[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-6496]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: March 22, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Customs Service
19 CFR Part 175
[T.D. 94-22]
Decision on Domestic Interested Party Petition Concerning
Classification of Load Roller Products for Fork Lift Trucks
AGENCY: U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.
ACTION: Final interpretive rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document advises the public of Customs decision granting
a domestic interested party petition concerning the classification of
certain load roller products for fork lift trucks. Customs has
previously ruled that the products were classified as parts of fork
lift trucks in heading 8431, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS). The petition requests a determination by Customs that
the products be classified as radial ball bearings in heading 8482,
HTSUS. After careful analysis of the petition and the comments
received, Customs is of the opinion that the products are classified as
ball bearings in subheading 8482.10.50, HTSUS.
DATES: This decision will be effective as to merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after April 29, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James A. Seal, Metals and Machinery
Classification Branch, U.S. Customs Service, (202-482-7030).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 28, 1992, a notice was published in the Federal Register
(57 FR part 39158), stating that Customs had received a petition on
behalf of a domestic interested party, filed under section 516, Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1516), and Part 175, Customs
Regulations (19 CFR 175). The petition requested a determination by
Customs that certain load roller products for fork lift trucks were
classifiable as radial ball bearings in subheading 8482.10.50, HTSUS,
subject to a Column 1 General rate of duty of 11 per cent, ad valorem.
In HQ 087775, dated January 17, 1991, Customs held that the load
roller products were classified as parts of fork lift trucks in
subheading 8431.20.00, HTSUS, subject to a Column 1 free rate of duty.
HQ 087775 was affirmed by HQ 088888, dated March 24, 1992. The products
were described in HQ 088888 as steel tires into which assemblies
containing rolling elements are incorporated. The tires are designed to
turn in the channels of fork lift mast uprights. The products are
manufactured in two configurations. The first configuration is
comprised of a separate, reinforced tire into which inner and outer
rings containing rolling elements are installed. The steel tire of the
second configuration is manufactured integrally with the outer ring
section it incorporates.
In HQ 088888, Customs noted that the products are referred to by
many names including ``load rollers'', ``wheels'', ``bearings'',
``guide wheels'', ``mast guide bearings'' and ``rollers''. Customs
stated the belief that the products are similar in form and function to
certain lifting and handling equipment components which are not
described as ball bearings. It was also noted that the products may
incorporate bearing components but, as a whole, Customs believed the
products were not mere ball bearings.
The petitioner contends that the products should be classified as
ball bearings in subheading 8482.10.50, HTSUS. The petitioner argues
that the products are ball bearings of special configuration described
by heading 8482, that Customs placed undue emphasis on the outer tire
component of the products, and that the products are excluded from
heading 8431 by Section XVI, Note 2, HTSUS.
Comments
Pursuant to section 175.21(a), Customs Regulations (19 CFR
175.21(a)), before making a determination on this matter, Customs
invited written comments from interested parties on this issue.
Only one commenter submitted arguments in response to the Federal
Register notice dated August 28, 1992. The commenter supported the
correctness of the current classification of the products in heading
8431, HTSUS. The commenter argued that the outer tires of the products
are not designed like an outer bearing race, that the reducing of
friction is a secondary function of the products, and that trade
literature describes the products as a type of ``roller'', and not a
type of bearing.
Decision on Petition
After careful analysis of the petition and the comments received in
response to the notice of August 28, 1992, Customs is of the opinion
that the products should be classified as radial ball bearings in
subheading 8482.10.50, HTSUS, subject to a Column 1 General rate of
duty of 11 per cent ad valorem.
Customs is presented with a unique article of commerce which is
entered in two configurations. In the first configuration, the steel
tire section is machined to function as the outer bearing race. This
integral tire configuration is quite similar to heavy duty cam
followers, such as those which roll in channels in aircraft wings. It
has been Customs position for some time that cam followers function as
ball or roller bearings, are commonly known as bearings and are
properly classified as bearings.
The second configuration contains a thick outer steel tire
enclosing a thinner steel ring. This second ring is the part that has
been machined to function as the bearing outer race. This separate tire
configuration has some similarities in construction to products such as
trolley wheels, roller skate wheels and furniture drawer glides, which
are considered to be articles containing bearings and are not
themselves classified as ball bearings. The second configuration of
load roller product, however, performs the same function as the
integral tire configuration. Both configurations of the product are of
the same class or kind of merchandise, and should be classified in the
same provision under the HTSUS.
Through the course of this proceeding, including a continuing
analysis of the petitioner's submissions, the commenter's submissions
and our own research, we have reached a number of conclusions which
have progressed from our conclusions in prior rulings on the
merchandise.
Central to our previous position was the fact that mast guide
bearings came in two separate configurations, as previously described.
The first version, presented to us in a ruling request, and deemed the
``integral tire'' configuration, had the design characteristics most
commonly associated with ball bearings, namely, an outer and inner ring
separated by a row of spaced balls or rolling elements. While the
thickness of the outer ring was significantly greater than that
normally found on most bearings, it did conform to the design structure
of a cam follower. In the past, Customs has uniformly held to the
position that cam followers were classifiable as antifriction bearings.
The second version, deemed the ``external tire'' configuration of
the mast guide bearing, was originally referred to by the importer as a
load roller. It was viewed as a component of a fork lift which
contained a bearing. Articles containing bearings are normally
classifiable as parts of whatever finished article they are
incorporated into.
Our emphasis on what functions as the outer race is based on our
understanding of the construction and operation of antifriction ball
bearings. The critical elements of such bearings are the uniformity and
smoothness of the balls, as well as the degree of precision grinding,
honing and polishing of the races. The term ``races'' refers to the
machined grooves, or tracks, that are cut into the metal surfaces of
the inner and outer rings. A bearing is assembled by loading the balls
between the two rings and normally separating the balls from each other
by using either metal or nylon retainers called cages. The balls ride
in the groove created by the upper and lower races.
Normally, a bearing is installed into some type of housing in which
the outer ring is held stationary. A rotatable shaft or axle is then
press fit into the inner ring. The result is that all of the rotational
movement of the shaft is transferred to the balls. The balls also
support the shaft load. It is much less common to have an application
in which the inner ring remains stationary and the outer ring rotates.
A standard ball bearing cannot be used as a load-supporting wheel. The
outer ring, not being reinforced, would tend to distort itself trying
to carry weight. When bearings are used in this manner, they are
inevitably pressed inside other devices, such as gears, pulleys or
wheels. As such, the bearing tends to lose its own identity and take on
the identity of the completed assembly. Devices such as cam followers
are the exception to this rule. In that case, the outer ring is
significantly reinforced in thickness to provide the necessary support.
The ring is still machined internally to create the smooth precisioned
raceway needed to reduce friction.
It was the original position of the Customs Service that the
primary function of the mast guide bearing was to act as a guide wheel,
not as a friction-reducing bearing. While we acknowledged the
structural similarity of the ``integral tire'' bearing configuration to
that of a cam follower, Customs believed that the two did not share a
common use and function. Customs grouped mast guides into the same
category as other articles regarded as being non-bearing types, such as
trolley wheels, furniture drawer guides, and roller skate wheels. These
articles shared a structural identity with the ``external tire''
bearing configuration and also, in our opinion, a functional
similarity.
Additional information supplied by the petitioner indicates that
cam followers are used in applications of which we were previously
unaware. It is now clear that cam followers are capable of being used
as track guides on heavy machinery. We now view construction and
engineering principles relating to the ``external tire'' bearing
configuration as supporting petitioner's claim. Previously, Customs
placed far too much significance on differences in the design of the
two versions of the mast guide bearing. We likened the ``external''
tire configuration to other articles that were held to contain ball
bearings, rather than being ball bearings themselves. We looked at the
construction of this ``external'' tire version and saw two separate
components: a complete ball bearing composed of an inner ring, balls,
and a thin-section outer ring; and a separate tire into which the
bearing was pressed. Upon closer examination, what we have, in reality,
is a two-part outer ring. In order to load additional balls into this
assembly, which is done to maximize the load handling capacity of the
mast guide, the designers had to split the outer ring. By cracking the
outer ring and spreading it apart, additional balls could be added.
This would be impossible to do with the first, integral tire version.
The outer ring of that bearing was more than \1/2\ inch thick.
Splitting it would ruin the unit. Instead, a much thinner steel liner,
which we originally referred to as the outer ring of the external tire
version, was used. This liner was machined to create the bearing race,
but was thin enough to split. Thus, additional balls could be added and
this assembly inserted into the tire. This was not an assembly of two
different components, unlike other devices such as pulleys and gears.
Instead, it was an engineering solution that resulted in a maximum
complement ball bearing, and not a component containing a ball bearing.
In a recent decision, THK America, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op.
93-207, decided November 1, 1993, the Court of International Trade held
that certain linear motion guide systems were ball bearings of heading
8482. The Court noted that the term ``ball bearing'' was not defined
either in the statute or its legislative history, and that it was
therefore proper for the Court to aid its own understanding of the term
by reference to dictionaries, lexicons and scientific authorities. One
of the sources consulted was The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science &
Technology, in which antifriction bearings, of which ball bearings are
a subgroup, were defined as ``A machine element that permits free
motion between moving and fixed parts. Antifriction bearings are
essential to mechanized equipment: they hold or guide moving machine
parts and minimize friction and wear.'' (Emphasis original). By
function and design, the load roller products under consideration both
guide the lifting forks as they move along the lift mast uprights which
are fixed in place, and minimize the friction caused by this movement.
Merchandise is classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States (HTSUS) in accordance with the General Rules of
Interpretation (GRIs). GRI 1 states in part that for legal purposes,
classification shall be determined according to the terms of the
headings and any relative section or chapter notes, and provided the
headings or notes do not require otherwise, according to GRIs 2 through
6. In accordance with the above analysis, we find that the load roller
products are provided for, by name, as ball bearings, in heading 8482.
Tariff provisions designating an article or a class of articles eo
nomine, by name, will include all forms of the named article in the
absence of a contrary legislative intent, judicial decision, or
administrative practice. Nootka Packing Co. v. United States, 22 CCPA
464, T.D. 47464 (1935).
Under the authority of GRI 1, the fork lift load roller products
are provided for as ball bearings in heading 8482. They are
classifiable as other ball bearings, in subheading 8482.10.50, HTSUS.
Because they are parts which are goods included in a heading in
Chapter 84, these products are precluded from classification in heading
8431 by virtue of Section XVI, Note 2(a), HTSUS. This note states, in
relevant part, that parts which are goods included in any of the
headings of chapters 84 and 85, are in all cases to be classified in
their respective headings. HQ 087775, dated January 17, 1991, and HQ
088888, dated March 24, 1992, which held that the products are
classified in heading 8431 as parts of fork lift trucks, are revoked by
this document.
In summary, a thorough review of the evidence of record leads to
the following factual and legal conclusions: both the first and second
configuration of load roller products are in all material respects
indistinguishable from cam followers, which Customs uniformly regards
as ball bearings; both configurations are within the common meaning of
the term ``ball bearing''; for this reason, both configurations are
provided for, eo nomine, by name, in heading 8482, noting that eo
nomine designations in most cases will include all forms of the named
article.
For these reasons, the fork lift load roller products under
consideration are classified as ``[B]all * * * bearings * * *: Ball
bearings: * * * Other'', in subheading 8482.10.50, HTSUS. This decision
will stand in the absence of a contrary judgment rendered by the United
States Court of International Trade, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit or the United States Supreme Court.
Authority
This notice is published under the authority of section 516(c),
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1516(c)), and section 175.24,
Customs Regulations (19 CFR 175.24).
Drafting Information
The principal author of this document was James A. Seal, Metals and
Machinery Classification Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings,
U.S. Customs Service. Personnel from other Customs offices participated
in its development.
Samuel H. Banks,
Acting Commissioner of Customs.
Approved: February 28, 1994
John P. Simpson,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 94-6496 Filed 3-21-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P
