Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 1996 / Notices 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

[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. § 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. § 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 NTNBower (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,
20800 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 1996 / Notices

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.

§ 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. § 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.

§ 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. § 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.

§§ 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 1996 / Notices 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 nonparticipation 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.

§§ 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 nointerest 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 nointerest 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. § 1677(9)(C). Rather, in the

unique circumstances of this case, each

is acting on behalf of, and for the benefit
20802 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 1996 / Notices

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.

§ 1677(4)(B)(ii)(IV). Hence, the entities

should be collapsed for the purpose of

determining whether they are foreign

producers under § 1677(9)(A) or U.S.

producers under § 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. § 1677(9)(A) and also U.S.

manufacturers for purposes of 19 U.S.C.

§ 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. § 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. § 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 1996 / Notices 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. §§ 1675(b),

1675(d) (1) & (3), and 1675m(h) (1995))

and 19 C.F.R. §§ 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

[C–557–806]

Extruded Rubber Thread From

Malaysia; Extension of Time Limit for

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limit

for countervailing duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is extending the time

limit for preliminary and final results of

the 1994 administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on extruded

rubber thread from Malaysia. This

extension is made pursuant to the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act (hereinafter,

‘‘the Act’’).

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy

Kornfeld or Lorenza Olivas, 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.

POSTPONEMENT: Under the Act, the

Department may extend the deadline for

completion of an administrative review

if it determines that it is not practicable

to complete the review within the

statutory time limit of 365 days. See

Memorandum to the File dated April 27,

1996. The Department finds that it is not

practicable to complete the 1994

administrative review of extruded

rubber thread from Malaysia within this

time limit.

In accordance with section

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department

will extend the time for completion of

the preliminary results of this review

from a 245-day period to no later than

a 365-day period.

Dated: April 30, 1996.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.

[FR Doc. 96–11392 Filed 5–7–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[Docket No. 950222054–6119–02; I.D.

042296D]

RIN 0648–ZA15

Financial Assistance for Chesapeake

Bay Stock Assessments to Encourage

Research Projects for Improvement in

the Stock Conditions of the

Chesapeake Bay Fisheries

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability of funds.

SUMMARY: Approximately $540,000 in

Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 funds is available

through the NOAA/NMFS Chesapeake

Bay Office to assist interested state

fishery agencies, academic institutions,

and other nonprofit organizations

relating to cooperative research units in

carrying out research projects to provide

information for Chesapeake Bay Stock

Assessments through cooperative

agreements. About $70,000 of the base

amount is available to initiate new

projects in FY 1996, as described in this

announcement, while the balance will

be used to fund continuation projects

begun in previous years. NMFS issues

this notice describing the conditions