[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20795-20799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X96-10508]



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

[[Page 20796]]


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[C-559-802]


Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and 
Parts Thereof From Singapore; Final Results of Changed Circumstances 
Countervailing Duty Reviews and Revocation of Countervailing Duty 
Orders.

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of changed circumstances countervailing 
duty reviews and revocation of countervailing duty orders.

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

SUMMARY: On April 27, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of its changed circumstances reviews 
and intent to revoke the countervailing duty (CVD) orders on 
antifriction bearings (other than tapered roller bearings) and parts 
thereof (AFBs) from Singapore. We have now completed these reviews and 
have determined to revoke the CVD orders. 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shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 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 
Singapore 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 CVD investigations (54 FR 19125), submitted 
a letter to the Department stating that it has no further interest in 
the CVD orders on AFBs from Singapore for entries after December 31, 
1994. Accordingly, Torrington requested revocation of the orders based 
on changed circumstances in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 355.25(d)(1994).
    On April 27, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(60 FR 20671) the preliminary results of its changed circumstances 
reviews and intent to revoke the CVD orders on AFBs from Singapore. 
(See 19 C.F.R. 355.22(h)(4)). These changed circumstances reviews cover 
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 orders. On May 30, 1995, NTN-Bower, Inc. and 
American NTN Bearing Manufacturing Corp. (NTN), NSK Corp. (NSK), and 
SKF USA, Inc. (SKF) submitted written objections to our intended 
revocations. On June 6, 1995, the Minebea Companies, exporters of the 
subject merchandise from Singapore, and Torrington submitted rebuttal 
comments.
    On June 30, 1995, FAG Bearings Corp./Barden Corp. (FAG & Barden) 
and NSK filed requests for an injury investigation with the 
International Trade Commission (ITC) pursuant to section 753(a) of the 
Act for all five classes of bearings covered by the countervailing duty 
orders on AFBs from Singapore. American Koyo Bearing Manufacturing 
Corp. (Koyo) filed an injury request with the ITC under section 753(a) 
with respect to ball bearings from Singapore. Koyo, FAG & Barden, and 
NSK also filed requests for simultaneous expedited section 751(c) 
sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on AFBs and tapered 
roller bearings (TRBs) covering several countries (including, but not 
limited to, Singapore) pursuant to section 753(e). NTN and SKF filed 
their requests for expedited sunset reviews of all these orders in 
conjunction with their section 753(a) requests for an injury 
investigation regarding the CVD order on ball bearings from Thailand. 
54 FR 19130 (May 3, 1989).
    On October 26, 1995, the Department held a public hearing on the 
preliminary results of these reviews and the concurrent changed 
circumstances review of the CVD order on ball bearings from Thailand. 
(See Transcript of Hearing on file in the public file of the Central 
Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department of Commerce (Hearing 
Transcript)).
    The Department has now completed these changed circumstances 
reviews in accordance with section 751(b) and 782(h) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended (the Act).

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 these changed circumstances reviews in 
accordance with section 751(b) and has determined to revoke the CVD 
orders on AFBs from Singapore 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 Reviews

    Imports covered by these reviews are antifriction bearings (other 
than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof. The subject 
merchandise covers five separate classes or kinds of merchandise and 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: SKF, NTN, and NSK (collectively the ``Objecting 
Parties''), argue that the statute and the Department's regulations 
define a domestic interested party to include ``a manufacturer, 
producer, or wholesaler in the United States of a domestic like 
product.'' 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1677(9)(C). The Department's regulations 
permit revocation of a countervailing duty order based upon lack of 
industry support only where domestic interested parties demonstrate no 
further interest in the order. Since SKF, NTN, and NSK maintain that 
they are domestic producers of a like product and oppose revocation, 
they state that the CVD orders on AFBs from Singapore may not be 
revoked.
    The Government of Singapore and four exporters of AFBs from 
Singapore (NMB Singapore Ltd., Pelmec Industries Ltd., Minebea Trading, 
and Minebea Company Ltd.) (collectively the ``Exporters''), counter 
that the Department should revoke the CVD orders despite the objections 
raised by the Objecting Parties. The Exporters believe that the 
Department should decide this issue based on the standards used to 
determine whether standing exists to initiate a CVD investigation. They 
claim that this standard is supported by the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit's (CAFC's) ruling in Oregon Steel Mills, Inc. v. United 
States, 862 F.2d 1541 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In that case, according to the 
Exporters, the CAFC affirmed the Department's determination to revoke 
an antidumping duty (AD) order, despite objections from a domestic 
interested party, on the grounds that ``just as industry support 
underlies the merits of an order, lack of industry support provides a 
ground for

[[Page 20797]]

revocation.'' They believe that the Objecting Parties would not have 
standing to object to the initiation of a CVD investigation. According 
to the Exporters, the Department may initiate an investigation only if 
the petition is supported, inter alia, by ``more than 50 percent of the 
production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the 
industry expressing support for or opposition to the petition.'' 19 
U.S.C. Sec. 1673a(c)(4)(A). Thus, if companies representing more than 
50 percent of the domestic production support revocation of the order, 
Commerce should revoke the order. Of the four domestic companies that 
have expressed an opinion in this proceeding, the Exporters believe 
that Torrington accounts for more than 50 percent of production and, 
therefore, the order should be revoked.
    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 
orders on AFBs from Singapore 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 CAFC 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 orders. 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 orders. First, 
the CVD investigations of AFBs from Singapore were 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 orders were imposed on AFBs from Singapore, 
the Objecting Parties did not participate in any of the subsequent 
administrative reviews. None of the Objecting Parties demonstrated any 
interest in the CVD orders after their imposition until the Department 
published its intent to revoke these orders. Also, at the October 26, 
1995 public hearing, parties stated that the purpose behind their 
opposition to the revocation of the CVD orders on AFBs from Singapore 
is the access it provides them to expedited section 751(c) sunset 
reviews under section 753(e) of the Act of the AD 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 access to this mechanism for 
expediting these sunset reviews, the Objecting Parties intend to argue 
that there is no injury to the U.S. industry if these AD and CVD orders 
on AFBs and TRBs are revoked. (See Hearing Transcript, at 52-3, 94).
    In these changed circumstances reviews, Torrington has admitted 
that its request for revoking the CVD orders on AFBs from Singapore is 
designed to prevent the sunset reviews on the AD orders covering AFBs 
and TRBs 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 orders on AFBs from Singapore in order to 
safeguard, at least for the time being, the broader relief afforded the 
domestic industry by the AD orders on AFBs and TRBs from Singapore as 
well as from the other countries. Conversely, the Objecting Parties 
have made it clear that their interest in these orders 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 continuation of the 
orders. As such, we do not consider the Objecting Parties to be 
domestic producers for purposes of section 782(h)(2) of the Act or 19 
C.F.R. Sec. 355.25(d)(1)(i).
    As a result, the Department finds the objections to revocation 
without merit. Accordingly, we find that Torrington's expression of no 
interest in the continuation of the orders meets the criteria for 
revocation presented in section 782(h)(2) (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1677m(h)) and 
19 C.F.R. Sec. 355.25(d)(1)(i). (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 of the ninety-five U.S. 
producers of AFBs, only three have expressed opposition to revocation 
of the CVD orders with respect to Singapore. Torrington argues that 
against this indication of a lack of interest in the orders by the 
overwhelming majority of the industry, the opposition of three 
companies is insignificant. Torrington also states that the 
Department's regulations support this interpretation because ``[t]he 
opposition of one or more domestic parties, including the petitioner, 
would be evaluated within the context of the continuing requirement 
that the order have the support of the industry.'' 53 FR 52306, 52332 
(1988).
    Torrington continues that the genesis of the regulation is found in 
the proceedings involving Carbon Steel Plate from Korea, 51 FR 13039 
(1986).

[[Page 20798]]

There, the Department revoked (and was upheld by the CAFC) the AD order 
notwithstanding the opposition of a single producer out of seven U.S. 
producers. See Oregon Steel Mills Inc. v. United States, 862 F.2d 1541 
(Fed Cir. 1988). As applied here, argues Torrington, the regulation 
provides for revocation of the order since, not one of seven, but three 
out of ninety-five companies have expressed opposition to revocation of 
the orders. In the circumstances of the case, the industry as a whole 
supports the revocation of the order.
    Department's Position: The number of objecting parties in relation 
to the universe of domestic producers which comprise the domestic AFBs 
industry is not the relevant question in this proceeding. As discussed 
in our response to Comment 1, 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 orders on 
Singapore, and (iii) now seek to retain the CVD orders on AFBs from 
Singapore only as a vehicle to obtain expedited section 751(c) sunset 
reviews at which time they will argue for revocation of most, if not 
all, of the AD and CVD orders on AFBs and TRBs from twelve countries, 
including ones where their related (e.g., parent) companies are 
located. Thus, we conclude that the Objecting Parties cannot be said to 
have a common ``stake'' with the petitioner in the relief provided by 
the orders.
    Comment 3: Torrington contends that the URAA provides that the 
Department may disregard the objections of domestic producers that are 
importers of the subject merchandise or that are related to foreign 
producers subject to an order. Given SKF's affiliate in Singapore, SKF 
is potentially an importer of the subject merchandise. Although 
``support'' for an AD order would not be disregarded under 
Sec. 1673a(c)(4)(B)(i), Torrington argues that Commerce ``may'' 
disregard SKF's position to the extent that it is potentially an 
importer of subject merchandise from Singapore under 
Sec. 1673a(c)(4)(B)(ii).
    Department's Position: At a July 26, 1995 meeting with Department 
officials, SKF stated that it is related to a producer of AFBs in 
Singapore. Under long-standing administrative practice, which has been 
codified in the U.S. antidumping statute for many years at section 
771(4)(B) of the Act, the Department has the discretion to exclude a 
domestic producer of a like product from the industry if that producer 
is related to a foreign producer or exporter of the subject 
merchandise. However, in this case, as we explain in response to 
Comment 1, we are rejecting SKF's opposition to revocation of the 
instant orders because it does not derive from SKF's interests as a 
domestic producer. Rather, it reflects SKF's interests as a foreign 
producer and/or exporter who seeks, in the context of expedited section 
751(c) sunset reviews under section 753(e) of the Act, the revocation 
of AD and CVD orders covering related foreign companies. Thus, under 
these circumstances, it is appropriate for the Department to exclude 
SKF from the industry and to disregard its opposition to revocation of 
the CVD orders on AFBs from Singapore.
    Comment 4: Torrington argues that the Department's independent 
authority to revoke the order on the basis of ``other changed 
circumstances'' (i.e., 19 C.F.R. Sec. 355.25(d)(1)(ii)) is 
appropriately invoked where, as here, the three 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 
orders. According to Torrington, the existence of multiple AD and CVD 
orders covering several countries and the peculiar circumstances in 
which SKF, NTN and NSK have opposed revocation of the CVD orders on 
Singapore call into question whether the opposition to revocation is 
bona fide.
    Department's Position: We are revoking the CVD orders on AFBs from 
Singapore because they are 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 Reviews and Revocation of 
Countervailing Duty Orders

    The Department has determined to revoke the CVD orders on AFBs from 
Singapore. Although we received objections to our preliminary 
determination to revoke the orders, the Objecting Parties have made it 
clear that their interest in the orders is neither aligned with that of 
petitioner nor made in their capacity as domestic producers. Rather, 
the Objecting Parties seek to retain these CVD orders only as a vehicle 
to argue for revocation of all outstanding CVD and AD orders on AFBs 
and TRBs through expedited sunset reviews (see Sec. 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 orders 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.
    These changed circumstances reviews 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 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.

[[Page 20799]]

    (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, 8482.99.35, 
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.
    (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, 8482.99.35, 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, 
8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and 8708.99.8055, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, 
and 8708.99.8058, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and 8708.99.8061, 
8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and 8708.99.8064, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, 
and 8708.99.8067, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and 8708.99.80.
    (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, 8482.99.35, 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, 8708.99.70, 
8708.99.73, and 8708.99.8055, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and 
8708.99.8058, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and 8708.99.8061, 8708.99.70, 
8708.99.73, and 8708.99.8064, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and 
8708.99.8067, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and 8708.99.80.
    (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, 8482.99.35, 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, 8708.99.70, 
8708.99.73, and 8708.99.8055, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and 
8708.99.8058, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and 8708.99.8061, 8708.99.70, 
8708.99.73, and 8708.99.8064, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and 
8708.99.8067, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and 8708.99.80.
    (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, 
8708.99.52, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and 8708.99.8055, 8708.99.70, 
8708.99.73, and 8708.99.8058, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and 
8708.99.8061, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and 8708.99.8064, 8708.99.70, 
8708.99.73, and 8708.99.8067, 8708.99.70, 8708.99.73, and 
8708.99.80.
    These reviews cover 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. 11389 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P