are far too old to serve as realistic indicators,

and (2) Koyo's rate was based in large part on best information

available and thus is enormously inflated when compared to actual

margins from administrative reviews. KCUM argues that, therefore, the

Department must use the results of more recent administrative reviews

to determine the margins likely to prevail for Koyo.

NTN argues that, were the orders revoked, the dumping margins that

would likely prevail would be zero percent. In the alternative, NTN

requests that the Department employ margins that were determined during

the more recent administrative reviews.

Nippon Pillow Block argues that, in cases where imports have

increased and the magnitude of dumping has declined since the

imposition of the order, as is the case with respect to exports of BBs

by Nippon Pillow Block, consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin the

Department should find that a dumping margin no higher than the margin

found in the most recent review is likely to prevail. Therefore, Nippon

Pillow Block suggests that the magnitude of the margin likely to

prevail with respect to its exports if the order on BBs were revoked is

the 2.30 percent margin from the administrative review covering May 1,

1996, through April 30, 1997.

In their rebuttal comments, Torrington and MPB argue that other

parties' comments ignore the Department's stated policies regarding the

selection of margins likely to prevail and ignore the Department's duty

absorption findings. Citing to the Sunset Policy Bulletin, Torrington

and MPB argue that the Department's policies are clear--normal reliance

on the margins from the investigation as the only margins that reflect

the behavior of exporters without the discipline of the order and

rejection of margins from administrative reviews in which the

Department found duty absorption. Torrington and MPB argue that the two

percent de minimis standard is not applicable to sunset reviews.

Further, they contend that there is no authority which would authorize

or justify the rejection of the investigation rates on the basis of the

particular methodology used at the time of the investigation.

Additionally, they argue that, with respect to claims that more recent

margins should be used based on declining margins accompanied by steady

or increasing imports, Torrington and MPB argue that it is the

responsibility of such claimants to provide information regarding

companies' relative market share. Since no such information was

provided, the Department should not accept these assertions. In fact,

imports of certain BBs have actually declined since the imposition of

the order.

In their rebuttal comments NTN asserts that the inclusion by RBC of

margins from companies which do not currently ship to the United States

and which have not been the subject of recent reviews is distortive of

the current situation. Further, NTN asserts that the responses rely

heavily on duty absorption determinations that are the subject of

litigation before the Court of International Trade.

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'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 our dumping margins 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. 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 NHBB's argument concerning the dumping margin

likely to prevail, the Department disagrees. First, NHBB claims that

dumping margins have declined over the lives of the orders and imports

have remained steady or increased. However, NHBB provided no evidence

to support these claims. Nothing submitted in the course of this sunset

proceeding indicates that imports have remained steady or increased. In

fact, evidence submitted by Torrington and MPB indicate that imports of

the subject merchandise have decreased. Regardless of the level of

imports, dumping margins above de minimis levels continue as do imports

of the subject merchandise; dumping continues to exist.

[[Page 60280]]

In the Sunset Policy Bulletin we indicated that, consistent with

the SAA at 889-90 and the House Report at 63, we may determine, in

cases where declining (or no) dumping margins are accompanied by steady

or increasing imports, that a more recently calculated rate reflects

that companies do not have to dump to maintain market share in the

United States and, therefore, that dumping is less likely to continue

or recur if the order were revoked. Alternatively, if a company chooses

to increase dumping in order to increase or maintain market share, the

Department may provide the Commission with a more recently calculated

margin for that company. The Sunset Policy Bulletin provides that we

will entertain such considerations in response to argument from an

interested party. Further, we noted that, in determining whether a more

recently calculated margin is probative of an exporter's behavior

absent the discipline of an order, we will normally consider the

company's relative market share, with such information to be provided

by the parties. It is clear, therefore, that in determining whether a

more recently calculated margin is probative of the behavior of

exporters were the order revoked, the Department considers company-

specific exports and company-specific margins. Additionally, although

we expressed a clear preference for market share information, in past

sunset reviews where market share information was not available, the

Department relied on changes in import volumes between the periods

before and after the issuance of the order. See, e.g., Final Results of

Expedited Sunset Review: Stainless Steel Plate from Sweden, 63 FR 67658

(December 8, 1998), and Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews:

Certain Iron Construction Castings From Brazil, Canada, and the

People's Republic of China, 64 FR 30310 (June 7, 1999).

In sunset reviews, although we make likelihood determinations on an

order-wide basis, we report company-specific margins to the Commission.

Therefore, it is appropriate that our determinations regarding the

magnitude of the margin likely to prevail be based on company-specific

information. Generic arguments that margins decreased over the life of

the orders while, at the same time, exporters' share of the U.S. market

remained constant do not address the question of whether any particular

company decreased its margin of dumping while at the same time

maintaining or increasing market share. In fact, such generic argument

may disguise company-specific behavior demonstrating increased dumping

coupled with increased market share.

In these reviews, only Nippon Pillow Block provided statistics

regarding its company-specific exports of BBs both prior to the

issuance of the order and for the most recent five years. We reviewed

the statistics provided and found that, although its export volume and

values fluctuated during the period 1994 through 1998, its exports

during 1996 were at an all-time high. Coinciding with this increase,

the Department calculated margins for Nippon Pillow Block of 7.87

percent for the May 1995 through April 1996 review and 2.30 percent for

the May 1996 through April 1997 review. Further, the Department

calculated a margin of 1.20 percent for Nippon Pillow Block during the

most recently completed review covering the period May 1997 through

April 1998. Given the correlation between increased exports and the

decreased margin in the 1996/97 administrative review, we agree with

Nippon Pillow Block that a more recently calculated margin may be an

appropriate indicator of the magnitude of margin likely to prevail were

the order revoked.

The SAA at 885 and the House Report at 60 provide, however, that

duty absorption is a strong indicator that the current dumping margins

calculated in reviews may not be indicative of the margins that would

exist in the absence of an order. Once an order is revoked, the

importer could achieve the same pre-revocation return on its sales by

lowering its prices in the United States in the amount of the duty that

was previously being absorbed. Therefore, in the Sunset Policy Bulletin

the Department indicated that it normally will determine that a

company's current dumping margin is not indicative of the margin likely

to prevail were the order revoked. Further, we indicated that we

normally will provide to the Commission the higher of the margin that

we would otherwise have reported to the Commission or the most recent

margin for that company adjusted to account for our findings on duty

absorption.

In their comments, Torrington and MPB argue that the Sunset Policy

Bulletin requires that the Department report to the Commission the

higher of the margin from the original investigation or the margin from

a more recent administrative review adjusted to reflect duty absorption

findings. We do not agree. As noted above, the Sunset Policy Bulletin

provides that, where we have found duty absorption in an administrative

review initiated in 1998 (for transition orders such as these) we will

normally select the higher of the margin we would otherwise have

reported or the margin adjusted to account for duty absorption

findings. With respect to Nippon Pillow Block, as noted above, we would

otherwise report to the Commission the margin from the 1996/97

administrative review. The Department was not required to investigate

duty absorption during the 1996/97 administrative review; in the 1995/

96 and the 1997/98 administrative reviews, the Department found that

Nippon Pillow Block was absorbing duties on 55.46 and 9.75 percent of

its U.S. affiliate's sales, respectively. Because all of Nippon Pillow

Block's U.S. sales were constructed export price sales, total sales and

U.S. affiliate's sales are the same. Therefore, for purposes of

considering duty absorption, we relied on the level of duty absorption

found in the administrative review initiated in 1998. Consistent with

the methodology described in the Sunset Policy Bulletin and we used in

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), we adjusted Nippon Pillow Block's margin

from the 1996/97 administrative review (the year corresponding to the

highest volume of imports) to account for duty absorption. Because the

result is higher than the rate we would otherwise report to the

Commission, we will report the adjusted rate.

With respect to all other producers/exporters of the subject

merchandise, as noted above, there is no evidence on the record to

indicate that the margin of dumping for any particular producer/

exporter decreased at the same time that it was increasing or

maintaining U.S. market share nor is there evidence on the record to

indicate corresponding increases in dumping margins and exports.

Therefore, we are relying on the margins from the original

investigations as probative of the behavior of producers/exporters

without the discipline of the orders.

Based on the above analysis, we will report to the Commission the

margins indicated in the Final Results of the Review section of this

notice.

Final Results of Review

As a result of these reviews, the Department finds that revocation

of the antidumping orders would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:

[[Page 60281]]

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

Margin

Manufacturers/Exporters (Percent)

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

Ball Bearings:

Nippon Pillow Block.................................... 2.55

Koyo................................................... 73.55

Minebea................................................ 106.61

Nachi.................................................. 48.69

NSK.................................................... 42.99

NTN.................................................... 21.36

All Other Producers/Exporters.......................... 45.83

Cylindrical Roller Bearings:

Koyo................................................... 51.21

Nachi.................................................. 4.00

NSK.................................................... 12.28

NTN.................................................... 9.30

All Other Producers/Exporters.......................... 25.80

Spherical Plain Bearings:

Minebea................................................ 84.26

NTN.................................................... 92.00

All Other Producers/Exporters.......................... 84.33

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

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 section 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's

regulation. 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 sanctionable

violation.

This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are published in

accordance with sections 751(c) 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: October 28, 1999.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix A

*The following includes clarifications to the scopes of the

Department's various antidumping duty orders on antifriction

bearings.

Scope Determinations Made in the Final Determinations of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value; Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller

Bearings) and Parts Thereof From the Federal Republic of Germany, 54 FR

19006, 19019 (May 3, 1989):

Products covered:

Rod end bearings and parts thereof

AFBs used in aviation applications

Aerospace engine bearings

Split cylindrical roller bearings

Wheel hub units

Slewing rings and slewing bearings (slewing rings and

slewing bearings were subsequently excluded by the International

Trade Commission's negative injury determination (See International

Trade Commission: Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller

Bearings) and Parts Thereof from the Federal Republic of Germany,

France, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand and the

United Kingdom, 54 FR 21488 (May 18, 1989))

Wave generator bearings

Bearings (including mounted or housed units and flanged

or enhanced bearings) ultimately utilized in textile machinery

Products excluded:

Plain bearings other than spherical plain bearings

Airframe components unrelated to the reduction of

friction

Linear motion devices

Split pillow block housings

Nuts, bolts, and sleeves that are not integral parts of

a bearing or attached to a bearing under review

Thermoplastic bearings

Stainless steel hollow balls

Textile machinery components that are substantially

advanced in function(s) or value

Wheel hub units imported as part of front and rear axle

assemblies; wheel hub units that include tapered roller bearings;

and clutch release bearings that are already assembled as parts of

transmissions

Scope Rulings Completed Between April 1, 1990, and June 30, 1990 (See

Scope Rulings, 55 FR 42750 (October 23, 1990))

Products excluded:

Antifriction bearings, including integral shaft ball

bearings, used in textile machinery and imported with attachments

and augmentations sufficient to advance their function beyond load-

bearing/friction-reducing capability

Scope Rulings Completed Between July 1, 1990, and September 30, 1990

(See Scope Rulings, 55 FR 43020 (October 25, 1990))

Products covered:

Rod ends

Clutch release bearings

Ball bearings used in the manufacture of helicopters

Ball bearings used in the manufacture of disk drives

Scope Rulings Published in Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered

Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof; Final Results of Antidumping

Administrative Review (AFBs I), 56 FR 31692, 31696 (July 11, 1991)

Products covered:

Load rollers and thrust rollers, also called mast guide

bearings

Conveyor system trolley wheels and chain wheels

Scope Rulings Completed Between April 1, 1991, and June 30, 1991 (See

Notice of Scope Rulings, 56 FR 36774 (August 1, 1991))

Products excluded:

Textile machinery components including false twist

spindles, belt guide rollers, separator rollers, damping units,

rotor units, and tension pulleys

Scope Rulings Completed Between July 1, 1991, and September 30, 1991

(See Scope Rulings, 56 FR 57320 (November 8, 1991)):

Products covered:

Snap rings and wire races

Bearings imported as spare parts

Custom-made specialty bearings

Products excluded:

Certain rotor assembly textile machinery components

Linear motion bearings

Scope Rulings Completed Between October 1, 1991, and December 31, 1991

(See Notice of Scope Rulings, 57 FR 4597 (February 6, 1992))

Products covered:

Chain sheaves (forklift truck mast components)

Loose boss rollers used in textile drafting machinery,

also called top rollers

Certain engine main shaft pilot bearings and engine

crank shaft bearings

Scope Rulings Completed Between January 1, 1992, and March 31, 1992

(See Scope Rulings, 57 FR 19602 (May 7, 1992))

Products covered:

Ceramic bearings

Roller turn rollers

Clutch release systems that contain rolling elements

Products excluded:

Clutch release systems that do not contain rolling

elements

Chrome steel balls for use as check valves in hydraulic

valve systems

Scope Rulings Completed Between April 1, 1992, and June 30, 1992 (See

Scope Rulings, 57 FR 32973 (July 24, 1992))

Products excluded:

Finished, semiground stainless steel balls

Stainless steel balls for non-bearing use (in an

optical polishing process)

Scope Rulings Completed Between July 1, 1992, and September 30, 1992

(See Scope Rulings, 57 FR 57420 (December 4, 1992))

Products covered:

Certain flexible roller bearings whose component

rollers have a length-to-diameter ratio of less than 4:1

Model 15BM2110 bearings

Products excluded:

Certain textile machinery components

Scope Rulings Completed Between October 1, 1992, and December 31, 1992

(See Scope Rulings, 58 FR 11209 (February 24, 1993))

Products covered:

Certain cylindrical bearings with a length-to-diameter

ratio of less than 4:1

Products excluded:

Certain cartridge assemblies comprised of a machine

shaft, a machined housing and two standard bearings

Scope Rulings Completed Between January 1, 1993, and March 31, 1993

(See Scope Rulings, 58 FR 27542 (May 10, 1993))

Products covered:

Certain cylindrical bearings with a length-to-diameter

ratio of less than 4:1

[[Page 60282]]

Scope Rulings Completed Between April 1, 1993, and June 30, 1993 (See

Scope Rulings, 58 FR 47124 (September 7, 1993))

Products covered:

Certain series of INA bearings

Products excluded:

SAR series of ball bearings

Certain eccentric locking collars that are part of

housed bearing units

Scope Rulings Completed Between October 1, 1993, and December 31, 1993

(See Scope Rulings, 59 FR 8910 (February 24, 1994))

Products excluded:

Certain textile machinery components

Scope Rulings Completed Between January 1, 1994, and March 31, 1994

Products excluded:

Certain textile machinery components

Scope Rulings Completed Between October 1, 1994 and December 31, 1994

(See Scope Rulings, 60 FR 12196 (March 6, 1995))

Products excluded:

Rotek and Kaydon--Rotek bearings, models M4 and L6, are

slewing rings outside the scope of the order.

Scope Rulings Completed Between April 1, 1995 and June 30, 1995 (See

Scope Rulings, 60 FR 36782 (July 18, 1995))

Products covered:

Consolidated Saw Mill International (CSMI) Inc.--Cambio

bearings contained in CSMI's sawmill debarker are within the scope

of the order.

Nakanishi Manufacturing Corp.--Nakanishi's stamped

steel washer with a zinc phosphate and adhesive coating used in the

manufacture of a ball bearing is within the scope of the order.

Scope Rulings Completed Between January 1, 1996 and March 31, 1996 (See

Scope Rulings, 61 FR 18381 (April 25, 1996))

Products covered:

Marquardt Switches--Medium carbon steel balls imported

by Marquardt are outside the scope of the order.

Scope Rulings Completed Between April 1, 1996 and June 30, 1996 (See

Scope Rulings, 61 FR 40194 (August 1, 1996))

Products excluded:

Dana Corporation--Automotive component, known variously

as a center bracket assembly, center bearings assembly, support

bracket, or shaft support bearing, is outside the scope of the

order.

Rockwell International Corporation--Automotive

component, known variously as a cushion suspension unit, cushion

assembly unit, or center bearing assembly, is outside the scope of

the order.

Enkotec Company, Inc.--``Main bearings'' imported for

incorporation into Enkotec Rotary Nail Machines are slewing rings

and, therefore, are outside the scope of the order.

[FR Doc. 99-28770 Filed 11-3-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P