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.

Notices Federal Register

22349

Vol. 60, No. 87

Friday, May 5, 1995

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
22350 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Notices

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-thanfair-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 nonscope 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Notices 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 weightedaverage 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 weightedaverage 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 weightedaverage 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 weightedaverage 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
22352 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Notices

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 belowcost 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’slength 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 thirdcountry 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 thirdcountry 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 thirdcountry 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Notices 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 weightedaverage 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 weightedaverage 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
22354 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Notices

Manufacturer/

Reseller/

Exporter

Margin

(%)

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

[A–301–602]

Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From

Colombia; Initiation of Administrative

Review and Request for Revocation in

Part of the Antidumping Duty Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of initiation of

administrative review and request for

revocation in part of the antidumping

duty order.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) has received requests

to conduct an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on certain

fresh cut flowers from Colombia.

Requests for revocation from the

antidumping order were also received

from specific exporters/growers. In

accordance with the Department’s

regulations, we are initiating this

administrative review for the period

March 1, 1994 through February 28,

1995, for those named exporters/

growers for whom a request for review

was received. The Department is also

identifying those exporters/growers

which have requested revocation from

the antidumping duty order.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 5, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Ross, Thomas Schauer, or Richard

Rimlinger, 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)

482–4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department has received timely

requests, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.22 (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) (1994), for

an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain fresh

cut flowers from Colombia. The

Department has also received requests

for revocation from the exporters/

growers noted.

Initiation of Review

In accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(c)(1), we are initiating an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain fresh

cut flowers from Colombia. We intend

to issue the final results of this review

no later than March 31, 1996.

We received requests for review of the

following specifically named exporters/

growers:

Agricola Acevedo

Agricola Arenales Ltda.

Agricola Circasia

Agricola el Cactus S.A.

Agricola la Corsaria Ltda.

Agricola la Montana

Agricola Las Cuadras

Agrodex Group

Agroindustria del Rio Frio Ltda.

Agroindustrial Don Eusebio

Agromonte

Agropecuria Cuernavaca Ltda.

Andes Group

Cultivos Buenavista Ltda.

Flores de los Andes Ltda.

Flores Horizonte Ltda.

Inversiones Penas Blancas Ltda.

Astro Flowers