[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20799-20803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11388]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[C-549-802]
Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From Thailand; Final Results of
Changed Circumstances Countervailing Duty Review and Revocation of
Countervailing Duty Order
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of changed circumstances countervailing
duty review and revocation of countervailing duty order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On June 1, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of its changed circumstances review
and intent to revoke the countervailing duty (CVD) order on ball
bearings from Thailand. We have now completed this review and have
determined to revoke the CVD order. The revocation applies to all
shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after January 1, 1995. Therefore, we will
instruct the Customs Service to liquidate, without regard to
countervailing duties, all shipments of the subject merchandise from
Thailand entered on or after January 1, 1995.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Albright or Cameron Cardozo,
Office of Countervailing Compliance, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;
telephone: (202) 482-2786.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 3, 1995, the Torrington Company (Torrington), the
petitioner in the original countervailing duty investigation (54 FR
19130), submitted a letter to the Department stating that it has no
further interest in the CVD order on ball bearings from Thailand for
entries after December 31, 1994. Accordingly, Torrington requested
revocation of the order based on changed circumstances in accordance
with 19 C.F.R. Sec. 355.25(d) (1994).
On June 1, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register
(60 FR 28576) the initiation and preliminary results of its changed
circumstances review and intent to revoke the CVD order on ball
bearings from Thailand. (See 19 C.F.R. Sec. 355.22(h)(4)). This changed
circumstances review covers all producers and/or exporters of the
subject merchandise and all shipments of this merchandise to the United
States entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or
after January 1, 1995.
We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary results
and intent to revoke the order. The following parties submitted written
objections to our intended revocation: American NTN Bearing
Manufacturing Corp. and NTN-Bower (NTN) (June 15, 1995); SKF USA, Inc.
(SKF) (June 26, 1995); NSK Corp. (NSK) (June 28, 1995); Barden Corp./
FAG Bearings Corp. (FAG & Barden) (June 30, 1995); and Koyo Bearing
Manufacturing Corp. (Koyo) (June 30, 1995) (collectively the
``Objecting Parties''). On July 3, 1995, Torrington submitted a case
brief. On July 10, 1995, both Torrington and each of the Objecting
Parties submitted rebuttal briefs.
On June 30, 1995, all five of the above-mentioned Objecting Parties
filed requests for an injury investigation with the International Trade
Commission (ITC) pursuant to section 753(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (the ``Act''), with respect to ball bearings from Thailand.
These parties also filed requests for simultaneous expedited section
751(c) sunset reviews of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on
antifriction bearings (AFBs) and tapered roller bearings (TRBs)
covering several countries (including, but not limited to, Thailand)
pursuant to section 753(e) of the Act.
On October 26, 1995, the Department held a public hearing on the
preliminary results of this review and the concurrent changed
circumstances reviews of the CVD orders on AFBs from Singapore. (See
Transcript of Hearing on file in the public file of the Central Records
Unit,
[[Page 20800]]
Room B-099 of the Department of Commerce (Hearing Transcript)).
The Department has now completed this changed circumstances review
in accordance with section 751(b) and 782(h) of the Act. See also 19
C.F.R. Sec. 355.25(d)(1)(i).
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are
references to the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) effective January 1, 1995. The
Department is conducting this changed circumstances review in
accordance with section 751(b) and has determined to revoke the
countervailing duty order on ball bearings from Thailand based on
sections 751(d) and 782(h) of the Act. See also 19 C.F.R.
Sec. 355.25(d)(1)(i).
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are ball bearings and parts thereof
from Thailand. Such merchandise is described in detail in Appendix A to
this notice. The Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers listed
in Appendix A are provided for convenience and Customs purposes only.
The written description remains dispositive.
Analysis of Comments
Comment 1: Torrington states that the opposition to revocation of
the CVD order by five out of ninety-five U.S. producers is insufficient
under relevant administrative precedent. In Oregon Steel Mills Inc. v.
United States, an order was revoked notwithstanding the opposition of a
single producer (out of seven) who had requested and participated in an
administrative review. 862 F.2d 1541, 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In this
case, not one of seven, but five out of ninety-five companies have
expressed opposition to revocation of the order covering Thailand. In
the circumstances of this case, Torrington concludes that the industry
as a whole supports the revocation of the order.
The Objecting Parties argue that petitioner's reliance on Oregon
Steel Mills in support of the proposition that the Department may
revoke an order for lack of interest despite opposition by a domestic
party is inappropriate. In that case, only one domestic party objected
to revocation, while the rest of the industry actively advocated
revocation for lack of interest. While Torrington emphasizes that
merely five of an estimated ninety-five domestic producers have
objected to the revocation with respect to the Thailand CVD order,
Torrington is the only domestic party to express a lack of interest in
these cases. Pursuant to section 782(h) of the Act, the Department may
only revoke a CVD order for lack of interest if ``producers accounting
for substantially all of the production of that domestic like product,
have expressed a lack of interest in the order.'' 19 U.S.C.
Sec. 1677m(h). The Objecting Parties argue that the Department cannot
conclude that the domestic industry is no longer interested in the CVD
order if parties which account for a significant portion of domestic
production continue to favor maintenance of the order. In this case,
they believe that the domestic interested parties actively opposing
revocation account for roughly 50 percent of domestic production of the
like product. Therefore, due to this opposition by a significant
portion of the domestic industry, the Objecting Parties assert that the
Department should not revoke this order for lack of interest.
Department's Position: We disagree with the Objecting Parties.
Under 19 C.F.R. Sec. 355.25(d)(1)(i) the Department may revoke a CVD
order if the Secretary concludes that the order is no longer of
interest to interested parties or that other changed circumstances
exist which are sufficient to warrant revocation. Included in the
definition of ``interested party'' under section 355.2(i)(3) is ``[a]
producer in the United States of the like product.'' Since the
objecting companies meet the definition of an ``interested party,'' we
must address the question of whether the Department may revoke the CVD
order on ball bearings from Thailand despite the objections of these
companies.
The preamble to section 355.25(d) of the Department's regulations
states that the opposition of one or more domestic parties to
revocation should be evaluated in the context of the continuing
requirement that the order have the support of the industry. 53 FR
52333, December 27, 1988. In Oregon Steel Mills the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit compared the level of industry support needed
to justify revocation to the level of industry support needed to
justify an investigation. 862 F.2d at 1545. In determining whether a
particular party has standing to object to the filing of a petition, it
is settled law that the agency may exclude producers who are related to
foreign producers or U.S. importers of the subject merchandise. 19
U.S.C. Secs. 1673a(c)(4)(B) & 1677(4)(B). The preamble to section
355.2(h) of the Department's regulations, regarding the proper
definition of ``industry,'' states that the reason for excluding
related parties from the industry for standing purposes is to limit
standing to those domestic firms that have a ``stake in the outcome.''
53 FR 52307. While section 355.25(d) does not contain similar language,
the logic of the preamble applies equally to a no-interest revocation
situation. Thus, if the objections of the parties to the revocations
derive not from their interest as domestic producers, but from their
relationship to producers of AFBs in other countries, then they are not
considered domestic producers for purposes of the no-interest
revocation issue. Applying the reasoning of another industry-support
case, whether the objections should be recorded depends upon whether
the objecting parties have a common ``stake'' with the petitioner in
the continuation of the order. Citrosuco Paulista, S.A. v. United
States, 704 F. Supp. 1075, 1085 (CIT 1988).
For the following reasons, the Department has ample reason to
question the alignment of the objectors' interests with the interests
of the petitioner and, thus, whether the objectors have a common
``stake'' with the petitioner in the maintenance of the order. First,
the CVD investigation of ball bearings from Thailand was conducted
simultaneously with AD investigations concerning AFBs from France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, and the
United Kingdom. Over the course of the original investigations of all
nine countries, the companies currently objecting to revocation were
actively opposed to the imposition of duties sought by the petitioner.
They also urged the ITC to determine that Torrington and other members
of the domestic industry were neither materially injured nor threatened
with material injury by reason of the subject imports.
Moreover, once the CVD order was imposed on ball bearings from
Thailand, the objecting parties did not participate in any of the
subsequent administrative reviews. None of the objecting parties
demonstrated any interest in the CVD order after its imposition until
the Department published its intent to revoke this order. Also, at the
October 26, 1995 public hearing, parties stated that the purpose behind
their opposition to the revocation of the CVD order on ball bearings
from Thailand is the access it provides them to expedited section
751(c) sunset reviews under section 753(e) of the Act of the AD and CVD
orders on AFBs and TRBs from twelve countries including the ones where
their related companies (including parent companies) are located. (See
Hearing Transcript, at 40, 95). Upon gaining
[[Page 20801]]
access to this mechanism for expediting these sunset reviews, the
Objecting Parties intend to argue for the revocation of the AD and CVD
orders on AFBs and TRBs. (See Hearing Transcript, at 52-3, 94).
The Objecting Parties have made it clear that their interest in
this order is neither aligned with that of the petitioner nor made in
their capacity as domestic producers. Thus, the Objecting Parties
cannot be said to have a common ``stake'' with the petitioner in the
relief provided by the order. As such, we do not consider the Objecting
Parties to be domestic producers for purposes of section 782(h)(2) of
the Act or section 355.25(d)(1)(i) of our regulations. As a result, the
Department finds the objections to revocation without merit.
Accordingly, we find that Torrington's expression of no further
interest in the continuation of the order meets the criteria for
revocation presented in section 782(h)(2) of the Act and section
355.25(d)(1)(i) of our regulations. (For a further explanation of the
Department's analysis, see April 15, 1996 memorandum to Susan G.
Esserman regarding AFBs from Singapore and Thailand, which is on file
in the public file of the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the
Department of Commerce.)
Comment 2: Torrington points out that over the course of the
original AFBs investigations of nine countries, including the CVD
investigation that involved Thailand, various of the objecting
companies opposed the imposition of antidumping duties and argued that
the domestic industry was not injured by imported bearings. In the
years since the original investigations, none of the Objecting Parties
filed an entry of appearance or participated in the administrative
reviews with respect to the CVD order on ball bearings from Thailand.
Thus, according to Torrington, it is clear that the current opposition
to revocation is a pretext for expediting the sunset reviews of the
seventeen AD and CVD orders pursuant to section 753(e) of the Act.
Torrington claims that the Objecting Parties' interests, as established
over seven years devoted to opposition to the orders that cover their
parent companies, are in the termination of these AD and CVD orders. As
revealed by their requests for expedited sunset reviews, none of the
companies opposing revocation are acting in their capacity as U.S.
manufacturers or on behalf of their U.S. workers. As such, Torrington
asserts that these companies lack standing to object to revocation of
the CVD order covering Thailand.
Objecting Parties respond that their non-participation in the
Thailand CVD proceedings over the past several years is no different
from the non-participation of other U.S. producers in numerous other
reviews. Neither the statute nor the regulations require so much as a
request for review, much less active participation, on the part of the
petitioner or any other domestic producer. All that is required, allege
the Objecting Parties, is that an interested party express an interest
in the continuation of the order, which they have done, so as to
prevent its revocation. The Objecting Parties urge that Torrington's
argument suggesting some extra-statutory, extra-regulatory standards be
rejected.
In rebutting Torrington's argument that the Objecting Parties have
objected to revocation only as a pretext to expedite sunset reviews of
other AD and CVD orders, the Objecting Parties invite the Department to
look at Torrington's actions and motives. Given Torrington's long-
standing interest in the CVD order covering Thailand, the only logical
explanation for Torrington's action is that its request for revocation
was filed in order to preclude SKF and the others from requesting
injury determinations under section 753(a) and expedited sunset reviews
under section 753(e) of the Act. Obviously, without an order in place,
a section 753(a) investigation is moot and, accordingly, expedited
sunset reviews cannot be requested. Thus, according to these parties,
Torrington has only sought to revoke the CVD order on Thailand so as to
eliminate the possibility of expedited sunset reviews.
Department's Position: The fact that none of the Objecting Parties
have participated in any of the previous administrative reviews of this
order does not, in and of itself, preclude them from objecting to the
revocation of this order. However, as discussed in our response to
Comment 1, whether the objections should be recorded depends upon
whether the Objecting Parties have a common ``stake'' with the
petitioner in the relief provided by the order. See Citrosuco Paulista,
704 F. Supp. at 1085. There is no indication that the interests, or
stake, of the Objecting Parties have changed since the investigations
in this case and the antidumping duty cases concerning bearings from
nine countries, during which the parties actively opposed the
imposition of countervailing duties and antidumping duties sought by
the petitioner, and argued that the domestic industry was not injured
by imports of bearings. On the contrary, in this proceeding one of the
Objecting Parties has stated, ``[o]ur interest is clearly to have an
expedited [sunset] investigation, and in that investigation we will
likely be arguing that those orders should be revoked because of the
factual situation.'' (See Hearing Transcript, at 52). ``The intent of
the Objecting Parties with respect to obtaining expedited section
751(c) sunset reviews for the orders affecting twelve countries
including the ones in which their parent companies are located
contradicts the argument made by these parties that they are acting in
their capacity as domestic producers. In determining whether a
particular party has standing to object to the filing of a petition, it
is settled law that the agency may exclude producers who are related to
producers or importers of the subject merchandise. 19 U.S.C.
Secs. 1673a(c)(4)(B) & 1677(4)(B). The preamble to section 355.2(h) of
the Department's regulations, regarding the proper definition of
``industry,'' states that the reason for excluding related parties from
the industry for standing purposes is to limit standing to those
domestic firms that have a ``stake in the outcome.'' 53 FR 52307. The
logic of the preamble applies equally to a no-interest revocation
situation. Thus, if the objections of the parties to the revocations
derive not from their interest as domestic producers, but from their
relationship to producers of AFBs in other countries, then they cannot
lawfully be considered domestic producers for purposes of the no-
interest revocation issue.
Torrington admits that its request for revoking the CVD order on
ball bearings from Thailand is designed to prevent the sunset reviews
on the AD and CVD orders covering AFBs and TRBs from all countries from
being expedited. Hearing Transcript, at 32. In this sense, Torrington
is acting consistently in the role of ``petitioner''--that is, it is
willing to sacrifice the limited relief afforded by the CVD order on
ball bearings from Thailand in order to safeguard, at least for the
time being, the broader relief afforded the domestic industry by the AD
and CVD orders on AFBs and TRBs from Thailand as well as from the other
countries. Conversely, the Objecting Parties have made it clear that
their interest in this order is neither aligned with that of the
petitioner nor made in their capacity as domestic producers. Thus, the
Objecting Parties cannot be said to have a common ``stake'' with the
petitioner in the relief provided by this order.
Comment 3: Torrington claims that the objecting companies are not
acting in the capacity of ``a manufacturer, producer, or wholesaler in
the United States of a domestic like product.'' 19 U.S.C.
Sec. 1677(9)(C). Rather, in the unique circumstances of this case, each
is acting on behalf of, and for the benefit
[[Page 20802]]
of, a foreign producer or exporter of AFBs and/or TRBs. CVD orders are
intended to benefit U.S. manufacturers and their workers whose true
interests are in obtaining relief from unfairly traded imports.
Likewise, Torrington argues that only U.S. producers and manufacturers
have standing to oppose revocation of a CVD order. The objecting
companies are acting under the direct or indirect control of their
foreign-parent companies in a manner ``differently than a nonrelated
producer.'' 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1677(4)(B)(ii)(IV). Hence, the entities
should be collapsed for the purpose of determining whether they are
foreign producers under Sec. 1677(9)(A) or U.S. producers under
Sec. 1677(9)(C). According to Torrington, the Department has routinely
collapsed these very companies and their foreign parents into single
entities over the past years for purposes of calculating exporter's
sales price. It follows, therefore, that as a ``single entity,'' the
objecting companies cannot both be foreign manufacturers for purposes
of 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1677(9)(A) and also U.S. manufacturers for purposes
of 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1677(9)(C). Petitioner concludes that their
fundamental interests, whether as a U.S. or foreign producer, should
control their status.
The Objecting Parties claim that under the Department's
regulations, a domestic producer's position as an importer or as
related to a foreign producer of the subject merchandise is irrelevant
to the question of revocation. A request for revocation, and opposition
thereto, may be made by any domestic interested party specified in the
Department's regulations. These parties assert that the language of the
Department's regulations and the statute's definition of domestic
interested party are clear: the companies fall squarely within the
regulations and statute as a domestic ``interested party'' entitled to
oppose revocation. Further, they argue that Torrington's references to
the statute are misplaced because they incorrectly claim that these
companies have no standing as a domestic manufacturer and, therefore,
cannot oppose revocation of the Thailand order. The cited statutory and
regulatory provisions which define ``interested party'' make no
reference to whether a U.S. producer is or is not related to a foreign
producer. Rather, all that is required is production in the United
States.
They also argue that the fact that the Department may collapse
related parties for purposes of other sections of the statute (e.g.,
calculation of exporter's sales price) is not relevant to the issue of
the definition of ``interested party.'' The Objecting Parties argue
that if mere relationship to a foreign producer were sufficient to
disqualify a domestic producer from being an ``interested party'' under
19 C.F.R. Sec. 355.2(i)(3), then Torrington itself would also be
disqualified. In the sixth review of the AD order on AFBs from Germany,
counsel for Torrington entered an appearance on behalf of Torrington
and Torrington Nadellager GmbH, the latter being a German bearing
company acquired by Torrington. As such, the Objecting Parties assert
that mere relationship to a foreign entity cannot disqualify a U.S.
producer.
Department's Position: As discussed in our response to Comment 1,
above, the relevant issue is whether those producers (whose interests
are aligned with the petitioner and, thus, who have a ``stake'' in the
relief provided by the order) accounting for substantially all of the
production of the domestic like product want the order revoked. As a
result of our analysis, we have determined that the Objecting Parties
(i) opposed the original petition, (ii) did not participate in any
administrative reviews of the CVD order on Thailand, and (iii) now seek
to retain the CVD order on ball bearings from Thailand only as a
vehicle to obtain expedited section 751(c) sunset reviews at which time
they will argue for the revocation of most, if not all, of the AD and
CVD orders on AFBs and TRBs covering their related foreign companies.
Thus, we conclude that the Objecting Parties cannot be said to have a
common ``stake'' with the petitioner in the relief provided by the
order.
Torrington does not deny that it is related to a foreign exporter
of AFBs. However, Torrington was the petitioner in the original
investigation and has acted consistent with the interests of a domestic
producer of AFBs throughout the administrative reviews of this order.
Both the statute and its legislative history make clear that domestic
producers who are related to foreign exporters of subject merchandise
may be included in the industry if their actions reflect their
interests as domestic producers, not foreign producers or exporters.
For example, section 771(4)(B) of the Act provides that in determining
industry support for an AD petition, Commerce shall:
disregard the position of domestic producers who oppose the
petition, if such producers are related to foreign producers * * *,
unless such domestic producers demonstrate that their interests as
domestic producers would be adversely affected by the imposition of
an antidumping duty order.
19 U.S.C. Sec. 1673a(c)(4)(B) (1995) (emphasis added). See also Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Portable
Electric Typewriters (PETs) from Singapore, 58 FR 43334 (August 16,
1993) (Brother, a foreign-owned U.S. manufacturer of PETs, brought an
antidumping case covering imports of PETs by Smith Corona, which after
many years as a U.S. manufacturer of PETs, started importing PETs from
Singapore).
As explained in our response to Comment 1, this same line of
reasoning can be applied to this case of no-interest revocation.
Torrington's expression of no further interest in the CVD order on ball
bearings from Thailand is consistent with Torrington's previous role as
petitioner. The actions of the Objecting Parties, on the other hand,
derive from their relationships to producers of AFBs and TRBs in other
countries covered by AD and CVD orders. Thus, they cannot be considered
members of the domestic industry for purposes of this no-interest
revocation.
Comment 4: Torrington argues that the Department's independent
authority to revoke the order on the basis of ``other changed
circumstances'' is appropriately invoked where, as here, the companies
now opposing revocation were opposed to any AD or CVD orders from the
outset and are themselves subsidiaries of foreign producers subject to
concurrent AD duty orders. According to Torrington, in view of the past
opposition of these companies to the AD duty orders, the objecting
parties are clearly intending to expedite the sunset review proceedings
for the benefit of foreign manufacturers and producers and against the
interests of the domestic industry. Therefore, the Department should
disregard such opposition and revoke the CVD order on Thailand.
Department's Position: We are revoking the CVD order on ball
bearings from Thailand because it is no longer of interest to the
domestic industry. Accordingly, we do not need to address whether
``other changed circumstances'' exist which would justify revocation.
Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation of
Countervailing Duty Order
The Department has determined to revoke the CVD order on ball
bearings from Thailand. Although we received objections to our
preliminary determination to revoke the order, the Objecting Parties
have made it clear that their interest in the order is neither aligned
with that of petitioner nor made in their capacity as domestic
producers. Rather, the Objecting Parties seek to retain this CVD order
only as a vehicle to argue for revocation of all outstanding
[[Page 20803]]
CVD and AD orders on AFBs and TRBs through expedited sunset reviews.
(See section 753(e) of the Act). Since the Objecting Parties are not
considered domestic producers for purposes of this no-interest
revocation, Torrington's expression of no interest in the continuation
of the order meets the criteria for revocation presented in section
782(h)(2) of the Act and section 355.25(d)(1)(i) of the Department's
regulations. (For a further explanation of the Department's analysis,
see the Memorandum for Susan G. Esserman regarding AFBs from Singapore
and Thailand, dated April 15, 1996, which is on file in the public file
of the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department of Commerce).
This revocation applies to all shipments of the subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after
January 1, 1995.
The Department will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to terminate
the suspension of liquidation as of the date of publication of this
notice and to liquidate all entries of the subject merchandise entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1,
1995, without regard to countervailing duties. We will also instruct
the U.S. Customs Service to refund with interest any estimated
countervailing duties collected with respect to those entries.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 355.34(d). Timely written notification
of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This changed circumstances review and notice are in accordance with
sections 751(b), 751(d) (1) and (3), and 782(h) of the Act (19 U.S.C.
Secs. 1675(b), 1675(d) (1) & (3), and 1675m(h) (1995)) and 19 C.F.R.
Secs. 355.22(h) and 355.25(d)(1994).
Dated: April 29, 1996.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix A
Scope of the Review
The products covered by this review, ball bearings, mounted or
unmounted, and parts thereof, constitute the following as outlined
below.
Ball Bearings, Mounted or Unmounted, and Parts Thereof
These products include all antifriction bearings which employ
balls as the rolling element. Imports of these products are
classifiable under the following categories: antifriction balls;
ball bearings with integral shafts; ball bearings (including radial
ball bearings) and parts thereof; ball bearings type pillow blocks
and parts thereof; ball bearing type flange, take-up, cartridge, and
hanger units, and parts thereof; and other bearings (except tapered
roller bearings) and parts thereof. Wheel hub units which employ
balls as the rolling unit are subject to this review. Finished but
unground or semi-ground balls are not included in the scope of this
review. Imports of these products are currently 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,
8482.99.35, 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, 8708.99.52, 8708.99.55, 8708.99.58, 8708.99.61,
8708.99.64, 8708.99.67, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and 8708.99.80
This review covers all of the subject bearings and parts thereof
outlined above 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 where the part will be subject to heat treatment after
importation.
[FR Doc. 96-11388 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P