Decision on Domestic Interested Party Petition Concerning Classification of Load Roller Products for Fork Lift Trucks

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withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after April 29, 1994.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