[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 150 (Friday, August 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39933-39937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-19258]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[C-559-802]


Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and 
Parts Thereof (AFBs) From Singapore; Preliminary Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting two 
administrative reviews of the 

[[Page 39934]]
countervailing duty orders on antifriction bearings (other than tapered 
roller bearings) and parts thereof (AFBs) from Singapore. We 
preliminarily determine the net subsidy to be zero for the Minebea 
group of companies (Pelmec Industries (Pte.) Ltd. (Pelmec), NMB 
Singapore Ltd. (NMB), and Minebea Co., Ltd. Singapore Branch (MSB)) and 
9.11 percent ad valorem for all other companies for the periods January 
1, 1992, through December 31, 1992, and January 1, 1993, through 
December 31, 1993. If the final results remain the same as these 
preliminary results of administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. 
Customs Service to assess countervailing duties as indicated above. 
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Albright or Melanie Brown, 
Office of Countervailing Compliance, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 3, 1989, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(54 FR 19125) the countervailing duty orders on AFBs from Singapore. On 
April 28, 1993, and May 4, 1994, the Department published in the 
Federal Register notices of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative 
Review'' (58 FR 25802 and 59 FR 23051-52) of these countervailing duty 
orders. We received a timely request for review for the period January 
1, 1992, through December 31, 1992, from the petitioner, the Torrington 
Company. We also received timely requests for review for the period 
January 1, 1993, through December 31, 1993, from both the petitioner, 
the Torrington Company, and the Minebea group of companies, which 
accounts for most of the exports of subject merchandise from Singapore 
to the United States (see section on Best Information Available, 
below).
    We initiated the 1992 and 1993 reviews on June 25, 1993 (58 FR 
34414) and June 15, 1994 (59 FR 30770), respectively. We conducted 
verifications of the questionnaire responses for both the 1992 and 1993 
reviews. The 1992 review covers three related manufacturers/exporters 
of the subject merchandise and 16 programs; the 1993 review covers the 
same manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise and 17 
programs.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    The Department is conducting these administrative reviews in 
accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act). Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and 
to the Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as 
they existed on December 31, 1994.

Scope of Reviews

    Imports covered by these reviews are shipments of antifriction 
bearings (other than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof. The 
subject merchandise covers five separate classes or kinds of 
merchandise, each of which is described in detail in Appendix A to this 
notice. The Harmonized Tariff Schedule item numbers listed in Appendix 
A are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written 
descriptions remain dispositive.
    On October 30, 1992, the Department received a request for a scope 
determination from Sundstrand Pacific (Sundstrand). Specifically, 
Sundstrand asked the Department to find its part number 742973, an 
outer-race of the cylindrical roller bearing, not within the scopes of 
the countervailing duty orders. The request was subsequently evaluated 
in accordance with section 355.29(i)(1) of the Department's 
regulations. On February 4, 1993, the Department determined that the 
product in question was within the scope of the order on cylindrical 
roller bearings (58 FR 27542, 27543; May 10, 1993). Because the product 
descriptions detailed in Sundstrand's request for a scope determination 
were dispositive as to whether part number 742973 was within the scope 
of the order on cylindrical roller bearings, the Department did not 
initiate a formal scope inquiry. Accordingly, the U.S. Customs Service 
has been instructed to continue to suspend liquidation of part 742973 
exported by Sundstrand.

Best Information Available

    During the investigation, Sundstrand, an exporter of the subject 
merchandise which was identified by the Government of Singapore (GOS), 
refused to participate, and consequently received a rate based entirely 
on best information available (BIA)(see Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determinations and Countervailing Duty Orders: 
Antifriction Bearings (other than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 
thereof from Singapore (54 FR 19125, 19126; May 3, 1989)). Section 
776(c) of the Act requires the Department to use BIA ``whenever a party 
or any other person refuses or is unable to produce information 
requested in a timely manner and in the form required, or otherwise 
significantly impedes an investigation * * *'' See also 19 CFR 
Sec. 355.37. In determining what rate to use as BIA, the Department 
follows a two-tiered methodology. The Department assigns lower rates to 
those respondents who cooperate in an administrative review (tier two) 
and rates based on more adverse assumptions for respondents who do not 
cooperate in the review, or who significantly impede the proceeding 
(tier one). Cf. Allied Signal Aerospace Co. v. United States, 996 F. 2d 
1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993), aff'd, 28 F. 3d 1188, cert. denied, 1995 U.S. 
Lexis 100 (1995) (Allied-Signal).
    In these reviews, only the three related Minebea companies, which 
account for the majority of Singaporean exports to the United States of 
the subject merchandise, responded to the Department's questionnaires. 
Sundstrand did not respond to our questionnaires. Furthermore, during 
the course of the 1992 verification of the GOS questionnaire response, 
we examined a list of companies which exported subject merchandise to 
the United States but, for reasons unknown to the Department, did not 
respond to our questionnaire (see the April 8, 1994, Memorandum to 
Barbara E. Tillman Regarding Verification of Questionnaire Response in 
1992 Administrative Review of CVD Order on Antifriction Bearings (Other 
Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From Singapore--
Covering the Period January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992, at 4, 
which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the 
Department of Commerce). The GOS did not provide any information 
regarding Sundstrand or the other companies' sales or exports of the 
subject merchandise, or the extent to which Sundstrand or these 
companies participated in the programs reviewed. During the course of 
the 1993 verification of the GOS questionnaire response, we again 
examined a list of companies which exported subject merchandise to the 
United States but did not respond to our questionnaire (see the April 
9, 1995, Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman Regarding Verification of 
Questionnaire Responses in the 1993 Administrative Review of 
Countervailing Duty Order on Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered 
Roller Bearings) From Singapore, at 3, which is on file in the Central 
Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department of Commerce). Again, 

[[Page 39935]]
the GOS did not provide any information regarding Sundstrand or the 
other companies' sales or exports of the subject merchandise, or the 
extent to which they participated in the programs reviewed. Therefore, 
in accordance with section 776 of the Act and Allied-Signal, we are 
assigning to Sundstrand and all other non-respondent companies a first-
tier uncooperative BIA rate for both periods of review. The rate we are 
applying for the periods January 1, 1992, through December 31, 1992, 
and January 1, 1993, through December 31, 1993, is 9.11 percent ad 
valorem. This rate is the rate that has been assigned to Sundstrand in 
each review since the first administrative review (see Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Antifriction Bearings (other 
than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts thereof from Singapore (56 FR 
26384; June 7, 1991)).
Calculation Methodology for Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes

    In accordance with our standard practice, for both periods of 
review, we calculated the net subsidy on a country-wide basis by first 
calculating the subsidy rate for each company subject to the 
administrative review. See Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel 
Products from the United Kingdom, 60 FR 24833, 24834 (May 10, 1995). We 
then weight-averaged the rate received by each company using as the 
weight the company's share of total exports from Singapore to the 
United States of subject merchandise, including all companies, even 
those with de minimis and zero rates. To determine the value of exports 
for the Minebea group of companies, we added the reported total exports 
of subject merchandise to the United States by the two related 
producers/exporters, NMB and Pelmec, to the total net mark-up on 
exports of subject merchandise to the United States reported by the 
related trading company respondent, MSB. To determine the value of 
exports for Sundstrand and all other non-respondent companies based on 
BIA (see Best Information Available, above), we subtracted the value of 
the Minebea companies' exports of subject merchandise to the United 
States from the total value of exports of subject merchandise to the 
United States, as reported by the GOS.
    We then summed the individual weight-averaged rates to determine 
the subsidy from all programs benefitting Singaporean exports of 
subject merchandise to the United States. Because the country-wide rate 
calculated using this methodology was above de minimis, as defined by 
19 CFR Sec. 355.7, for both periods of review, we next examined the net 
subsidy rate calculated for each company to determine whether 
individual company rates differed significantly from the weighted-
average country-wide rate, pursuant to 19 CFR Sec. 355.22(d)(3).
    For both periods of review, we found that the Minebea companies and 
the non-respondent companies had significantly different net subsidy 
rates (zero and 9.11 percent ad valorem, respectively); therefore all 
companies are treated separately for assessment and cash deposit 
purposes for both periods.

Analysis of Programs

I. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Confer Subsidies Investment 
Allowances Under Part X of the Economic Expansion Incentives Act (EEIA)

    Pelmec and NMB received tax deductions under this program during 
both periods of review, which petitioners have alleged are 
countervailable. The Investment Allowance program was originally 
established under Part VIA of the EEIA in 1979 to encourage investment 
in Singapore. The Department determined in 1985 that the investment 
allowance program under Part VIA of the EEIA was not countervailable 
(see Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination; Certain Textile 
Mill Products and Apparel from Singapore, 50 FR 9840 (March 12, 1985) 
(Textiles)). After the Department's determination in Textiles, the EEIA 
was amended so that the investment allowance program was included under 
Part X of the EEIA (see Final Negative Countervailing Duty 
Determination: Carbon Steel Wire Rod from Singapore (53 FR 16304; May 
6, 1988) (Wire Rod)). Because the investment allowance program has not 
been examined since the EEIA was amended, we are doing so in the 1992 
review. (For a more detailed explanation of the Department's decision 
to examine Part X, see the December 30, 1994, Memorandum to Barbara E. 
Tillman Regarding 1992 and 1993 Administrative Reviews of Antifriction 
Bearings (AFBs) from Singapore--Investment Allowance Program, Part X of 
the Economic Expansion Incentives Act (EEIA), on file in the public 
file of the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department of 
Commerce.)
    Under Part X, companies are granted a tax deduction for up to 50 
percent of the investment in fixed assets made by the company over the 
course of a project. The EEIA authorizes allowances for a project in 
any of the following areas:
    a. for the manufacture or increased manufacture of any product;
    b. for the provision of specialized engineering or technical 
services;
    c. for research and development;
    d. for construction operations;
    e. for reducing the consumption of potable water;
    f. for services listed under section 16 of the EEIA; or
    g. for the promotion of the tourist industry (other than a hotel) 
in Singapore.
    If an investment project falls within one of the above categories, 
companies will receive an allowance if the investment meets one of the 
following criteria:
     the investment results in greater efficiency in resource 
utilization;
     the investment introduces a new technology into an 
existing industry;
     the project is significantly more efficient in resource 
utilization than the industry average; or
     the project produces parts and components used by other 
industries.
    We verified that, under each of the eligible project areas, all 
companies investing in new plant and equipment are eligible to 
participate in the program and that any such company which meets the 
above criteria will be approved to receive the investment allowance. 
Moreover, we found no evidence that the program is regional or that 
company approval is contingent on export. Finally, we found no evidence 
that the program is limited to a specific enterprise or industry, or a 
group of enterprises or industries. There are a large number and wide 
variety of users of the program. The range of industries that received 
investment allowances includes, among others, food & beverage, 
textiles, chemicals, steel, paper, minerals, electronics, plastics, 
furniture, petroleum/coal, rubber, and numerous service industries, 
including hotels, air transport, banking, real estate, accounting, 
information technology, medical/health, and photography. Moreover, the 
AFBs producers are neither a dominant nor disproportionate recipient of 
the investment allowances, and there is no evidence that the GOS 
exercises discretion, in general or across industries, in conferring 
benefits. Thus, we preliminarily determine that this program is not 
countervailable within the meaning of section 701(a) of the Act. (A 
detailed specificity analysis is set forth in the Memorandum dated July 
28, 1995, 1992 Administrative Reviews of the Countervailing Duty Orders 
on Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof 

[[Page 39936]]
from Singapore: Part X of the EEIA--Investment Allowances which is on 
file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department of 
Commerce.)
II. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Be Used

    We examined the following programs and preliminarily determine that 
the Minebea group of companies did not apply for or receive benefits 
under these programs during either the 1992 review period or the 1993 
review period:

A. Production for Export under Part VI of the EEIA
B. Monetary Authority of Singapore Rediscount Facility
C. Other Tax Incentives under the EEIA
      Part IV: Expansion of Established Enterprises
      Part VII: International Trade Incentives
      Part VIII: Foreign Loans for Productive Equipment
      Part IX: Royalties, Fees and Development Contributions
      Part XI: Warehousing and Servicing Incentives
D. Incentives Under the Income Tax Act
      Sections 14B and 14C: Double Deduction of Export 
Promotion Expenses
      Section 14E: Double Deduction for Research and 
Development
      Section 19B: Write-Offs of Payments for ``Know-How'', 
Patents and Manufacturing Licenses
E. Programs Administered by the Economic Development Board
      Capital Assistance Scheme
      Productive Development Assistance Scheme
      Initiatives in New Technology Program
F. Program Administered by the National Science Technology Board: 
Research & Development Assistance Scheme

    In the 1993 review, we received a submission from the Torrington 
Company, the petitioner in this proceeding, alleging that post-pioneer 
status under Part IIIA of the EEIA might have been granted to producers 
of the subject merchandise. We examined that program and preliminarily 
determine that the producers/exporters of the subject merchandise did 
not apply for or receive benefits under that program and were not 
granted post-pioneer status.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

    For the periods January 1, 1992, through December 31, 1992, and 
January 1, 1993, through December 31, 1993, we preliminarily determine 
the net subsidy to be zero for the Minebea group of companies (Pelmec, 
NMB, and MSB) and 9.11 percent ad valorem for all other companies (see 
Calculation Methodology for Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes, 
above).
    If the final results of these reviews remain the same as these 
preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct the U.S. 
Customs Service to assess the following countervailing duties for the 
period January 1, 1992, through December 31, 1993:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Rate  
                    Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minebea companies (Pelmec, NMB, and MSB).....................      0.00 
All Other Companies..........................................      9.11 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department also intends to instruct the U.S. Customs Service to 
collect a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties of zero 
percent of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the subject 
merchandise from the Minebea companies (Pelmec, NMB, and MSB), and 9.11 
percent of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the subject 
merchandise from all other companies entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the 
final results of these reviews.
    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of the calculation 
methodology and interested parties may request a hearing not later than 
10 days after the date of publication of this notice. Interested 
parties may submit written arguments in case briefs on these 
preliminary results within 30 days of the date of publication. Rebuttal 
briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, may be submitted 
seven days after the time limit for filing the case brief. Parties who 
submit written arguments in these proceedings are requested to submit 
with the argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary 
of the argument. Any hearing, if requested, will be held seven days 
after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Copies of 
case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in 
accordance with 19 CFR Sec. 355.38(e).
    Representatives of parties to these proceedings may request 
disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective 
order no later than 10 days after the representative's client or 
employer becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than 
the date the case briefs, under section 355.38(c), are due. The 
Department will publish the final results of these administrative 
reviews including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing.
    These administrative reviews and this notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.
C. Sec. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR Sec. 355.22.

    Dated: July 28, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix A

Scope of The Reviews

    The products covered by these reviews, antifriction bearings 
(other than tapered roller bearings), mounted or unmounted, and 
parts thereof, constitute the following separate ``classes or 
kinds'' of merchandise as outlined below.
    (1) Ball Bearings, Mounted or Unmounted, and Parts Thereof: 
These products include all antifriction bearings which employ balls 
as the rolling element. Such merchandise is classifiable under the 
following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers: 8482.10.10, 
8482.10.50, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.10, 8482.99.70, 
8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 
8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, and 8708.99.50.
    (2) Spherical Roller Bearings, Mounted or Unmounted, and Parts 
Thereof: These products include all antifriction bearings which 
employ spherical rollers as the rolling element. Such merchandise is 
classifiable under the following HTS item numbers: 8482.30.00, 
8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.50, 8482.99.70, 8483.20.40, 
8483.20.80, 8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 
8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, and 8708.99.50.
    (3) Cylindrical Roller Bearings, Mounted or Unmounted, and Parts 
Thereof: These products include all antifriction bearings which 
employ cylindrical rollers as the rolling element. Such merchandise 
is classifiable under the following HTS item numbers: 8482.50.00, 
8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.70, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 
8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 
8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, and 8708.99.50.
    (4) Needle Roller Bearings, Mounted or Unmounted, and Parts 
Thereof: These products include all antifriction bearings which 
employ needle rollers as the rolling element. Such merchandise is 
classifiable under the following HTS item numbers: 8482.40.00, 
8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.70, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 
8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 
8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, and 8708.99.50.
    (5) Spherical Plain Bearings, Mounted or Unmounted, and Parts 
Thereof: These products include all spherical plain bearings which 
do not employ rolling elements and include spherical plain rod ends. 
Such merchandise is classifiable under the following HTS item 
numbers: 8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8485.90.00, 
and 8708.99.50.
    These reviews cover all of the subject bearings and parts 
thereof outlined above 

[[Page 39937]]
with certain limitations. With regard to finished parts (inner race, 
outer race, cage, rollers, balls, seals, shields, etc.), all such 
parts are included in the scope of this review. For unfinished parts 
(inner race, outer race, rollers, balls, etc.), 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 this review are those which 
will be subject to heat treatment after importation.

[FR Doc. 95-19258 Filed 8-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P