[WPRT 106-13]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress
2d Session COMMITTEE PRINT WMCP:
106-13
_______________________________________________________________________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
__________
WRITTEN COMMENTS
ON
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO U.S. TRADE LAWS AND MISCELLANEOUS DUTY
SUSPENSION BILLS
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
APRIL 20, 2000
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means by its staff
--------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-010 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
BILL ARCHER, Texas, Chairman
PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
BILL THOMAS, California FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
E. CLAY SHAW, Jr., Florida ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania
AMO HOUGHTON, New York SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
WALLY HERGER, California BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
JIM McCRERY, Louisiana JIM McDERMOTT, Washington
DAVE CAMP, Michigan GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin
JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
SAM JOHNSON, Texas MICHAEL R. McNULTY, New York
JENNIFER DUNN, Washington WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
MAC COLLINS, Georgia JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio XAVIER BECERRA, California
PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona
JERRY WELLER, Illinois
KENNY HULSHOF, Missouri
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado
RON LEWIS, Kentucky
MARK FOLEY, Florida
A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Janice Mays, Minority Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Trade
PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois, Chairman
BILL THOMAS, California SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
E. CLAY SHAW, Jr., Florida CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
AMO HOUGHTON, New York RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
DAVE CAMP, Michigan MICHAEL R. McNULTY, New York
JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
JENNIFER DUNN, Washington XAVIER BECERRA, California
WALLY HERGER, California
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published
in electronic form. The printed record of written comments remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing/written comments
record, the process of converting between various electronic formats
may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are
inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the
process is further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Advisory of April 20, 2000, announcing request for written
comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and
Miscellaneous Duty Suspension bills............................ 2
______
H.R. 1622:
Fur Commission USA, Corando, CA, statement and attachment.... 14
International Mass Retail Association, Arlington, VA,
statement.................................................. 18
H.R. 2881: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3276: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3366: Bayer Corporation, U.S.A., Pittsburgh, PA, Karen L.
Niedermeyer, letter............................................ 21
H.R. 3367: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3368: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3369: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3370: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3371: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3474: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3475: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3476: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3604: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3684:
California Association of Winegrape Growers, Sacramento, CA,
Karen Ross, letter......................................... 23
Giumarra Vineyards, Bakersfield, CA, John Giumarra, letter... 27
National Grape Cooperative Inc., Westfield, NY, Richard A.
Boushey, Welch Foods, Inc., Concord, MA.................... 28
Fredrick P. Kilian, joint letter............................ 28
Vivian Tseng, joint letter.................................. 29
National Juice Products Association, Tampa, FL, statement and
attachment................................................. 30
Thomas, Hon. William M., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, statement......................... 33
H.R. 3704:
American Apparel Manufacturers Association, Arlington, VA,
Stephen Lamar, letter...................................... 34
American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Carlos Moore,
letter..................................................... 35
International Mass Retail Association, Arlington, VA,
statement.................................................. 18
Mattel, Inc., El Segundo, CA, statement...................... 36
Rubie's Costume Co. Inc., Richmond Hill, NY, Marc Beige,
letter..................................................... 37
Toy Association of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA,
Leeton Lee, letter......................................... 38
H.R. 3714: Bayer Corporation, U.S.A., Pittsburgh, PA, Stephen R.
Johnsen, letter................................................ 39
H.R. 3715: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3716: Honeywell International Inc., statement............... 40
H.R. 3717: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3718: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3719: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3720: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3721: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3722: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3723: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3724: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3725: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3726: Bayer Corporation, U.S.A., Pittsburgh, PA, Karen L.
Niedermeyer, letter............................................ 42
H.R. 3727: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3728: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3729: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3730: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3731: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3733: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3734: SunChemical Corporation, Cincinnati, OH, Stephen J.
Schmidt, letter and attachment................................. 44
H.R. 3735: SunChemical Corporation, Cincinnati, OH, Stephen J.
Schmidt, letter and attachment................................. 44
H.R. 3736: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3737: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3738: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3739: SunChemical Corporation, Cincinnati, OH, Stephen J.
Schmidt, letter and attachment................................. 45
H.R. 3740: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3741: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3742: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3743: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3746: Honeywell International Inc., statement............... 46
H.R. 3747: Honeywell International Inc., statement............... 47
H.R. 3748: Honeywell International Inc., statement............... 48
H.R. 3751:
Micron Technology, Inc., Boise, ID, and Hale and Dorr LLP,
Bonnie B. Byers, letter.................................... 50
Semiconductor Industry Association, San Jose, CA, Daryl G.
Hatano, letter............................................. 51
H.R. 3752: No comments submitted.................................
H.R. 3753: Copper & Bass Fabricators Council, Inc., Joseph L.
Mayer, letter and attachment................................... 52
H.R. 3754: Calgon Carbon Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, Karl D.
Krause, letter................................................. 54
H.R. 3755: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3757: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3758: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3759: SunChemical Corporation, Cincinnati, OH, Stephen J.
Schmidt, letter and attachment................................. 45
H.R. 3760: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3762: Elf Atochem North America, Inc., Arlington, VA,
Charles A. Kitchen, letter and attachment.............. 56
H.R. 3763: Elf Atochem North America, Inc., Arlington, VA,
Charles A. Kitchen, letter and attachment.............. 57
H.R. 3764: Elf Atochem North America, Inc., Arlington, VA,
Charles A. Kitchen, letter and attachment.............. 58
H.R. 3772: SunChemical Corporation, Cincinnati, OH, Stephen J.
Schmidt, letter and attachment................................. 45
H.R. 3773: SunChemical Corporation, Cincinnati, OH, Stephen J.
Schmidt, letter and attachment................................. 45
H.R. 3774: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3775: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3776: SunChemical Corporation, Cincinnati, OH, Stephen J.
Schmidt, letter and attachment................................. 45
H.R. 3777: SunChemical Corporation, Cincinnati, OH, Stephen J.
Schmidt, letter and attachment................................. 45
H.R. 3778:
Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan,
statement and attachment................................... 60
International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of
America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments............... 62
Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, letter............................ 63
Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L.
Wilkinson, statement and attachments....................... 64
Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B.
Pfannkuch, letter.......................................... 66
Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo,
letter..................................................... 68
Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter.............. 69
H.R. 3779:
Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan,
statement and attachment................................... 60
International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of
America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments............... 62
Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, letter............................ 63
Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L.
Wilkinson, statement and attachments....................... 64
Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B.
Pfannkuch, letter.......................................... 66
Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo,
letter..................................................... 68
Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter.............. 69
H.R. 3780:
Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan,
statement and attachment................................... 60
International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of
America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments............... 62
Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, letter............................ 63
Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L.
Wilkinson, statement and attachments....................... 64
Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B.
Pfannkuch, letter.......................................... 66
Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo,
letter..................................................... 68
Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter.............. 69
H.R. 3781:
Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan,
statement and attachment................................... 60
International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of
America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments............... 62
Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, letter............................ 63
Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L.
Wilkinson, statement and attachments....................... 64
Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B.
Pfannkuch, letter.......................................... 66
Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo,
letter..................................................... 68
Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter.............. 69
H.R. 3782:
Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan,
statement and attachment................................... 60
International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of
America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments............... 62
Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, letter............................ 63
Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L.
Wilkinson, statement and attachments....................... 64
Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B.
Pfannkuch, letter.......................................... 66
Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo,
letter..................................................... 68
Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter.............. 69
H.R. 3783:
Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan,
statement and attachment................................... 60
International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of
America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments............... 62
Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, letter............................ 63
Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L.
Wilkinson, statement and attachments....................... 64
Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B.
Pfannkuch, letter.......................................... 66
Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo,
letter..................................................... 68
Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter.............. 69
H.R. 3784:
Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan,
statement and attachment................................... 60
International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of
America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments............... 62
Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, letter............................ 63
Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L.
Wilkinson, statement and attachments....................... 64
Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B.
Pfannkuch, letter.......................................... 66
Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo,
letter..................................................... 68
Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter.............. 69
H.R. 3785:
Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan,
statement and attachment................................... 60
International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of
America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments............... 62
Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, letter............................ 63
Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L.
Wilkinson, statement and attachments....................... 64
Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B.
Pfannkuch, letter.......................................... 66
Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo,
letter..................................................... 68
Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter.............. 69
H.R. 3786:
Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan,
statement and attachment................................... 60
International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of
America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments............... 62
Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, letter............................ 63
Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L.
Wilkinson, statement and attachments....................... 64
Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B.
Pfannkuch, letter.......................................... 66
Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo,
letter..................................................... 68
Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter.............. 69
H.R. 3787:
Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan,
statement and attachment................................... 60
International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of
America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments............... 62
Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, letter............................ 63
Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L.
Wilkinson, statement and attachments....................... 64
Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B.
Pfannkuch, letter.......................................... 66
Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo,
letter..................................................... 68
Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter.............. 69
H.R. 3788:
Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan,
statement and attachment................................... 60
International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of
America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments............... 62
Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, letter............................ 63
Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L.
Wilkinson, statement and attachments....................... 64
Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B.
Pfannkuch, letter.......................................... 66
Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo,
letter..................................................... 68
Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter.............. 69
H.R. 3789:
Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan,
statement and attachment................................... 60
International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of
America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments............... 62
Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, letter............................ 63
Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L.
Wilkinson, statement and attachments....................... 64
Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B.
Pfannkuch, letter.......................................... 66
Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo,
letter..................................................... 68
Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter.............. 69
H.R. 3790:
Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan,
statement and attachment................................... 60
International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of
America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments............... 62
Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, letter............................ 63
Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L.
Wilkinson, statement and attachments....................... 64
Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B.
Pfannkuch, letter.......................................... 66
Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo,
letter..................................................... 68
Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter.............. 69
H.R. 3791:
Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan,
statement and attachment................................... 60
International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of
America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments............... 62
Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, letter............................ 63
Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L.
Wilkinson, statement and attachments....................... 64
Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B.
Pfannkuch, letter.......................................... 66
Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo,
letter..................................................... 68
Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter.............. 69
H.R. 3792:
Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan,
statement and attachment................................... 60
International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of
America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments............... 62
Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, letter............................ 63
Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L.
Wilkinson, statement and attachments....................... 64
Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B.
Pfannkuch, letter.......................................... 66
Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo,
letter..................................................... 68
Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter.............. 69
H.R. 3793:
Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan,
statement and attachment................................... 60
International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of
America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments............... 62
Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, letter............................ 63
Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L.
Wilkinson, statement and attachments....................... 64
Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B.
Pfannkuch, letter.......................................... 66
Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo,
letter..................................................... 68
Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter.............. 69
H.R. 3794:
Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan,
statement and attachment................................... 60
International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of
America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments............... 62
Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, letter............................ 63
Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L.
Wilkinson, statement and attachments....................... 64
Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B.
Pfannkuch, letter.......................................... 66
Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo,
letter..................................................... 68
Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter.............. 69
H.R. 3795:
Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan,
statement and attachment................................... 60
International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of
America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments............... 62
Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, letter............................ 63
Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L.
Wilkinson, statement and attachments....................... 64
Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B.
Pfannkuch, letter.......................................... 66
Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo,
letter..................................................... 68
Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter.............. 69
H.R. 3796:
Danner, Hon. Pat, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Missouri, letter........................................ 76
Nufarm Limited, and Nufarm America's, Inc., St. Joseph, MO,
Roger Unruh, joint letter.................................. 77
United Agri Products, Greeley, CO, James Sell, letter........ 78
H.R. 3797:
Danner, Hon. Pat, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Missouri, letter........................................ 78
Dow AgroSciences LLC, Indianapolis, IN, Gregory E. McDaniel,
letter..................................................... 79
Nufarm Limited, and Nufarm America's, Inc., St. Joseph, MO,
Roger Unruh, joint letter.................................. 81
United Agri Products, Greeley, CO, James Sell, letter........ 83
H.R. 3801: Bayer Corporation, U.S.A., Pittsburgh, PA, Karen L.
Niedermeyer, letter............................................ 84
H.R. 3802: Bayer Corporation, U.S.A., Pittsburgh, PA, Karen L.
Niedermeyer, letter............................................ 85
H.R. 3803: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3804: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3805: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3808: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3813: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3818:
Haarmann & Reimer, Teterboro, NJ, William J. Ludlum, letter.. 86
Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., Nutley, NJ, and Barnes, Richardson &
Colburn, Matthew T. McGrath, letter........................ 87
H.R. 3820:
Ney, Hon. Robert W., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio, letter...................................... 88
Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation, Newfield, NJ, Eric E.
Jackson, letter............................................ 89
Strategic Minerals Corporation, Danbury, CT, Nicholas A.
Pyle, letter............................................... 90
H.R. 3821: US JVC Corp., Wayne, NJ, statement.................... 91
H.R. 3828: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3837: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3838: Elf Atochem North America, Inc., Arlington, VA,
Charles A. Kitchen, letter and attachment...................... 93
H.R. 3853: Bayer Corporation, U.S.A., Pittsburgh, PA, Karen L.
Niedermeyer, letter............................................ 95
H.R. 3854: Bayer Corporation, U.S.A., Pittsburgh, PA, Karen L.
Niedermeyer, letter............................................ 96
H.R. 3855: Bayer Corporation, U.S.A., Pittsburgh, PA, Stephen R.
Johnsen, letter................................................ 97
H.R. 3856: Bayer Corporation, U.S.A., Pittsburgh, PA, Stephen R.
Johnsen, letter................................................ 98
H.R. 3858: Tata Tea, Incorporated, Plant City, FL, V.
Venkiteswaran, statement....................................... 98
H.R. 3868: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3869:
Hyde, Hon. Henry J., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois, letter.................................. 100
Outokumpu Cooper, Inc., Bloomingdale, IL, Martin A. Kroll,
and Ulf Anvin, letter and attachments...................... 101
Weller, Hon. Jerry, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois, letter.................................. 106
H.R. 3875:
McDermott International Incorporated, Arlington, VA, Bruce N.
Hatton, letter and attachments............................. 107
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Nuclear Energy Institute, Alliant
Energy Corporation, Madison, WI, Northern States Power
Company, Minneapolis, MN, Pinnacle West Energy Corporation,
Phoenix, AZ, Southern Companies, Atlanta, GA, Westinghouse
Electric Company, Pittsburgh, PA, and WPS Resources
Corporation, Green Bay, WI, Kirt C. Johnson, and Patrick H.
Raffaniello, joint letter and attachments.................. 112
H.R. 3876: Bayer Corporation, U.S.A., Pittsburgh, PA, Stephen R.
Johnsen, letter................................................ 132
H.R. 3877: Bayer Corporation, U.S.A., Pittsburgh, PA, Karen L.
Niedermeyer, letter............................................ 133
H.R. 3930: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3931: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3932: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3933: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3934: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3935: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3936: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3937: SunChemical Corporation, Cinncinnati, OH, Stephen J.
Schmidt, letter and attachment................................. 45
H.R. 3938: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3939: SunChemical Corporation, Cinncinnati, OH, Stephen J.
Schmidt, letter and attachment................................. 45
H.R. 3940: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3941: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3942: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3943: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3944: SunChemical Corporation, Cinncinnati, OH, Stephen J.
Schmidt, letter and attachment................................. 45
H.R. 3945: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3946: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3947: ColorChem International Corp., Atlanta, GA, and Hogan
& Hartson, T. Clark Weymouth, and Daniel J. Cannistra, letter.. 136
H.R. 3948: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3949: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3950: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3951: SunChemical Corporation, Cinncinnati, OH, Stephen J.
Schmidt, letter and attachment................................. 45
H.R. 3952: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3953: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3954: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3955: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3956: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3957: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3958: SunChemical Corporation, Cinncinnati, OH, Stephen J.
Schmidt, letter and attachment................................. 45
H.R. 3959: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3960: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3961: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3962: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3963: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3964: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3965: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3966: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3967: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3968: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3969: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3970: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3971: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3972: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3973: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3974: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3975: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3976: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3977: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3978: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3979: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3988: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3989: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3990: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3991: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3992: No comments submitted.
H.R. 4026: International Dairy Foods Association, Janet A. Nuzum,
letter......................................................... 143
H.R. 4223: No comments submitted.
H.R. 4229: American Apparel Manufacturers Association, Arlington,
VA, Stephen Lamar, letter...................................... 34
H.R. 4337:
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Josephine S. Cooper,
letter..................................................... 145
American Apparel Manufacturers Association, Arlington, VA,
Stephen Lamar, Letter...................................... 34
American Association of Exporters and Importers, New York,
NY, statement.............................................. 146
American Electronics Association, AnnMarie McIntyre, letter
and attachments............................................ 147
Armstrong, Bob, Canadian Importers Association Inc., Toronto,
Ontario, Canada, letter.................................... 150
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers,
Arlington, VA, Timothy C. MacCarthy, letter................ 148
Baglien, Brent A., ConAgra, Inc., letter..................... 151
Bunden, Kenichi, Floral Trade Council, Haslett, MI, letter... 156
Caine, Wesley K., Torrington Company, Torrington, CT, and
Stewart and Stewart, letter................................ 167
Canadian Importers Association Inc., Toronto, Ontario,
Canada, Bob Armstrong, letter.............................. 150
Caterpillar Inc., Peoria, IL, Eric F. Hinton, letter......... 150
ConAgra, Inc., Brent A. Balien, letter....................... 151
Cooper, Josephine S., Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers,
letter..................................................... 145
DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Auburn Hills, MI, Janet Y.
Sangster, letter........................................... 152
De Prest, Geert, Torrington Company, Torrington, CT, and
Stewart and Stewart, letter................................ 167
Federal-Mogul Corporation, Southfield, MI, and Hughes Hubbard
& Reed LLP, Janet A. Forest, letter........................ 153
Fennell, William A., Timken Company, Canton, OH, and Stewart
and Stewart, letter........................................ 166
Finnegan, James P., U.S. Business Alliance for Customs
Modernization, letter and attachments...................... 170
Floral Trade Council, Haslett, MI, Kenichi Bunden, letter.... 156
Forest, Janet A.:
Federal-Mogul Corporation, Southfield, MI, and Hughes
Hubbard & Reed LLP, letter............................. 153
Lands' End, Inc., Dogeville, WI, and Hughes Hubbard &
Reed LLP, letter....................................... 160
Hinton, Eric F., Caterpillar Inc., Peoria, IL, Letter........ 150
JCPenney Purchasing Corporation, Dallas, TX, Peter McGrath,
letter..................................................... 158
Johanson, David S.:
Timken Company, Canton, OH, and Stewart and Stewart,
letter................................................. 166
Torrington Company, Torrington, CT, and Stewart and
Stewart, letter.................................. 167
Joint Industry Group, Ron Schoof, letter..................... 158
Land's End Inc., Dodgeville, WI, and Hughes Hubbard and Reed
LLP, Janet A. Forest, letter............................... 160
Lesher, Frank M., Sony Electronics Inc., Park Ridge, NJ,
letter..................................................... 165
Levy, M. Barry, Toy Manufacturers of America, Inc., New York,
NY and Sharretts, Paley, Carter & Blauvelt, P.C., letter... 169
MacCarthy, Timothy C., Association of International
Automobile Manufacturers, Arlington, VA, letter............ 148
Mattel, Inc., El Segundo, CA, statement...................... 162
McGrath, Peter, JCPenney Purchasing Corporation, Dallas, TX,
letter..................................................... 158
McIntyre, AnnMarie, American Electronics Association, letter
and attachments............................................ 147
National Association of Manfacturers, Frank Vargo, letter.... 163
National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America,
Peter H. Powell, Sr., letter............................... 163
Sangster, Janet Y., DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Auburn
Hills, MI, letter.......................................... 152
Schoof, Ron, Joint Industry Group, letter.................... 158
Sony Electronics Inc., Park Ridge, NJ, Frank M. Lesher,
letter..................................................... 165
Stewart, Terence P.:
Timken Company, Canton, OH, and Stewart and Stewart,
letter................................................. 166
Torrington Company, Torrington, CT, and Stewart and
Stewart, letter.................................. 167
Timken Company, Canton, OH, and Stewart and Stewart, Terrence
P. Stewart, William A. Fennell, and David S. Johanson,
letter..................................................... 166
Torrington Company, Torrington, CT, and Stewart and Stewart,
Terence P. Stewart, Wesley K. Caine, Geert De Prest, David
S. Johanson, letter........................................ 167
Toy Manufactures of America, Inc., New York, NY, Sharretts,
Paley, Carter & Blauvelt, P.C., M. Barry Levy, letter...... 169
U.S. Business Alliance for Customs Modernization, James P.
Finnegan, letter and attachments........................... 170
Vargo, Frank, National Association of Manufacturers, letter.. 163
ADVISORY
FROM THE
COMMITTEE
ON WAYS
AND
MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE
CONTACT: (202) 225-6649
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 20, 2000
No. TR-20
Crane Announces Request for
Written Comments on Technical Corrections
to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous
Duty Suspension Bills
Congressman Philip M. Crane (R-IL), Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the
Subcommittee is requesting written comments for the record from all
parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals.
BACKGROUND:
In the first session of the 106th Congress, as part of the ongoing
process of identifying technical changes to improve the trade laws, a
number of proposals were submitted to the Subcommittee by the
Administration, the business community, and the public for possible
consideration for future legislation. Members also introduced
legislation to provide temporary suspension of duty or duty-free
treatment for certain specific products and to change other
miscellaneous provisions. On August 12, 1999, Chairman Crane requested
written public comments on a list of such bills that had been
introduced by June 11, 1999, and requested the Administration's
position on those bills, a report from the International Trade
Commission (ITC), and budget scoring estimates from Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) (See TR-15). Those comments are printed in WMCP:
106-8.
On January 11, 2000, Chairman Crane requested that all Members who
planned to introduce similar legislation do so by March 1, 2000.
Chairman Crane is now requesting public comment on those bills listed
below and is requesting the Administration's position, an ITC report,
and budget scoring estimates from CBO. After the comment period, the
Subcommittee will review all comments to determine which bills should
be included, together with bills from the list published last August,
in a miscellaneous trade package. The Committee will consider the
extent to which the bills create a revenue loss, operate retroactively,
attract significant controversy, or are not administrable.
Congress passed the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections
Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-36) in the first session of the 106th Congress,
and the legislation was signed into law by the President on June 25,
1999.
SUMMARY OF BILLS:
H.R. 1622--The Dog and Cat Protection Act of 1999, to prohibit the
importation of products made with dog or cat fur; to prohibit the sale,
manufacture, offer for sale, transportation, and distribution of
products made with dog or cat fur in the United States; and to impose
civil and criminal penalties for violation of the Act.
H.R. 2881--Amends section 13031(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the Consolidated
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(b)(1)(A)(iii))
to allow for the collection of fees for Customs' services for the
arrival of certain ferries.
H.R. 3276--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) by inserting in numerical
sequence the new heading 9902.28.01, Thionyl chloride (CAS No. 007719-
09-7) (provided for in subheading 2812.10.50), as temporarily duty-
free.
H.R. 3366--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in the numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.27,
Phenylmethyl hydrazinecarboxylate (CAS No. 5331-43-1) (provided for in
subheading 2928.00.25), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3367--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in the numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.34, 2-
1[ethoxyimino propyl]-3-hydroxy-5(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)2-cyclohexen-1-
one (Achieve) (CAS No. 87820-88-0) (provided for in subheading
2934.90.15), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3368--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in the numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.33, 1-
piperidinecarboxylic acid, 2-[(2,4--dichloro-5-
hydroxyphenyl)hydrazono]-, methyl ester (KNOO2) (CAS No. 159393-46-1)
(provided for in subheading 2933.39.61), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3369--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States by inserting in the numerical
sequence the new heading 9902.29.30, 2-imino-1-methoxycarbonyl-
piperidine hydrochloride (KL08 4) (CAS No. 159393-48-3) (provided for
in subheading 2933.39.61), with temporary duty reduction to 6.8 percent
ad valorem for calender year 2000 and to 6.1 percent for calendar year
2001.
H.R. 3370--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in the numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.35, 2-
(Methoxycarbonyl) Benzylsulfonamide (IN-N5297) (CAS No. 59777-72-9)
(provided for in subheading 2935.00.75), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3371--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in the numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.01,
Methyl(E)-2(2-[6-(2-cyanophonoxy)pyrimidin-4-yloxy]pkhenyl)-3-
methoxyacrylate (azoxystrobin formulated ``Heritage,'' ``Abound,'' and
``Quadris'') (CAS No. 13860-33-8) (provided for in subheading
3808.20.15), with a temporary duty reduction to 5.7 percent ad valorem.
H.R. 3474--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.08, Fungaflor
500 EC, in preparation form, as a fungicide for citrus fruit (provided
for in subheading 3808.20.15), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3475--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.20, NORBLOC
7966, in bulk active form as a benzotriazole stabilizer (CAS No. 96478-
09-0) (provided for in subheading 2933.90.79), as temporarily duty-
free.
H.R. 3476--Amendssubchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.10, Imazalil,
as the active ingredient in fungicides for citrus fruit (CAS No. 73790-
28-0) (provided for in subheading 2933.29.35), as temporarily duty-
free.
H.R. 3604--Provides for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain
identified entries in accordance with a final decision of the U.S.
Department of Commerce under the Tariff Act of 1930.
H.R. 3684--Amends section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to allow
duty drawback for grape juice concentrates made from Concord or Niagara
grapes.
H.R. 3704--Amends chapter 95 of the HTSUS by striking subheading
9503.70.00 and inserting new subheadings and superior text, to
reclassify certain toys in 9503.70.10 (dress-up sets and outfits,
marketed year-round for role-play activity, whether or not of textile
materials, and parts and accessories thereof); and in 9503.70.20 (other
toys put up in sets or outfits, and parts and accessories thereof). The
bill also amends the headnotes to chapter 95 and applies retroactively.
H.R. 3714--Amends heading 9902.32.12 of subchapter II of chapter 99
of the HTSUS to extend the temporary duty suspension on DEMT.
H.R. 3715--Amends chapter 70 of the HTSUS to revise the article
description for monochrome glass envelopes to be eligible for duty-free
treatment.
H.R. 3716--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.17, 9-
Anthracene-carboxylic acid, (triethoxysilyl) methyl ester (a certain
ultraviolet dye) (provided for in subheading 2918.90.90), as
temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3717--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.38.20, 3-(3,5-
dichlorophenyl)-5-ethenyl-5-methyl-2,4-oxazolidinedione (Vinclozolin)
(CAS No. 50471-44-8) (provided for in subheading 3808.20.15), as
temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3718--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.64, (E)-2-[1-
[[(3-chloro-2-propenyl) oxy] imino] propyl] -3-hydroxy-5 (tetrahydro-
2H-pyran-4-yl)-2-cyclohexen-1 -one (Tepraloxydim) CAS No. 149979-41-9)
(provided for in subheading 3808.30.50), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3719--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.38.30, 2-tert-
butyl-5-(4-tert-butyl-benzylthio)-4-chloro-pyridazin-3(2H)-one
(Pyridaben) (CAS No. 96489-71-3) (provided for in subheading
3808.30.15), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3720--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting the new subheading 9902.29.39, 2-Acetylnicotinic acid (CAS
No. 89942-59-6) (provided for in subheading 2933.39.61), as temporarily
duty-free.
H.R. 3721--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.21.06, S-
adenosylmethionine 1.4 butanedisulfonate (SAMe) (CAS No. 557-04-0)
(provided for in subheading 2106.90.99), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3722--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.32.04, 1,5-
Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 2-((8-((4-chloro-6-((3-(((4-choloro-6-((7-
((1,5-disulfo-2-naphthalenyl)azo)-8-hydroxy-3,6-disulfo-1-
naphthlenyl)amino)-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino)methyl) phenyl)amino)-
1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino)-1-hydroxy-3,6-disulfo-2-naphthalenyl)azo)-,
octa-(Procion Crimson H-EXL) (CAS No. 186554-26-7) (provided for in
subheading 3204.16.30), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3723--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading for Dispersol
Crimson SF Grains 9902.32.05, a mixture of Benzo (1,2-b:4,5-b)difuran-
2,6-dione,3-phenyl-7-(4-propoxyphenyl)-, (CAS No. 79694-17-0); acetic
acid (4-2,6-dihydro-2,6-dioxo-7-phenylbenzo(1,2-b:4,5-b)difuran-3-yl)-
phenoxy)-2-ethoxyethyl) ester (CAS No. 126877-05-2); and acetic acid
(4-(2,6-dihydro-2,6-dioxo-7-(4-propoxphenyl)benzo(1,2-b:4,5-b)difuran-
3-yl)phenoxy)-phenoxy)-, 2-ethoxyethyl ester (CAS No. 126877-06-3)
(provided for in subheading 3204.11.35), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3724--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading for Procion Navy H-
EXL 9902.32.09, a mixture of 2,7-Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 4-amino-
3,6-bis[[5-[[4-chloro-6-[(2-methyl-4-sulfophenyl) amino]-1,3,5-triazin-
2-yl]amino]-2-sulfophenyl]azo]-5-hydroxy-, hexasodium salt (CAS No.
186554-27-8); and 1,5-Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 2-((8-((4-chloro-6-
((3-(((4-chloro-6-((7-((1,5-disulfo-2-naphthalenyl)azo)-8-hydroxy-3,6-
disulfo-1-naphthlenyl)amino)-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino)
methyl)phenyl)amino)-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino)-1-hydroxy-3,6-disulfo-2-
naphthalenyl)azo)-, octa-(CAS No. 186554-26-7) (provided for in
subheading 3204.16.30),as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3725--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
striking heading 9902.32.43 and inserting the new subheading for
Procion Yellow H-EXL 9902.32.43, a mixture of 1,5-Naphthalenedisulfonic
acid, 3,3-((3-methyl (CAS No. 72906-24-2) and the 4-methyl compound
-1,2-phyenylene)bis(imino(6-chloro-1,3,5-triazine-4,2-diyl)imino(2-
(acetylamino)-5-methoxy-4,1-phenylene)azo))bis-, tetrasodium salt (CAS
No. 72906-25-3) (provided for in subheading 3204.16.30),as temporarily
duty-free.
H.R. 3726--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.01, O-phenyl
phenol (ortho-phenyl phenol (``;OPP'')) (CAS No. 90-43-7) (provided for
in subheading 2907.19.80), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3727--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.29.16, 2-
Methoxy-1-Propene (2-Methoxypropene) (CAS No. 116-11-0) (provided for
in subheading 2909.19.18), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3728--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.29.55, 3,5-
Difluroaniline (CAS No. 372-39-4) (provided for in subheading
2921.42.65), with a temporary duty reduction to 6.3 percent ad valorem.
H.R. 3729--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.29.46, 3,7-
dichloro-8-quinoline carboxylic acid (Quinclorac) (CAS No. 84087-01-4)
(provided for in subheading 2933.40.30), with a temporary duty
reduction to 5.0 percent ad valorem.
H.R. 3730--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting the new subheading for Dispersol Black XF Grains 9902.32.44,
a mixture of Napthalenesulfonic acid, polymer with formaldehyde, sodium
salt (CAS No. 36290-04-7); .beta.-Alanine, N-(4-((2-bromo-6-choloro-4-
nitrophenyl)azo)phenyl)-N-(3-methoxy-3-oxoproply)-, methyl ester (CAS
No. 59709-38-5); Ethanol, 2,2-((4-((3,5-dinitro-2-thienyl)azo)phenyl)
imino)bis-, diacetate (ester) (CAS No. 42783-06-2); and .beta.-Alanine,
N-(3-(acetylamino)-4-((2,4-dinitrophenly)azo)phenyl)-N-(3-methoxy-3-
oxoproply)-, methyl ester (CAS No. 42783-06-2); and (CAS No. 70729-65-
6) (the foregoing provided for in subheading 3204.11.35), as
temporarily duty-free
H.R. 3731--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.01, Fluroxypyr
1-methylheptyl ester (1-methylheptyl 4 aminooo-3,5-dichloro-6-fluoro-2-
pyridyloxyacetate (fluroxypyr 1-methylheptyl ester (FME)) (CAS No.
81406-37-3) (provided for in subheading 2933.39.25), as temporarily
duty-free.
H.R. 3733--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.39.01, Ethylene/
tetra-fluoroethylene copolymer (ETFE) (provided for in subheading
3904.69.50), with a temporary duty reduction to 3.0 percent ad valorem.
H.R. 3734--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.04, Copper,
[29H,31H-phthalocyaninate(2-)-N29,N30,N31,N32]-, brominated chlorinated
(monolite green 860) (CAS No. 68512-13-0) (provided for in subheading
3204.17.90), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3735--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.02, Copper,
[29H,31H-phthalocyaninato(2-)-N29,N30,N31,N32]-, brominated chlorinated
(monolite green 952) (CAS No. 68512-13-0) (provided for in subheading
3204.17.60), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3736--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.01,
Octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, reaction products with
N,N-dimethyl-1,3-propanediamine di-Me sulfate-quaternized (solsperse
17260) (CAS No. 70879-66-2) (provided for in subheading 3824.90.28), as
temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3737--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.02,
Octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, reaction products with
N,N-dimethyl-1,3-propanediamine,di-Me sulfate-quaternized (solsperse
17000) (CAS No. 70879-66-2) (provided for in subheading 3824.90.40), as
temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3738--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.03, 1-
Octadecanaminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-octadecyl-, (SP-4-2)-[29H,31H-
phthalocyanine-2-sulfonate (3-).kappa.N29, .kappa.N30,.kappa.N31,
.kappa.N32]cuprate(1-) (solsperse 5000) (CAS No. 70750-63-9) (provided
for in subheading 3824.90.28), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3739--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.03, 5,9,14,18-
Anthrazinetetrone,6,15-dihydro-(monolite blue 3R) (CAS No. 81-77-6)
(provided for in subheading 3204.17.9085), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3740--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.01,
Tetraacetylethylenediamine (certain TAED chemicals) (CAS Nos. 10543-57-
4, 61791-28-4, 9004-32-4, 1328-53-6, 147-14-8, 1302-78-9, and 14808-60-
7) (provided for in subheading 2924.10.10), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3741--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS in
heading 9902.39.07 to extend the temporary suspension of duty on a
certain polymer to December 31, 2003.
H.R. 3742--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.01, Isobornyl
acetate (CAS No. 125-12-2) (provided for in subheading 2915.39.45), as
temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3743--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.34.01, Sodium
petroleum sulfonate (CAS No. 68608-26-4) (provided for in subheading
3402.11.50), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3746--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS in
heading 9902.29.07 to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 4-
hexylresorcinol to December 31, 2003.
H.R. 3747--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS in
heading 9902.29.37 to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
certain sensitizing dyes to December 31, 2003.
H.R. 3748--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS in
heading 9902.32.07 to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
certain organic pigments and dyes to December 31, 2003.
H.R. 3751--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS in
heading 9902.71.08 to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
certain semi-manufactured forms of gold to December 31, 2003.
H.R. 3752--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.01, 4-Nitro-o-
xylene (CAS No. 99-51-4) (provided for in subheading 2904.20.15), as
temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3753--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.74.10, certain
copper foils (provided for in subheading 7410.11.00), as temporarily
duty-free.
H.R. 3754--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.38.02, certain
activated carbon (provided for in subheading 3802.10.00), as
temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3755--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.84.60, certain
buff brushes (provided for in subheading 8466.93.95), as temporarily
duty-free.
H.R. 3757--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.73, Solvent
Blue 124 (CAS No. 29243-26-3) (provided for in subheading 3204.19.20),
as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3758--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.72, Solvent
Blue 104 (CAS No. 116-75-6) (provided for in subheading 3204.19.20), as
temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3759--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.74, Pigment Red
176 (CAS No. 12225-06-8) (provided for in subheading 3204.14.04), as
temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3760--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.96,
Benzensulfonamide,4-amino-2,5-dimethyoxy-N-phenyl (CAS No. 52298-44-9)
(provided for in subheading 2935.00.10), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3762--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.01, 10-
Undecylenic acid (CAS No. 112-38-9) (provided for in subheading
2916.19.30), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3763--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.02, n-
Heptaldehyde (CAS No. 111-71-7) (provided for in subheading
2912.19.50), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3764--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.03, n-Heptanoic
acid (CAS No. 111-14-8) (provided for in subheading 2915.90.18), as
temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3772--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.04, Pigment
Yellow 199 (CAS No. 136897-58-0) (provided for in subheading
3204.17.60), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3773--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.10, Pigment
Blue 60 (CAS No. 81-77-6) (provided for in subheading 3204.17.90), as
temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3774--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.09, Solvent
Violet 13 (CAS No. 81-48-1) (provided for in subheading 3204.19.20), as
temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3775--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.05, Solvent
Blue 67 (CAS No. 81457-65-0) (provided for in subheading 3204.19.11),
as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3776--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.17, Pigment
Yellow 147 (CAS No. 4118-16-5) (provided for in subheading 3204.17.60),
as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3777--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.20, Pigment
Yellow 191.1 (CAS No. 154946-66-4) (provided for in subheading
3204.17.60), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3778--Amends subheadings 8477.10.40 and 8479.89.85 of the
HTSUS to provide duty-free treatment for, and clarify the
classification of, machines and components used in the manufacture of
digital versatile discs (DVDs).
H.R. 3779--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.01, machines or
mechanical appliances, whether imported separately or as an entirety,
and parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in
subheading 8456.99.90), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3780--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.06, In-Line
System Machines, whether imported as an entirety, or in components, or
parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in
subheading 8479.89.97), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3781--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.02, machines or
mechanical appliances, whether imported separately or as an entirety,
and parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in
subheading 8460.40.40), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3782--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.07, Laser
Encoder Machines, whether imported as an entirety, or in components, or
parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in
subheading 8479.89.97), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3783--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.03, machines or
mechanical appliances, whether imported separately or as an entirety,
and parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in
subheading 8462.41.00), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3784--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.08, electrical
machines and apparatus, whether imported separately or as an entirety,
and parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in
subheading 8543.30.00), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3785--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.04, machines or
mechanical appliances, whether imported separately or as an entirety,
and parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in
subheading 8464.20.50), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3786--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.09, electrical
machines and apparatus, whether imported separately or as an entirety,
and parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in
subheading 8543.89.96), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3787--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.05, machines or
mechanical appliances, whether imported separately or as an entirety,
and parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in
subheading 8464.90.90), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3788--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.15, Coater
machines, whether imported as an entirety, or in components, or parts
thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in subheading
8479.89.97), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3789--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.13, machines or
mechanical appliances, whether imported separately or as an entirety,
and parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in
subheading 8477.10.90), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3790--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the f new heading 9902.84.16, Bonding
machines, whether imported as an entirety, or in components, or parts
thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in subheading
8479.89.97), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3791--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.14, Stacker
machines, whether imported as an entirety, or in components, or parts
thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in subheading
8479.89.97), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3792--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.17, Gold
sputter machines, whether imported as an entirety, or in components, or
parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in
subheading 8479.89.97), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3793--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.18, Aluminum
sputter machines, whether imported as an entirety, or in components, or
parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in
subheading 8479.89.97), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3794--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.19, machines or
mechanical appliances, whether imported separately or as an entirety,
and parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in
subheading 8480.79.90), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3795--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.21, measuring
or checking instruments, appliances, or machines, whether imported
separately or as an entirety, and parts thereof, for use in the
manufacture of DVDs (provided for in subheading 9031.49.90), as
temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3796--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.01, 2-Methyl-4-
chlorophenoxyacetic acid (CAS No. 9021-09-6) (provided for in
subheading 2918.90.20), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3797--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.02, 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, its salts and esters (CAS No. 29091-09-6)
(provided for in subheading 2918.90.20), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3801--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.01,
Iminodisuccinate (CAS No. 144538-83-0) (provided for in subheading
3824.90.90), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3802--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.02,
Iminodisuccinate salts and aqueous solutions (provided for in
subheading 3824.90.90), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3803--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.85.04, (120/60Hz
electrical transformers (provided for in subheading 8504.31.40), with
dimensions not exceeding 78mm by 64.5mm by 88.7mm and containing
stacked EI laminations with an integral bobbin, imported for use as
components in radiobroadcast receivers with digital clock or clock-
timer, valued over $40 each) (provided for in subheading 8527.32.50),
the foregoing which include a resonant system tuned to at least five
audible , as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3804--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.85.05, 120/60Hz
electrical transformers (provided for in subheading 8504.31.40), with
dimensions not exceeding 51.7mm by 78mm by 91mm and each containing a
layered and uncut round core with two balanced bobbins, imported for
use as components in radio recorder combinations, incorporating optical
disc (including compact disc) players or recorders (provided for in
subheading 8527.31.60), the foregoing which include a resonant system
tuned to at least five audible frequencies, as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3805--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.39.01,
Polyvinylchloride (PVC) self-adhesive sheets of a type used to make
bandages (provided for in subheading 3919.19.50), as temporarily duty-
free.
H.R. 3808--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.01, BEPD 2-
Butyl-2-ethylpropanediol (CAS No. 115-84-4) (provided for in subheading
2905.39.90), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3813--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.01,
Cyclohexadee-8-en-1-one (CHD) (CAS No. 3100-36-5) (provided for in
subheading 2914.29.50), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3818--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.17, 2-
ethylbexyl 3-(4-methoxyphenyl)-2-propenoate (octylmethoxycinnamate)
(CAS No. 5466-77-3) (provided for in subheading 2918.90.30), as
temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3820--To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of
certain identified entries of carbides.
H.R. 3821--To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of
certain identified color television receiver entries.
H.R. 3828--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting the new heading 9902.29.33, N-Cyclopropyl-N-(1,1-
dimethylethy)-6-(methylthio)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine (a paint
additive chemical) (certain polyamides) (CAS No. 28159-98-0) (provided
for in subheading 2933.69.60), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3837--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.01, Ortho-
cumyl-octylphenol (OCOP) (CAS No. 73936-80-8) (provided for in
subheading 2907.19.80), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3838--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.39.08, Micro-
porous ultra fine spherical forms of polyamides 6, 12, and 6/12 powder
(provided for in subheading 3908.10.00), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3853--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.38.14, a
certain Alkylsulfonie Acid Ester of Phenol (Mesamoll) (CAS No. 70775-
94-9)(provided for in subheading 3812.20.10), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3854--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.38.30, a
mixture of N-Phenyl-N-((trichloromethyl)thio)-Benzenesulfonamide;
calcium carbonate; and mineral oil (Vulkalent E/C) (provided for in
subheading 3824.90.28), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3855--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.29.34, a
certain 3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene (Baytron M) (CAS No. 126213-50-1)
(provided for in subheading 2934.90.90), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3856--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.38.15, a
certain catalytic preparation based on Iron (III) toluenesulfonate
(Baytron C-R) (CAS No. 77214-82-5) (provided for in subheading
3815.90.50), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3858--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.21.01,
Preparations with a basis of extracts, essences, or concentrates of tea
or mate, or with a basis of tea or mate, described in additional U.S.
note 8 to chapter 7 and entered pursuant to its provisions (provided
for in subheading 2101.20.54), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3868--To provide for the reliquidation of certain identified
entries of vacuum cleaners as duty-free.
H.R. 3869--To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of
certain identified entries of copper and brass sheet and strip.
H.R. 3875--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.84.02,
Watertube boilers with a steam production exceeding 45 t per hour, for
use in nuclear facilities (provided for in subheading 8402.11.00), as
temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3876--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.39.01, a certain
mixture of water and poly(3,4-ethylene-dioxythiophene)-poly
(styrenesulfonate) (cationic) (Baytron P) (CAS No. 155090-83-8)
(provided for in subheading 3911.90.25), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3877--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.01, Dimethyl
dicarbonate (CAS No. 4525-33-1) (provided for in subheading
2920.90.50), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3930--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.01, 2,4-
dichloro-5-hydroxyhydrazine hydrochloride (KN001 (a hydrochloride))
(CAS No. 189573-21-5) (provided for in subheading 2928.00.25), as
temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3931--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.02, Methyl
thioglycolate (CAS No. 2365-48-2) (provided for in subheading
2930.90.90), as temporarily duty -free.
H.R. 3932--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS is
amended by inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.03,
Methyl-4-trifluoromethoxyphenyl-N-(chlorocarbonyl) carbamate (KL540)
(CAS No. 173903-15-6) (provided for in subheading 2924.29.70), as
temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3933--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS is
amended by inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.04,
(S)-6-chloro-3,4-dihydro-4-E-cyclopropylethenyl-4-trifluoromethyl-
2(1H)-quinozolinone (DPC 083) (CAS No. 214287-99-7) (provided for in
subheading 2933.90.46), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3934--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.20.05, (S)-6-
chloro-3,4-dihydro-4-cyclopropylethynyl-4-trifluoromethyl-2(1H)-
quinozolinone (DPC 961) (CAS No. 214287-88-4) (provided for in
subheading 2933.90.46), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3935--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902-----,5-[4-(4,5-
dimethyl-2-sulfo-phenylamino)-6-hydroxy-[1,3,5-] triazin-2-yl amino]-4-
hydroxy-3-(1-sulfo-naphthalen-2-ylazo)-naphthalene-2,7-disulphonic
acid, sodium/ammonium salt (Pro-Jet Magenta 364 Stage) (provided for in
subheading 3204.14.3000), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3936--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902------,5-[4-(7-
amino-1-hydroxy-3-sulfo-naphthalen-2-ylazo)-2,5-bis-(2-hydroxy-ethoxy)-
phenylazo]-isophthalic acid, lithium salt (Pro-Jet Black 263 Stage)
(provided for in subheading 3204.14.3000), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3937--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.48, Pigment
Yellow 184 (provided for in subheading 3206.49.5000), as temporarily
duty-free.
H.R. 3938--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.02, 1,5-
Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 3,3-[[6-[(2-hydroxyethyl)amino]-1,3,5-
triazine-2,4-diyl]bis[imino (2-methyl-4, 1-phenylene)azo]]bis-,
tetrasodium salt (Pro-Jet Yellow 1 Stage) (CAS No. 50925-42-3), as
temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3939--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.25, Pigment
Orange 73 (CAS No. 84632-59-7) (provided for in subheading
3204.17.6085), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3940--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS is
amended by inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.03,
2,7-Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 4-amino-3,6-bis [[4-[(2,4-
diaminophenyl) azo]phenyl]azo]-5-hydroxy-(Direct Black 19 Press Paste)
(CAS No. 7518-68-5) (provided for in subheading 3204.14.5000), as
temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3941--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.04, Trisodium
4-amino-3-[[4-[[4-[(2-amino-4-hydroxyphenyl) azo] phenyl] amino]-3-
sulphonatophenyl] azo]-5-hydroxy-6-(phenylazo) naphtalene-2,7-
disulphonate (Pro-Jet Black HSAQ Stage) (CAS No. 85631-88-5) (provided
for in subheading 3204.14.3000), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3942--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.09, 1,3-
Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 5-[[4-[(7-amino-1-hydroxy-3-sulfo-2-
naphthalenyl)azo]-6-sulfo-1-naphthalenyl]azo]-, sodium salt (Pro-Jet
Fast Black 286 Paste) (CAS No. 201932-24-3) (provided for in subheading
3204.14.3000), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3943--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.21,
Benzenesulfonic acid, 3,3-[carbonyl bis[imino (3-methoxy-4,1-
phenylene)azo]] bis-disodium salt (Pro-Jet Yellow 1G Stage) (CAS No.
10114-86-0) (provided for in subheading 3204.14.5000), as temporarily
duty-free.
H.R. 3944--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.28, Pigment Red
255 (CAS No. 54660-00-3) (provided for in subheading 3204.17.6085), as
temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3945--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.20, Copper,
[29H,31H-phthalocyaninato(2-) -N29,N30, N31,N32]-, aminosulfonyl sulfo
derivs. (Pro-Jet Cyan 1 Press Paste) (CAS No. 80146-12-9) (provided for
in subheading 3204.14.50), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3946--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.05, a 2:1
mixture of; a) tris(3,5,5-trimethylhexylammonium) 4-amino-3-(4-[4-(4-
amino-2-hydroxyphenylazo)anilino]-3-sulphonatophenylazo)-5,6-dihydro-5-
oxo-6-phenylhydrazonaphthalene-2,7-disulphonateb) tris(3,5,5-
trimethylhexylammonium) 4-amino-3-(4-[4-(2-amino-2-
hydroxyphenylazo)anilino]-3-sulphonatophenylazo)-5,6-dihydro-5-oxo-6-
phenylhydrazonaphthalene-2,7-disulphonate (Pro-Jet Black Alc Powder)
(provided for in subheading 3204.14.3000), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3947--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.32, Solvent
Yellow 163 (CAS No. 13676-91-0) (provided for in subheading
3204.19.2090), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3948--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.10, 1,3-
Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 5,5-[[6-(4-morpholinyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-
diyl]bis(imino-4,1-phenyleneazo)]bis-, ammonium/sodium/hydrogen salt
(Pro-Jet Fast Yellow 2 RO Feed) (provided for in subheading
3204.14.3000), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3949--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.46, Solvent
Yellow 145 (CAS No. 27425-55-4) (provided for in subheading
3204.19.2595), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3950--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.15, 1,3-
Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 5,5-[(2,5-dimethyl-1,4-
piperazinediyl)bis[(1,6-dihydro-6-oxo-1,3,5-triazine-4,2-diyl)imino(8-
hydroxy-3,6-disulfo-1,7-naphthalenediyl)azo]]bis-, ammonium/sodium/
hydrogen salt (Pro-Jet Fast Magenta 2 RO Feed) (provided for in
subheading 3204.14.3000), as temporarily duty free.
H.R. 3951--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.47, Pigment Red
264 (CAS No. 88949-33-1) (provided for in subheading 3204.17.6085), as
temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3952--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.17, Copper,
[29H,31H-phthalocyaninato(2-)-N29,N30, N31,N32]-, [(3-
carboxyphenyl)amino]sulfonyl sulfo derivs., ammonium sodium hydrogen
salts (Pro-Jet Fast Cyan 2 Stage) (provided for in subheading
3204.14.3000), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3953--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.23, [(2-hydro-
xyethylsul-famoyl)sulfo-phthalo-cyaninato] copper (II), mixed isomers
(Pro-Jet Cyan 485 Stage) (provided for in subheading 3204.14.3000), as
temporarily duty-fee.
H.R. 3954--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.01, Methyl 2-
[[[[[-4(dimethylamino) -6-(2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy) -1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]
-amino]carbonyl] amino]sulfonyl]-3-methylbenzoate (a triflusulfuron
methyl formulated product) (CAS No. 126535-15-7) (provided for in
subheading 3808.10.15), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3955--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.24, Copper,
[29H, 31H-phthalocyaninato (2-)-xN29, xN30, xN31, xN32]-, [[2-[4-(2-
amino-ethyl)-1-piper-azinyl]ethyl]-amino]sulfonyl aminosulfonyl [(2-
hydroxy-ethyl)amino]-sulfonyl [[2-[[2-(1-piperazinyl)-ethyl]amino)-
ethyl]amino]-sulfonyl sulfo derivs., sodium salts (Pro-Jet Fast Cyan 3
Stage) (provided for in subheading 3204.14.3000), as temporarily duty-
free.
H.R. 3956--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in the numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.02, Copper,
[29H, 31H-phthalocyaninato(2-)-N29, N30, N31, N32]-, aminosulfonyl
sulfo derivs., sodium salts (Pro-Jet Cyan 1 RO Feed) (CAS No. 80146-12-
9) (provided for in subheading 3204.14.50), with a temporary duty
reduction to 9.5 percent ad valorem.
H.R. 3957--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in the numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.03, 1,3-
benzenedicarboxylic acid, 5-[[4-[(7-amino-1-hydroxy-3-sulfo-2-
naphthalenyl) azo]-1-naphthalenyl] azo]-, trisodium salt (Pro-Jet Fast
Black 287 NA Paste/Liquid Feed) (CAS No. 160512-93-6) (provided for in
subheading 3204.14.30), with a temporary duty reduction to 7.8 percent
ad valorem.
H.R. 3958--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.49, Pigment
Yellow 168 (CAS No. 71832-85-4) (provided for in subheading
3204.17.6085), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3959--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting the new heading 9902.29.22, 4-(Cyclopropyl-a-hydroxy-
methylene)-3,5-dioxo-cyclohexanecarboxylic acid ethyl ester (CAS No.
95266-40-3) (provided for in subheading 2916.20.50), as temporarily
duty-free.
H.R. 3960--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting the new heading 9902.29.38, 8-a-oxo-emamectin benzoate
desmethylemamectin benzoate emamectin benzoate methanol adduct 2-epl-
emamectin benzoate emamectin benzoate isomer, 4-epl-D-2,3-emamectin
benzoate dihydroemamectin benzoate (CAS No. 137512-74-4) (provided for
in subheading 2938.90.00), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3961--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.10, Propanoic
acid, 2-[4-[(5-chloro-3-fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy]-phenoxy]-2-propynyl
ester (CAS No.105512-06-9) (provided for in subheading 3808.30.15), as
temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3962--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.21, Certain
end-use products containing benzenesulfonamide, 2-(2-chloroethoxy)N-
[[4methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino] carbonyl]-(CAS No. 82097-
50-5) and 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid (CAS No. 1918-00-9)
(provided for in subheading 3809.30.15), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3963--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
striking heading 9902.29.41 and inserting the new heading 9902.29.41,
Benzeneacetic acid, (E,E)-a-(-(methoxyimino) -2[[[[1-[3-
trifluoromethyl) phenyl] ethylidene] amino]oxy] methyl]-, methyl ester
(CAS No. 141517-21-7) (provided for in subheading 2930.90.10), as
temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3964--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting the new heading 9902.29.39, 3-[4,6-Bis (difluoromethoxy)-
pyrimidin-2-yl]-1-(2-methoxycarbonyl-phenylsulfonyl) urea (CAS No.
86209-51-05) (provided for in subheading 2935.00.75), as temporarily
duty-free.
H.R. 3965--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.25, 5-
Dipropylamino-a,a,a-trifluoro-4,6-dinitro-o-toluidine (CAS No. 29091-
21-2) (provided for in subheading 2921.43.80), as temporarily duty-
free.
H.R. 3966--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.13, Sulfur (CAS
No. 7704-34-9) (provided for in subheading 3808.20.50), as temporarily
duty-free.
H.R. 3967--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the f new heading 9902.38.09, 3-(6-
methoxy-4-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)-1-[2-(2-chloro-ethoxy)-
phenylsulfonyl]-urea (CAS No. 82097-50-5) (provided for in subheading
3808.30.15), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3968--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.14, 4-
Cyclopropyl-6-methyl-N-phenyl-2-pyrimidinamine-4-(2,2-difluoro-1,3-
benzodioxol-4-yl)-1H-pyrrole-3-carbonitrile (CAS No. 131341-86-1)
(provided for in subheading 3808.20.15), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3969--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.10, Pigment
Blue 60 (CAS No. 81-77-6) (provided for in subheading 3204.17.90), as
temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3970--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting the new heading 9902.29.27, (R)-2-[2,6-dimethylphenyl)-
methoxyacetyl-amino]-propionic acid methyl ester (CAS Nos. 7-830-17-7
and 69516-34-3) (provided for in subheading 2924.29.47), as temporarily
duty-fee.
H.R. 3971--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.22,
Benzothialdiazole-7-carbothioic acid S-methyl ester (CAS No. 135158-54-
2) (provided for in subheading 3803.20.15), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3972--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.33,
Benzothialdiazole-7-carbothioic acid S-methyl ester (CAS No. 135158-54-
2) (provided for in subheading 2933.69.60), as temporarily duty -fee.
H.R. 3973--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting the new heading 9902.29.30, O-(4-Bromo-2-chlorophenyl)-O-
ethyl-S-propyl phosphorothioate (CAS No. 41198-08-7) (provided for in
subheading 2930.90.10), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3974--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting the new heading 9902.29.35, 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-
propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl] methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole (CAS No. 60207-90-
1) (provided for in subheading 2934.90.12), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3975--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.34, tetrahydro-
3-methyl-N-nitro-5[[2-phenylthio)-5-thiazolyl]-4-H-1,3,5-oxadiazin-4-
imine (CAS No. 192439-46-6) (provided for in subheading 2934.90.16), as
temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3976--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting the new heading 9902.29.40, 1-(4-methoxy-6-methyl-triazin-2-
yl)-3-[2-(3,3,3-trifluoropropyl)-phenylsulfonyl]-urea (CAS No. 94125-
34-5) (provided for in subheading 2935.00.75), as temporarily duty-
free.
H.R. 3977--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting the new heading 9902.29.33 1,2,4-Triazin-3(2H)one, 4,5-
dihydro-6-meth-yl-4-[(3-pyridinylmeth-ylene)amino](CAS No.23312-89-0)
(provided for in subheading2933.69.60), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3978--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.34, 4-(2,2-
difluoro-1,3-benzodioxol-4-yl)-1H-pyrrole-3-carbonitrile (CAS No.
131341-86-1) (provided for in subheading 2934.90.12), as temporarily
duty-free.
H.R. 3979--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.22, 3-(6-
methoxy-4-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)-1-[2-(2-chloro-ethoxy)-
phenylsulfonyl]-urea-3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid (CAS No. 1982-
69-0) (provided for in subheading 3808.30.15), as temporarily duty-
free.
H.R. 3988--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS in
heading 9902.33.61, to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Carbamic Acid (V-9069) to December 31, 2003.
H.R. 3989--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.01, 2-(((((4,6-
Di-methoxypyrimi-din-2-yl) aminocarbonyl))-N,N-dimethyl-3-
pyridinecarboxamide (Accent) (CAS No. 122931-48-0) (provided for in
subheading 3808.10.15), as temporarily duty-free.
H.R. 3990--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS in
heading 9902.33.60, to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Rimsulfuron to December 31, 2003.
H.R. 3991--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS in
heading 9902.33.63, to extend the temporary suspension of duty on DPX-
E9260 to December 31, 2003.
H.R. 3992--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS in
heading 9902.33.63, to extend the temporary suspension of duty on DPXE
6578 to December 31, 2003.
H.R. 4026--Amends subchapter II of chapter 98 of the HTSUS (HTSUS)
to insert a new subheading: 9802.00.95, under which certain food stuffs
originating in NAFTA countries would receive duty-free treatment upon
meeting certain conditions: (1) satisfy the rules of origin under NAFTA
as set forth in General Note 12 of the HTSUS--such food stuffs must be
processed in Canada or Mexico using a material exported from the United
States, (2) any dairy ingredient used in the processing of the good in
Canada or Mexico must be of U.S. origin and consistent with the current
tariff-rate quota provisions on sugar-containing products, (3) the
goods as imported into the United Stated may not contain foreign-origin
cane or beet sugar in excess of 10 percent by dry weight, (4) an
additional limitation excludes from the scope of the provision dairy
products such as cheeses manufactured in Canada or Mexico, even if all
milk or cream used in such manufacturing were of U.S. origin. The bill
also would add a new U.S. note 7 to subchapter II of chapter 98, to
provide (in subparagraph 7(a)) that products entered under subheading
9802.00.95 would not be subject to safeguard duties and would not be
counted against the in-quota quantities for otherwise-applicable
tariff-rate quota provisions.
H.R. 4223--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by
inserting in the numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.47, 5-
Amino-1(2,6,-dichloro-4-trifluromethy-1)phynyl)-4-((1,r,s,)-
trifluromethy-1)sulfinyl)-1-h-pyrazole-3-carbonitrile: fipronil
90mp(Fipronil Technical) (CAS No. 120068-37-3) (provided for in
subheading 2933.19.23), with a temporary duty reduction to 5 percent ad
valorem.
H.R. 4229--Amends chapter 51 of the HTSUS by striking subheading
5111.11.70, and inserting two new subheadings, 5111.65.65 and
5111.11.75, to expand the scope of the existing subheading 5111.11.70
to include imported hand-loomed fabric in a wider width.
H.R. 4337--Amends the following sections of the Tariff Act of 1930
with respect to entry revision procedures: (1) (a) section 484 (19
U.S.C. Sec. 1484)--to require minimum data (description of the
merchandise, classification, country of origin, and admissibility
documentation) at the time of entry for release of imported merchandise
from Customs' custody; (b) section 499 (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1499)--toamend
the current conditions for release of imported merchandise from
Customs' custody; and (c) section 401 (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1401)--to conform
remote filing to include the electronic entry of the import activity
summary statement (IASS),(2) section 414 (19 U.S.C Sec. 1414)--to allow
importers the option of filing one IASS per month in lieu of entry
summaries for each individual transaction as currently required by the
Customs Service, and to amend the Mod Act ``remote location filing''
section to conform with this option, (3) section 484 (19 U.S.C
Sec. 1484)--to allow an importer to declare its information using
either the current individual entry summary system or by filing a
monthly IASS which will resemble an individual entry summary, except
that it will contain aggregate information for the entire month. In
addition, absent fraud, variances in the information provided would be
considered clerical errors. This amendment would (a) permit the
importer to segregate and total the information by tariff number,
country of origin, and special program indicator (e.g., GSP), as
currently permitted for entry summaries, (b) not require information
relating to specific entries or shipments, i.e., importers would not
have to list the activity for each and every entry during the month,
and (c) treat the IASS just as any other entry summary for purposes of
administration of the customs laws, (4) section 505(c) of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1505(c)) -to re-authorize mid-point
interest, first established as part of P.L. 106-36, which allows the
collection of interest on duty underpayments without an entry-by-entry
calculation, (5) section 484 (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1484) -to eliminate the
requirement that each entry be flagged for reconciliation, and to allow
importers to reconcile any element of an entry, (6) section 592 of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1592) -(a) absent fraud, to allow
importers to correct import information in an entry summary, IASS and/
or reconciliation, and variances in the shipment information as
clerical errors; (b) to provide that, in cases of errors in an entry,
entry summary, IASS, or reconciliation information that cancel out each
other, the violation would be only material to the extent of the net
error or omission, and (c) to allow importers to offset duty
overpayments against underpayments for a relevant period for Customs
enforcement actions and prior disclosures, (7) section 401a of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1401a)--to requirethe Customs
Service to ensure that the circumstances of sale are examined for a
representative period to determine whether transaction value can be
used, (8) section 313 (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1313)--to allow drawback where
there is valuable waste, and for the available drawback to be reduced
by taking into account the residual commercial value of the product,
(9) section 322 (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1322)--to allow containers and shipping
devices that are not imported into the United States as articles of
commerce to be subject to the exclusions contained in the HTSUS as
``Instruments of International Traffic'' (IIT's); and, (10) the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1202)--to renumber General
Notes 15-21 and add a new General Note to allow an importer the option
of classifying discrete pieces of machinery (certain dies, machinery
tools and equipment) under the tariff provision for the complete,
finished good provided that the importer meets certain entry conditions
and proof thresholds.
DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Any person or organization wishing to submit a written statement
for the printed record should submit six (6) single-spaced copies of
their statement, along with an IBM compatible 3.5-inch diskette in
WordPerfect or MS Word format, with their name, address, and comments
date noted on label, by the close of business, Friday, May 19, 2000, to
A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House
of Representatives, 1102 Longworth House Office Building, Washington,
D.C. 20515.
FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:
Each statement presented for printing to the Committee by a
witness, any written statement or exhibit submitted for the printed
record or any written comments in response to a request for written
comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any statement or
exhibit not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed,
but will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the
Committee.
1. All statements and any accompanying exhibits for printing must
be submitted on an IBM compatible 3.5-inch diskette in WordPerfect or
MS Word format, typed in single space and may not exceed a total of 10
pages including attachments. Witnesses are advised that the Committee
will rely on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing
record.
2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not
be accepted for printing. Instead, exhibit material should be
referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material not meeting
these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for
review and use by the Committee.
3. A witness appearing at a public hearing, or submitting a
statement for the record of a public hearing, or submitting written
comments in response to a published request for comments by the
Committee, must include on his statement or submission a list of all
clients, persons, or organizations on whose behalf the witness appears.
4. A supplemental sheet must accompany each statement listing the
name, company, address, telephone and fax numbers where the witness or
the designated representative may be reached. This supplemental sheet
will not be included in the printed record.
The above restrictions and limitations apply only to material being
submitted for printing. Statements and exhibits or supplementary
material submitted solely for distribution to the Members, the press,
and the public during the course of a public hearing may be submitted
in other forms.
Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on
the World Wide Web at ``http://waysandmeans.house.gov''.
H.R. 1622
To prohibit the importation of products made with dog or
cat fur, to prohibit the sale, manufacture, offer for sale,
transportation, and distribution of products made with dog or
cat fur in the United States, and for other purposes.
Statement of Fur Commission USA, Corando, California
Fur Commission USA represents over 600 mink and fox farming
families on over 400 farms in 31 states. We seek to educate the
public about responsible fur farming, ensure the best care for
our animals, and to celebrate and secure fur-farming families.
Fur bearing animals have been raised on farms in North
America since shortly after the Civil War. Today's farm-raised
fur bearers are among the world's best cared-for livestock.
Good nutrition, comfortable housing and prompt veterinary care
have resulted in domestic animals very well suited to the farm
environment. Precise attention to animal care has enabled North
American farmers to produce the finest quality fur in the
world.
At the outset, it should be noted that the intent of H.R.
1622 could be achieved by simply establishing an importation
prohibition, which could then be integrated within existing
Customs enforcement schemes. Many such import prohibitions
exist in law and are enforceable by Customs. Indeed, Customs
already has authority to assess penalties, seize merchandise
and subject such merchandise to forfeiture, subject to normal
due process protections. Moreover, sales of fur products are
subject to a labeling scheme administered by the Federal Trade
Commission. Mislabeling of the products can result in the
imposition of significant penalties.
Given the current authority possessed by U.S. Customs to
enforce an import ban and the FTC labeling requirements, the
administrative and judicial enforcement scheme contained in
H.R. 1622 is not only excessive, but is also overly broad,
vague and confusing for the following reasons:
1. The legislation establishes a cause of action wherein any
individual could bring a citizen's suit to compel the Secretary
of Treasury to enforce the Act or to enjoin an individual from
taking any action deemed to be in violation of the Act.
Establishing such a broad basis for legal standing could result
in numerous law suits brought by anti-fur activists, regardless
of whether the private citizen bringing the suit has knowledge
that the activity in question is in violation of the
prohibitions contained in this legislation.
2. The legislation establishes broad seizure and arrest
authority based on a ``duly-authorized officer's'' reasonable
belief that a violation has occurred. A law designed to be
administered by the U.S. Customs Service cannot permit private
citizens, particularly individuals who have a broader agenda
with respect to fur, to be involved in any aspect of the
enforcement scheme. Unfortunately, the current language of the
bill leaves open the possibility that a ``duly-authorized
officer'' could in fact be a private citizen.
3. The legislation suggests that the Department of Justice
(through the U.S. Attorney structure) will be involved in the
enforcement of this legislation, regardless of whether a
violation is criminal or civil.
4. The legislation, to the extent it prohibits certain
manufacturing and sales activities, preempts the regulation of
activities that normally fall under the jurisdiction of the
states.
5. The legislation's mandate that a person who violates any
provision of the Act can be enjoined from further sales of any
fur product is excessive and probably would not withstand
judicial scrutiny. Such a sanction, if it is to be included,
must be limited to those individuals who have criminally (with
knowledge and intent) violated the prohibition. Even in these
instances, however, it is doubtful that a court would issue an
injunction denying an individual his livelihood based on a
violation of this statute.
If the intent of the bill's sponsors is to create a unique
and complex criminal and civil statutory enforcement scheme,
which includes private citizen suits, the bill must be referred
to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to ensure that the
bill does not become a vehicle for harassing legitimate fur
industry interests or depriving individuals in the fur trade of
their rights. More generally, referral is critical given that
the legislation would affect the U.S. criminal code and create
new causes of action that will be justiciable under the federal
court system.
On the other hand, if Customs is to be the principal
implementing agency for this legislation, then the bill can be
modified to ensure consistency with existing Customs
administrative enforcement schemes, particularly with respect
to burden of proof, forfeiture, and search and seizure
authority. The inconsistencies between the legislation's
enforcement scheme and Customs' are likely to create serious
administrative burdens for the Customs Service. These
inconsistencies could be addressed by integrating any
importation ban into the Customs Service's general enforcement
scheme.
Finally, the definitions of dog and cat fur (Canis
familiaris and Felis catus or Felis domesticus) contained in
the legislation correctly limit the scope of the bill to
animals generally recognized as household pets. Distinguishing
these species from others, however, is often difficult for
those outside the industry, particularly for those who would
rely on DNA evidence to make these distinctions. Indeed,
experts in the field have claimed that even DNA evidence is not
adequate to identify and distinguish fur of the Canis
familiaris species and the Felis catus species. See ``Dogs,
Cats and DNA,'' attached hereto. At a minimum, to ensure that
the implementation of any import prohibition does not
inadvertently impede the legitimate fur trade, the legislative
history should reaffirm that the bill is not intended to affect
trade in other wild or commercially raised canine or feline
species, the fur or hair of which is generally-recognized for
use in clothing and outer wear.
* * * * *
The U.S. fur farming industry believes that products
derived from domesticated dogs and cats, if properly labeled as
required by law, are unacceptable to the U.S. public and would
not find a market within our borders. At the same time, the
industry is deeply concerned that H.R. 1622, with its
unprecedented enforcement scheme could impede the legitimate
trade in fur products, and is likely to create more problems
for the U.S. government and the courts than is necessary, given
the scope of the problem, and the availability of alternative
and more direct approaches for addressing the issue. The
Committee must address these concerns before allowing this
legislation to move forward.
Attachment
Teresa Platt
Executive Director
Coronado, CA 92118-2698
FCUSA COMMENTARY
Dogs, Cats and DNA
By Teresa Platt, Executive Director, FCUSA
AMERICANS ARE NOTED FOR THEIR LOVE of domesticated cats and
dogs, our cherished pets. We have selectively bred a wide range
of animals that are clean, loyal and rewarding companions.
There truly is a pet for everyone, no matter what the lifestyle
or need.
In 1998 and 1999, the Humane Society of the United States
(HSUS) claimed that by using DNA testing, it found the fur of
domesticated dog and cat mislabeled and used as trim in
garments and figurines sold in the US. Obviously, most
Americans would find such a trade unacceptable and reject the
products immediately if they were correctly labeled.
Mislabeling any product, no matter how inexpensive, is
consumer fraud, and comes under the jurisdiction of the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC). Fines and penalties can be severe.
Trade in Animal Products
Canines and felines, as with many other species, occur both
in the wild and in domesticated settings, plus there are feral
populations of domesticated animals now living wild. The meat
and fur of wild canines and felines, such as raccoon dog,
coyote, fox, wolf, bobcat and lynx, are utilized in most
societies and traded widely. International trade in any wild
species at risk is, of course, tightly controlled by the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
(CITES).
Farmed production complements the wild harvest--an
important tool in wildlife management--by stabilizing prices
during times of high demand and ensuring wildlife caretakers
respond to the needs of biologists, not the market. Although we
have a thriving global market for mink and fox pelts, farmed
production ensures their wild cousins are never depleted.
Cultural taboos exist in the US and elsewhere against using
products from domesticated dogs and cats, even from controlled
feral populations, and so the remains of these millions of
animals are discarded. In parts of Asia, however, domesticated
dog and cat remains are fully utilized and even sold.
According to Rick Swain of HSUS, China is ``killing
hundreds of thousands of cats, and about 20 percent of the
figurines sold in the United States are made with real cat
hides,''(1) with the balance coming from rabbit skins and
synthetic materials.
The key questions: are illegally mislabeled products
entering the US? Can DNA testing help in this area? And what is
a discerning consumer to do?
Labeling Controls and Consumer Fraud
International brokers, of course, know their goods and,
when trading across cultural lines, take care to purchase
products acceptable to consumers while meeting the labeling
laws of importing countries. No one, for example, would attempt
to develop a business selling beef to India.
In the US, the FTC is charged with ensuring all products
are labeled correctly so consumers can buy or reject them for
any reason. It is consumer fraud and illegal to mislabel a
product, no matter how inexpensive. Additionally, the Fur
Products Labeling Act, also administered by the FTC, has
specific controls for the labeling of fur products costing over
$150.
Questions, Questions on DNA Testing
The coats that HSUS questioned in 1998 were labeled
``Mongolian dog,'' a wild species native to Mongolia where it
is hunted to protect humans and livestock. HSUS claimed,
however, that DNA testing proved the pelts came from
domesticated dogs. In 1999, it claimed to have found figurines
labeled rabbit but made with ``real cat hair.''
FCUSA asked HSUS to share its raw data and DNA test
results. When it refused, we became curious and began
questioning genetic experts. What we learned was fascinating.
From watching the O.J. Simpson trial, every American knows
that a clean sample is vital for DNA testing. So, Question No.
1 was: Can finished, tanned or ``dressed'' garments, even dyed
fur, provide ``clean'' samples? Can they give accurate
readings?
A specialist in canine DNA testing replied:
``The main problem with using fur as a source of DNA is
that the chemicals used to preserve the hide have two
deleterious effects-1) they probably degrade most if not all of
the DNA in a piece of hide and 2) the chemicals themselves are
toxic to the enzymatic reaction used in the testing. . . .
``It is often challenging . . . to extract DNA from tanned
leather or fur but it can be done, though it may not be
successful with every sample. In order to provide this service
to the industry, it would be necessary to refine the DNA
extraction method and to build a referral data base of
information on all species used for fur.''
Hmm. We were told that HSUS took samples from dressed furs
so we wonder how ``clean'' the samples were and if the DNA
readings were accurate. But HSUS won't share the data or the
results. Odd.
Question No. 2: Is there a good library of DNA in existence
now?
Our expert replied:
``I do not know if any other laboratory has put together a
DNA data base with the purpose of distinguishing fur-bearing
animals. To do so--it would require time and money--I would say
about 6 months and approximately $250,000. It would also
require samples of animals other than fur (ideally blood
samples) that you would be absolutely confident of the
species.''
Hmm. Does HSUS maintain a DNA library? Strange it makes no
mention of this breakthrough.
Question No. 3: If a clean sample could be provided, can
DNA testing distinguish ``domesticated'' cats and dogs from
wild or farm-raised species? Simply put, is a wolf is a fox is
a poodle? And is a calico is a mountain lion is a bobcat, or
what?
Again we went to the experts:
``There is a type of DNA test that can distinguish species
of animals. It is done by amplifying the cytochrome B gene and
doing one of several forms of sequence analysis. . . . It is my
belief that the fur of wild cats such as tigers, lions, lynx,
etc. could be distinguished from domestic cats. There would
obviously be a problem with cats derived from hybrids such as
'pixiebobs' (a cross between domestic cats and bobcats).
``In the case of distinguishing wolf from dog,
unfortunately dogs have descended from wolves too recently such
that they are essentially still the same species and can not be
distinguished by this method. However, dogs/wolves can be
distinguished from fox, raccoon, and other canid-type species
used for fur.''
Thus, goods labeled as ``rabbit'' but made from the fur of
other species would easily be exposed by DNA testing. But the
lack of differentiation between sub-species of canines and some
felines takes us back in time. Man's ancestors branched off
from other primates 4-5 million years ago, with Homo sapiens
appearing 100,000 years ago. Domestication of animals by
humans, 10,000 years ago, is a relatively recent experiment.
In the Kingdom of Animalia is the Class Mammalia, where
resides the Order of Carnivora, which includes the Family
Canidae, canines, a species we call ``dog.'' Coyotes, wolves,
foxes, jackals, bush dog, dingo, dhole and more, canines
include a vast array of animals. With about 21 distinct
species, foxes, of the genus vulpes, comprise the largest
canine group. Which one of these is ``dog''?
The Family Felidae, felines, include domestic cats and at
least 34 other species. Lion, tiger, jaguar, jaguarundi,
spotted cat, lynx, bobcat, ocelot, pampas cat, puma. Which one
of these is ``cat''?
So, according to the experts, the Asian wild and Russian
farm-raised raccoon dog, Nyctereutes procyonoides, and wild and
farmed fox, vulpes, which branched off early in the canine
family tree, could be distinguished from domesticated dogs by
DNA testing. Wolf, coyote and Mongolian dog, however, could not
be distinguished from domesticated dogs.
But HSUS says it has a DNA test that tells the difference,
in direct contradiction to the experts.
Crossing the Line
Late in 1999, HSUS announced it had found figures made of
cat fur illegally labeled ``rabbit.'' Provided a clean sample
can be obtained, DNA testing can distinguish cat fur from
rabbit fur. However, if the clean sample shows ``feline,'' it
may be difficult to tell the sub-species involved. And
absolutely no test will tell us whether a product was made from
a cherished household ``pet'' or the result of measures to
control feral domesticated cats.
Consumers have the right to know exactly what they are
purchasing, and to expect that purveyors of mislabeled products
will be punished.
But it is also important for consumers to understand that
different cultures value animals in different ways, and
incorporate animal products into their markets and selected
animals into their homes as pets, just as Americans do.
When crossing cultural lines and borders with trade, we
must respect the world's diversity of opinion and carefully
think out solutions to real issues. Otherwise, we will all end
up in one big dog and cat fight.
Notes:
(1) Orlando Sentinel, Dec. 31, 1999, ``China Kills Cats,
Uses Fur on Figures.'' For comparison purposes, each year in
the US (population: 250 million), shelters euthanize and
discard the remains of millions of domestic and feral dogs and
cats. China has 2.5 billion people, ten times as many as the
US.
See also, ``What's in a name? Or, the wolf among us'' by I.
Lehr Brishin, PhD, at www.naiaonline.org/name.htm, which
discusses the changes in the Mammal Species of the World: A
Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. ``In this volume, it was
agreed that our domestic dog should be designated Canis Lupus
instead of the more customary Canis familiaries, thereby
confirming concsensus of the scientific community that the dog
is indeed exactly the same species as the wolf, the species
from with it is generally assumed to have been derived through
the process of domestication.''
Statement of the International Mass Retail Association, Arlington,
Virginia
This statement is submitted on behalf of the International
Mass Retail Association (IMRA) which is an alliance of
retailers and their product and service suppliers committed to
bringing price-competitive value to the world's consumers. IMRA
improves its members' businesses by providing industry research
and education, government advocacy, and a unique forum for its
members to establish relationships, solve problems, and work
together for the benefit of the consumer and the mass retail
industry. IMRA represents over 200 retail companies, which
operate more than 133,000 stores worldwide and have sales of
over $450 billion annually. IMRA represents over 600 supplier
companies with sales totaling over $600 billion per year.
Together, IMRA's membership represents over $1 trillion in
sales and employs millions of workers.
While many of the bills listed on the April 20th advisory
do not affect IMRA members, there are three in particular that
IMRA would like to comment on. The first two bills (H.R. 3704
and H.R. 4337) IMRA strongly supports. The third bill, H.R.
1622, IMRA opposes.
H.R. 3704--Amending Chapter 95 of the HTSUS to include Dress-Up Sets
Flimsy costumes, used in ``dress-up'' play sets are viewed
and used as toys by children. IMRA believes that Customs has
been correct in its longstanding view that these products are
not complex or permanent wearing apparel, and should be
classified in Chapter 95 of the HTSUS. Creating a new
subcategory in Chapter 95 will reinforce what Customs has
already been doing.
The textile items included in play sets are not designed or
manufactured for multiple wearings. This is why they need to be
included in the new subcategory in Chapter 95. In addition,
these items are not sold in the same channels of distribution
as wearing apparel. Instead, toy stores, drug stores and
variety stores carry these items in large numbers, and general
merchandise retailers do not sell these items in the apparel
departments of their stores, but, rather, in their toy
departments.
The dress-up items in play sets are extremely lightweight
and inexpensive. These costume elements are intended for play,
not as wearing apparel. In addition, playsets also frequently
include other non-textile items, including play jewelry, magic
wands, doctor and nurse toys, and other accessories that are
clearly toys, not wearing apparel.
There was an attempt during the 105th Congress to shift
these play items into Chapters 61 and 62 which would have
subjected them to import quotas and visas--an action that could
have resulted in their elimination from the marketplace.
Existing bilateral textile and apparel agreements are based on
the assumption that these products are not wearing apparel.
Shifting them into wearing apparel headings, without adjusting
negotiated bilateral quota agreements will put significant
pressure on existing import quotas. Since these products are
extremely low-cost, it is logical to assume that foreign
producers will have difficulty in obtaining quota for these
items, making it impossible (or extremely uneconomical) to
import these items. This is why these items need to be
classified in Chapter 95.
In addition, shifting flimsy textile components of ``dress
up'' play sets would subject these toys to significant duties.
In combination with quota charges, this action would
significantly drive up the cost of these currently low-cost
toys.
H.R. 4337--Amending Customs Laws with Respect to Importation of
Merchandise
The trade community has never fully realized the automation
benefits of the Customs Modernization Act, passed by congress
in 1993. That seminal piece of legislation cleared the way for
a new way of handling transactions that would include periodic
payment of duties, remote filing and expedited release of
merchandise. The Customs Modernization Act also imposed new
obligations on importers, as part of a ``package deal'' that
would require importers to take more ``reasonable care,'' keep
extended records, and take responsibility for classifying
merchandise all in return for expedited service and periodic
filing and payment.
Today, seven years after the enactment of the Customs
Modernization Act, many in the trade community, including
virtually all of IMRA's members have made significant new
investments in Customs compliance to meet the new obligations
of the Modernization Act. However, Customs has yet to provide
for periodic duty payment, remote filing or expedited service.
IMRA well recognizes that one of the main reasons Customs
has been unable to deliver the benefits of the Modernization
Act is because Congress has yet to fully fund a new computer
system known as the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE).
IMRA is confident that funding for the new computer system
will be appropriated in Fiscal Year 2001. Consequently, we
strongly believe that Congress should reiterate to the Customs
Service its belief that progress must be made on the promises
of the Customs Modernization Act.
Chief among these promises is the requirement that the
Customs Service move from an entry-by-entry basis to an account
based system. Such a system would allow importers to submit
entries and pay duties on a periodic basis rather than on an
entry-by-entry basis, much as the Internal Revenue Service
treats individual taxpayers. In such a system, Customs would
rely on post-entry audits and compliance assessments to enforce
the nation's trade laws, thereby making it much easier and
faster for the Customs Service to identify those importers who
are either small and inexperienced and therefore more likely to
make entry mistakes, and those companies who are simply bad
actors.
IMRA therefore supports the intent of H.R. 4337, which is
to remind the Customs Service that Congress intended to create
a system of national accounts as part of the 1993 Modernization
Act. IMRA recognizes, however that the full benefits of
automation cannot be achieved without funding for the Automated
Commercial Environment.
H.R. 1622--The Dog and Cat Protection Act of 1999
IMRA does not condone the importation of products made with
dog or cat fur. However, we believe that HR 1622, as written
has many shortcomings. Most notably, the bill would impose
harsh civil and criminal penalties on American retailers who
unwittingly purchased products that contain disguised cat or
dog fur, which appears to IMRA to be contrary to the basic
hierarchy of Customs penalties set forth in Section 1592.
HR 1622 places all of the burden of proof upon the owner of
the merchandise to prove that the merchandise does not contain
dog or cat fur (Sec. 6 (d)). This is contrary to current
evidentiary standards. The burden should be placed upon the
complaining party, especially with the difficulty in
identifying dog or cat fur once it has been dyed.
The bill also allows for an individual to be arrested
because of ``reasonable cause.'' This is a very subjective
term. Reasonable cause not only needs to be defined, but must
be as objective as possible. It also allows for warrantless
searches without probable cause. This is clearly a violation of
the constitution.
Section 6 (f) allows for a private right of action where
private citizens can commence an injunction proceeding if they
believe that an entity is in violation of the bill. Congress
has consistently opposed this kind of private right of action
in customs cases because it creates severe market disruption.
In this particular case, this provision invites anti-fur
activists to file nuisance suits against legitimate retailers.
The civil penalty section of the bill is very troubling. It
allows for a $25,000 civil penalty for each violation. What
happens when a legitimate retailer places an order for ten
thousand gloves lined with rabbit fur, but unwittingly receives
gloves with cat fur lining? According to the bill, the retailer
would be subject to $250,000,000 in fines because of the
overseas manufacturer's deception. A penalty such as this could
bankrupt a legitimate retailer.
One of the most troubling sections of the bill is Section 7
(d). This section allows for a court to permanently enjoin a
business from selling any fur products, even if the party is an
unintentional violator.
The bill, as it is currently written, does not take into
account the fact that the U.S. retailer may be a victim of
deception by an overseas manufacturer. Retailers are not in the
business of providing fur products made from dog or cat fur and
do not intentionally source from manufacturers who do. As the
bill itself states, it is very difficult to distinguish dog and
cat fur from other types of fur once it has been dyed.
Retailers should be given the benefit of the doubt if they are
found to have imported such products unwittingly. At best a
hierarchy of penalties, such as currently exist for customs
violations, should be applied in such cases.
H.R. 2881
To allow the collection of fees for the provision of
customs services for the arrival of certain ferries.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3276
To suspend temporarily the duty on thionyl chloride.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3366
To suspend temporarily the duty on benzyl carbazate (DT-
291).
Bayer Corporation, U.S.A.
Pittsburgh, PA
May 16, 2000
A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
House Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Subject: H.R.3366 Benzylcarbazate
Dear Mr. Singleton:
Bayer Corporation is a research-based company with major businesses
in health care and life sciences and chemicals. The company had 1999
sales of $8.9 billion and employs more than 22,200 people throughout
the United States and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Bayer Corporation is a member of the worldwide Bayer Group, a $29
billion international life sciences, polymers and specialty chemicals
group based in Leverkusen with 120,400 employees worldwide.
Bill number H.R. 3366 has been introduced by DuPont for duty
suspension on Benzylcarbazate for insecticide applications.
Bayer Corporation is a regular importer of Benzylcarbazate. Bayer's
Logistics Division, with major import operations at Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania and Bayer customer Alabama would benefit from tariff
suspension on Benzylcarbazate. Benzylcarbazate is not manufactured in
the United States but is an important ingredient in many U.S. and
international products. Benzylcarbazate is used in the production of
insecticides for use on cotton vegetables and fruit, to protect U.S.
crops and as a result, the business of U.S. farmers. The products are
also used to manufacture a new family of insect control components with
very favorable environmental profiles
We hope this supplemental information is useful in the House Ways
and Means Committee deliberations regarding the proposed tariff
suspension for Iminodisuccinate bill number H.R. 3801. Please do not
hesitate to contact me at Tel: 412-777-2058 with any questions. In the
event that I am unavailable, Julie Van Egmond in our Washington office
(Tel.: 202-756-3773) or Stephen Johnsen at our Pittsburgh location
(Tel: 412-777-5616) could be of assistance.
Very sincerely,
Karen L. Niedermeyer
H.R. 3367
To suspend temporarily the duty on tralkoxydim formulated
(``Achieve'').
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3368
To suspend temporarily the duty on the chemical KN002.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3369
To reduce temporarily the duty on the chemical KL084.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3370
To suspend temporarily the duty on the chemical IN-N5297.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3371
To reduce temporarily the duty on azoxystrobin formulated
(``Heritage'', ``Abound'', and ``Quadris'').
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3474
To suspend temporarily the duty on Fungaflor 500 EC.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3475
To suspend temporarily the duty on NORBLOC 7966.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3476
To suspend temporarily the duty on Imazalil.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3604
To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain entries
in accordance with a final decision of the Department of Commerce under
the Tariff Act of 1930.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3684
To amend section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to allow duty
drawback for grape juice concentrates made from Concord or Niagara
grapes.
California Association of
Winegrape Growers
Sacramento, CA
May 12, 2000
Mr. A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Singleton:
These comments are submitted in response to the notice issued on
April 20 by the House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on
Trade, announcing a request for written comments on miscellaneous
corrections to trade legislation and miscellaneous duty suspension
bills.
These comments are on behalf of the members of the California
Association of Winegrape Growers (CAWG), who grow more than 60% of the
tonnage of grapes crushed for wine and concentrate in California.
Grapes crushed for concentrate represent an increasingly important
market for Central Valley grape growers. According to the 1999 Annual
Grape Crush Report, the volume of grapes crushed to be marketed as
concentrate was 762,171 tons, nearly one-quarter of the total 1999
crush.
The following comments are directed to one bill on the April 20,
2000 list--specifically, H.R. 3684, to amend section 313 of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313) to allow duty drawback for grape juice
concentrates made from Concord or Niagara grapes.
Discussion
CAWG is opposed to H.R. 3684 which is similar to H.R> 194. This
opposition is based on the following points, all of which are detailed
below. Enactment of H.R. 3684 would: (1) be an assault on the integrity
of the duty drawback program; (2) establish a problematic precedent of
alteration of the program; (3) lead to disruption in the U.S. grape
juice concentrate market; (4) provide a unilateral trade benefit to a
number of U.S. trading partners, without obtaining a reciprocal trade
benefit for the U.S. winegrape industry; (5) provide a financial
benefit to industries in other countries already receiving subsidies
from their own countries; (6) provide a de facto subsidy to certain
exporters; and (7) lead to losses for the U.S. Treasury.
1. H.R. 3684 Would Alter Purpose of Drawback Program
First, it is a misnomer to label H.R. 3684 as a ``miscellaneous
correction to trade legislation.'' The provisions of H.R. 3684 would
not ``correct'' any mistake now set forth in U.S. trade law. In
contrast, H.R. 3684 would undermine and distort the purposes of the
duty drawback program administered by the U.S. Customs Service.
The drawback program has been a part of U.S. law since 1789 and has
evolved over the years. While the intent of the program can be stated
rather simply, administration of the program is complex. The program
has been administered strictly and with extreme care by the U.S.
Customs Service, due to the potential for abuse and erosion of U.S.
treasury revenues.
The U.S. Customs website provides the following description of the
drawback program:
The rationale of drawback has always been to encourage American
commerce or manufacturing, or both. It permits the American
manufacturer to compete in foreign markets without the handicap
of including in his costs, and consequently in his sales price,
the duty paid on imported merchandise.
Several types of drawback are authorized by U.S. law, but H.R. 3684
would amend only one type. H.R. 3684 references the ``manufacturing
substitution'' drawback program. This program addresses the situation
where a manufacturer brings in one product to make another product, and
the manufactured product is then exported. The theory is that the
manufacturer should not have to bear the cost of the duty on the
imported material that forms a necessary component of the manufactured
article. Manufacturing substitution drawback is available whether the
imported material, or a domestic material of the ``same kind and
quality,'' are utilized in the exported product. This version of
drawback eliminates the need for a manufacturer to maintain separate
inventories for imported and domestic merchandise.
A. Customs Regulations
Customs strictly interprets and enforces the drawback program
through its regulations at 19 CFR 191.0 et seq. These regulations
contain extensive provisions which set forth the agency's procedures in
administering the program. The regulations provide that to qualify as
material of the ``same kind and quality,'' Customs will look to a
number of standards, such as USDA grade standards, FDA standards of
identity, and industry standards. In the case of grape juice
concentrate, criteria of the first two types do not exist; we are not
aware of any USDA grade standard nor any FDA standard of identity
applicable to grape juice concentrate.
However, as to the third test, industry standards, there are
commonly followed practices. Two grape species represent more than 99%
of grape production in the world and in the U.S. These two species are
vinifera and labrusca.\1\ The two species are completely different in
heritage, taste, yields and end uses. If buyers are desirous of
labrusca concentrate, buyers will purchase only labrusca concentrate.
In the industry, labrusca concentrate is not interchangeable with
vinifera concentrate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Labrusca grape species are grown in cold climate areas that are
subject to heavy frost, including the Northeast, Northwest and North
central regions of the U.S. Grapes from this species are used primarily
for the production of grape juice and grape juice concentrate. All of
the grapes produced in California are of the vinifera species, which
are used primarily for the production of wine, although certain
vinifera varieties are also used in the production of grape juice,
grape concentrate, table grapes and raisins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to H.R.3684, we understand that a certain agricultural
co-op, Welch's, wants to import vinifera (white and red) concentrate to
make various products. However, it wishes to export only concentrate
that is primarily from the Concord or Niagara varieties--both of which
are of the labrusca species. These two grape varieties are grown
primarily in the U.S. The exporter in this case wishes to receive duty
drawback on its exports of labrusca concentrate, for the duties paid on
the imported vinifera concentrate. As stated above, the two species are
totally different.
B. Judicial Interpretation
In addition to the provisions set forth in Customs regulations, the
Court of International Trade has recently reviewed the ``same kind and
quality'' test. The Court's decision contains this useful discussion:
While the statute and regulations provide little, if any,
guidance as to the meaning of the statutory term ``same kind
and quality'' Customs has addressed materials it will consider
to satisfy the statutory requirement of ``same kind and
quality'' in a published ruling.See T.B. 82-36, 16 Cust. B. &
Dec. 97 (1982).
The introductory sentence of T.D. 82-36 states, ``[u]nder the
drawback law (19 U.S.C. 1313(b)) drawback contracts have been
approved since 1958, permitting the substitution of one
domestic compound for a different imported compound when an
identical element is sought for use in manufacturing an
exported article.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ International Light Metals v. U.S., 24 F. Supp.2d 281 (CIT
1998). (This decision has been appealed by the plaintiff.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, according to the Court of International Trade, in order to
qualify under the manufacturing substitution program for a drawback,
the substituted component must be ``identical to the imported product.
The Court found that this version of drawback is meant to address
processes where the component in question (in this case, a metal) is
interchangeable with the imported component.
We understand that proponents of H.R. 3684 admit that grape juice
concentrate of a different color or quality (from the imported
concentrate) would not qualify for drawback under the historical
administration of the program. Color is, by comparison, an almost
insignificant factor in relation to the fact that vinifera and labrusca
grapes are derived from totally different species which are distinct in
all respects. The proponents are asking Congress to change the
fundamental nature of the program to allow drawback for types of
exported concentrate that are not interchangeable with the imported
product.
2. H.R. 3684 Would Create a Problematic Precedent
Congress should not take the step represented by H.R. 3684, as it
would create a troubling precedent. If this legislation were accepted,
it would be entirely appropriate for exporters of, for example, U.S.-
grown lemon juice concentrate to ask Congress to provide a duty
drawback on their imports of orange juice concentrate on the basis that
both products are citrus juice concentrate. Numerous other examples
could be cited, where producers of distinct products would argue that
the products should be deemed of the same kind and quality for purposes
of the drawback program. For instance, the argument could be made that
two different types of vegetables, such as broccoli and asparagus,
should be considered to be for purposes of the drawback program.
Adoption of H.R. 3684 would create unending requests for similar
action.
Different species of grapes are as distinct as different types of
citrus. Further, there is a distinct market demand for the different
species. The proponents of H.R. 3684 would likely admit that
concentrate from labrusca grapes commands a premium price. At the
current time, this price in the world market is more than double the
value of concentrate produced from vinifera grapes.
Simply stated, eligibility for duty drawback is a privilege that is
earned through meeting the Congressional intent in creating the
program, as well as Customs requirements that govern the program. Each
drawback that is granted by Customs is a privilege because it results
in a loss to the U.S. Treasury--a loss of the duties paid on the
imported product.
If adopted, H.R. 3684 would amend the drawback program--so that the
program would provide a benefit that would be a significant departure
from historical practice under the program.
3. Disruption of the Domestic Industry
In large measure, CAWG is opposed to H.R. 3684 because of the
disruption it could cause in the U.S. grape juice concentrate market.
Grape juice concentrate has become a significant industry in the U.S.,
and promises to continue to grow in the coming years. Grape juice
concentrate is especially popular in the health food sector, which is a
rapidly growing segment of the food industry. Grape juice concentrate
is used in drinks, frozen juice, canned juice, fruit drinks and
preserves. It is also used as a sweetener in canned fruit, yogurt,
cookies, cereals, candies and baby foods. The market in California's
San Joaquin Valley for grape juice concentrate for food manufacturing
is approximately $150 million per year.
American growers have to attempt to compete with the sometimes
tremendous subsidies provided by the European Union (and we believe by
Argentina) to their grape growers. The Uruguay Round did not eliminate
these subsidies; in fact, some of the subsidy programs in other
countries have actually been increased since the Uruguay Round.
If adopted, H.R. 3684, by allowing a refund of the duties paid on
imported concentrate, would allow those volumes to enter the U.S. at a
lower landed cost to the importer than would otherwise be the case.
Although only the amount of imported concentrate matching the volumes
of exported concentrate would be eligible for the drawback refund, this
lower-cost, imported concentrate could and would either displace U.S.-
produced concentrate of a higher price, or put downward price pressure
on the U.S.-produced product. It would also send a false signal to the
market and could cause additional grape juice concentrate to be
imported.
CAWG's members currently produce more than one-half of the grapes
which now are used for grape juice concentrate. For this reason, CAWG
is extremely concerned about any additional product which might either
displace or put downward price pressure on U.S.-grown grapes.
Congress has deemed that imported grape juice concentrate should be
subject to a set level of duty, and CAWG believes that this level
should continue to be operative, except in those limited cases where
the importer qualifies for duty drawback in the sense in which the
program has been administered for years--i.e., where the exported
product is of the same kind and quality and is interchangeable with the
imported product.
4. Unilateral Trade Benefit to Foreign Grape Juice Concentrate
Producers
Enactment of H.R. 3684 would also serve to provide a unilateral,
and unreciprocated, trade benefit--indeed, a de facto tariff
reduction--to all countries that produce grape juice concentrate and
would like to export to the U.S. market (to the extent the grape juice
concentrate is imported and later matched with exported volumes of
grape juice concentrate, not of the same kind and quality). We believe
the bill would provide an incentive for increased purchases from
countries now subject to a tariff and reduce demand for U.S.-produced
concentrate, particularly the type of concentrate produced in
California.
Of great concern is the fact that the elimination of a pre-existing
tariff is something that is normally only provided in the course of
trade negotiations. Such action is handled in trade negotiations for
very good reason--so that U.S. producers and industries will obtain a
reciprocal trade benefit of some type.
The U.S. should not be providing beneficial duty treatment to
potential competitors to the U.S. winegrape growing industry, without
those countries requesting that treatment and without the U.S.
obtaining some type of benefit in return.
Further, when trade concessions are under consideration in the
course of trade negotiations, very careful analysis is normally carried
out on the impact that a possible concession would have on the U.S.
industry in question. However, because H.R. 3684 is not framed as a
trade concession--although the result would be the same--it appears
that no such consideration has taken place. The Committee is obligated
to consider this impact. This impact is addressed above in the section
entitled ``Disruption of the Domestic Industry.''
5. Grape Industries in Certain Other Countries Already Receive
Subsidies
Some of the main exporters to the U.S. at the present time are:
Argentina, Spain and Italy. These three countries comprise
approximately seventy percent of the U.S. imports of grape juice
concentrate.
The grape industries in Spain and Italy enjoy considerable
subsidies already (in excess of $750 million in 1997) \3\, which
provide them assistance to compete in global markets. There is no
policy justification to increase the amount of effective subsidy
available to these foreign competitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Twenty-Seventh Financial Report of the Commission of the
European Communities Concerning the European Agricultural Guidance and
Guarantee Fund
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the U.S. has entered into negotiations for a Free Trade
Area of the Americas and is preparing for the next round of World Trade
Organization (WTO) negotiations. In the WTO Round, the U.S. is
committed to reducing all agricultural subsidies. It would be wholly
inconsistent to, on the one hand, reward behavior that the U.S. has
announced, on the other hand, it is committed to reducing or
eliminating.
6. A De Facto Subsidy
Although the goal of the proponent of H.R. 3684--to increase its
exports of concentrate from U.S. grapes--is indeed laudable, it is
trying to obtain Congressional concurrence to accomplish its goal
through an alteration, or special exemption, to a program for which it
does not otherwise qualify.
If Congress were to grant this exemption by deeming the exports of
concentrate as eligible for duty drawback, the importer/exporter would
obtain a de facto subsidy on its export. This subsidy would be created
because the importer/exporter could use the refunded duties to reduce
the price of the exported product, in essence subsidizing the price of
the exported product.
The importer/exporter would achieve its goal with the assistance of
all U.S. taxpayers--since the U.S. treasury is the source of drawback
revenues. Further, if Congress were to adopt H.R. 3684, a benefit would
be provided to one group of grape growers which growers of other
agricultural products do not have.
Other Programs
Given its goal, there are other programs in existence for which the
proponent of the legislation should be applying. For instance, the
Market Assistance Program (MAP) is administered by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture. For that program, Congress makes a decision on an
annual basis (through the annual appropriations process) as to the
level of U.S. tax dollars that shall be available to assist U.S.
agricultural producers to attain new (or increase existing) export
markets. If Congress were to enact H.R. 3684, those entities which
would benefit from the legislation would in essence be circumventing
the requirements, process, and budget limitations, of the MAP program.
7. Potential Loss to U.S. Treasury
The volume of grape juice concentrate imported into the U.S. has
increased substantially in recent years--from 90,736,000 liters in 1995
(equivalent of 129,622 tons of grapes) to 180,517,000 liters in 1999
(equivalent of 257,881 tons of grapes).\4\ In 1999, $7,943,000 in
duties were paid on imported grape juice concentrate. Theoretically,
ninety-nine percent (99%) of this amount could ultimately be subject to
drawback claims (99% is the level of refund available when an export
qualifies for manufacturing drawback). It is certainly possible that
companies would devise ways to take advantage of the new financial
benefit, were it to become available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Based on 1999 Grape Juice Concentrate Import/Export Report by
IV International.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If in 1999 all of the 87 million liters of U.S.-produced
concentrate that were exported \5\ were deemed eligible for duty
drawback, the loss of revenue to the U.S. treasury would have been $3.8
million (based on current rate of $.044 per liter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Based on 1999 Grape Juice Concentrate Import/Export Report by
IV International.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
For all of the above reasons, the Subcommittee on Trade of the
House Committee on Ways and Means should not approve H.R. 3684. We
appreciate the Committee's consideration of these comments, and we
would be pleased to provide any additional information the Committee
would find helpful.
Sincerely,
Karen Ross
Giumarra Vineyards
Bakersfield, CA
May 19, 2000
Mr. A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U. S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Singleton:
Giumarra Vineyards is a family owned farming company located in the
southern San Joaquin Valley of California, near Bakersfield. We are one
of California's largest producers of grape concentrate as well as being
a wine producer, table grape grower and producer of other agricultural
crops. We are the largest employer in Kern County, California, with
over 4000 employees -many of whom depend on our grape concentrate
business for their employment.
As a company whose economic success depends in large part on this
grape concentrate business, we strongly oppose HR 3684 which allows for
duty drawback for grape juice concentrates made from Concord or Niagara
grapes. HR 3684 would cause an increase in the importation of foreign
concentrate -an increase that would be artificially motivated by the
duty drawback rather than by normal economic considerations. This
increase will result in a decrease in the value and use of U.S. grown
grapes to the great economic disadvantage of U.S. growers and U.S.
workers.
For this reason, then, as well as the reasons set forth in the May
12, 2000, letter from the California Association of Winegrape Growers
(CAWG) to the committee on Ways and Means, Giumarra Vineyards strongly
opposes H.R. 3684 and respectfully requests that the Committee not
approve H.R. 3684.
Sincerely yours,
John Giumarra,
Vice President
National Grape Corperative Inc.
Westfield, NY
May 18, 2000
Mr. A. L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U. S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Singleton:
I am writing to support H. R. 3684, a bill which will amend the
customs duty drawback law and which will assist exports of products
made with American Concord and Niagara grapes.
I am a farmer in Washington where I have grown Concord and Niagara
grapes for over 17 years. I am also a member of the board of directors
of National Grape Cooperative Association, Inc. In addition to the
juice grapes, I also grow wine grapes and I am a board member of the
Washington State Wine Commission as well as a past president of the
Washington Association of Wine Grape Growers.
This bill will help growers of Concord and Niagara grapes by
allowing customs duty drawback on exports of products containing juice
concentrate made from our grapes. This bill is important to growers in
Washington where most of these products are manufactured and exported
from the Port of Seattle to Japan and other Pacific Rim countries.
H.R. 3684 will have no effect on the domestic market for grape
juice concentrate. This amendment, however, will help to increase
export by allowing duty drawback on exported grape juice products grown
and manufactured in the United States. Increased exports of U.S.
Concord and Niagara grape concentrate will increase overall demand for
all domestic grape juice products.
Thank you for allowing me to comment on this bill. Please approve
H. R. 3684 as part of the next miscellaneous trade bill.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Boushey
National Grape Cooperative Inc.
Concord, MA
May 18, 2000
Mr. A. L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U. S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Singleton:
I am writing to support H. R. 3684, a bill which will amend the
customs duty drawback law and which will assist exports of products
made with American Concord and Niagara grapes.
I am a farmer in Washington where I have grown Concord and Niagara
grapes for over 30 years. I am also president of the National Grape
Cooperative Association, Inc. and the chairman of the board of
directors of Welch Foods, Inc., A Cooperative.
Welch's serves its owner-growers by providing a predictable,
growing market for their Concord and Niagara grapes. Welch's has been
recognized as one of the most successful agricultural cooperatives in
the country. That success is based on growing the domestic and
international markets for our grapes.
This bill will help growers of Concord and Niagara grapes by
allowing customs duty drawback on exports of products containing juice
concentrate made from our grapes. This bill is important to growers in
Washington where most of these products are manufactured and exported
from the Port of Seattle to Japan and other Pacific Rim countries.
H.R. 3684 will have no effect on the domestic market for grape
juice concentrate. This amendment, however, will help to increase
exports by allowing duty drawback on exported grape juice products
grown and manufactured in the United States. Increased exports of U.S.
Concord and Niagara grape concentrate will increase overall demand for
grape juice products.
Thank you for allowing me to comment on this bill. Please approve
H. R. 3684 as part of the next miscellaneous trade bill.
Sincerely,
Fredrick P. Kilian
President
Chairman of the Board
Welch Foods Inc., A Cooperative
National Grape Cooperative Inc.
Concord, MA
May 15, 2000
Mr. A. L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Singleton:
Welch Foods Inc., A Cooperative (Welch's) and the National Grape
Cooperative Association, Inc. are pleased to support H. R. 3684 as part
of the next miscellaneous tariff and trade bill. This technical
amendment of the duty drawback law is specifically intended to benefit
exports of products manufactured in the United States with the American
Concord and Niagara varieties of grapes.
The effect of this amendment will be to increase exports of
products made from Concord and Niagara grapes grown in Washington, New
York, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio, and to give them equal treatment
under the drawback law to exported products made from vinifera grapes
typically grown in California.
Welch's does not believe that this bill will injure any U. S. grape
growers and that the bill will assist exports.
Background:
Welch's is the processing and marketing affiliated cooperative of
the National Grape Cooperative Association, Inc., whose owner-growers
supply Welch's with its principal raw products, Concord and Niagara
Grapes. The Cooperative is made up of 1,497 growers who cultivate over
44,000 acres of vineyards in Michigan, New York, Ontario-Canada, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and Washington. Welch's manufacturing plants are located
in Lawton, Michigan; North East, Pennsylvania; Westfield, New York; and
Grandview and Kennewick Washington.
Welch's had its beginnings in 1869 when Dr. Thomas Bramwell Welch
successfully processed an unfermented Concord grape wine that could be
used in his church's communion service. Headquartered in Concord,
Massachusetts, Welch's is the worlds leading marketer of Concord and
Niagara grape-based products, including grape juice and jelly.
These products are sold by the food store, special markets, food
service, industrial and military, licensing and international divisions
throughout the United States and in more than 30 countries around the
world. In its most recently completed fiscal year, Welch's sales
totaled over $600 million.
Welch's is largely responsible for developing the retail market for
grape juice products in the United States. All American grape growers
and grape juice producers have benefited from this market development
by Welch's, including growers and producers of vinifera grape juice
concentrates in California and other states.
The mission of the Company as a cooperative is to maximize the
long-term value of its growers and to provide a reliable market for
their grapes through excellence in product quality, customer service,
market growth and customer satisfaction. To this end, Welch's has been
working with local distributors and manufacturers in Japan and other
Pacific Rim countries since the 1970's. This effort has resulted in a
substantial market for our exports of grape juice concentrate and other
products manufactured in the United States using American Concord and
Niagara grapes.
Welch's has also dramatically expanded its product line and
distribution methods to insure its long term growth and demand for
products made from the grapes grown by its cooperative members. This
growth, together with year to year crop variations, requires the
Company to purchase large quantities of grape juice concentrates from
producers in California. Some concentrate is also purchased from
foreign suppliers.
Under the Customs Duty Drawback law [Section 313 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1313(b)] products manufactured in the United States
and then exported are eligible for a refund of customs duties (duty
drawback) if they contain imported ingredients, or domestic ingredients
of the ``same kind.'' The U.S. Customs Service has advised Welch's that
duty paid on imported concentrates, which are mostly white in color,
cannot be claimed against the Company's exported products, which are
mostly purple in color. This technical determination denies Welch's a
significant export incentive and benefit.
Exports of grape juice concentrates produced from the vinifera
grapes typically grown in California are already considered by Customs
to be of the ``same kind'' as foreign concentrates. Duty drawback is
allowed on exports of such concentrates.
Intent of Proposed Amendment:
The proposed amendment is intended to replace Customs' restrictive
interpretation by allowing duty drawback on grape juice concentrates
made from Concord or Niagara grapes. This amendment and the underlying
section of the law (19 U.S.C. 1313(b)) apply only to exported grape
juice-based products that are manufactured in the United States. As
such, the proposed amendment is designed to bring U.S. Customs
treatment of Concord and Niagara grape juice concentrates into
conformance with the underlying goals of duty drawback: i.e., to
promote U.S. manufacturing and export sales.
Concerns of California Growers:
Some grape growers in California have expressed concern that this
amendment to the drawback law will disrupt the U. S. grape juice
concentrate market. The amendment will have no effect on the domestic
market for grape juice concentrate except to the extent that it
increases exports and thereby increases overall demand for grape juice
products.
Our principal business objective is to provide a predictable,
growing market for our products. Welch's is, after all, an agricultural
cooperative owned by grape farmers. We have been recognized as one of
the most successful agricultural cooperatives in the country. Our
success is based on growing our markets in the United States and
abroad.
Welch's has funded most of the national and international
advertisement for grape juice products since as early as the early
1900's. All growers and producers of grape juice products in the United
States have benefited from our market development. California growers
and concentrate producers have seen substantial, direct benefits as
Welch's purchases large quantities of concentrate from them.
No foreign producer will receive any direct benefit on any product
that it sells into the U. S. market. The duty drawback law allows
refunds of duties when products are exported. The amendment will
benefit U. S. manufacturers of products using Concord and Niagara
grapes that are exported. It will make those exported products more
competitive in foreign, not U. S., markets.
Conclusion:
For the above reasons, we ask the Subcommittee on Trade to approve
H. R. 3684. Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on this
bill.
Sincerely,
Vivian Tseng
Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
Welch Foods Inc., A Cooperative
Statement of the National Juice Products Association
Pursuant to the April 20, 2000 advisory by the Subcommittee
on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means, the National Juice
Products Association (``NJPA'') submits the following statement
for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the
printed record. The statement briefly comments on H.R. 3684, a
bill to amend section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to allow
duty drawback for grape juice concentrates made from Concord or
Niagara grapes. The statement also addresses the more
fundamental issue of how Customs is administering the drawback
program to the detriment of the U.S. juice producing industry.
NJPA is a national trade association comprised of over 70
juice growers and processors located throughout the United
States. See membership list at Attachment 1. A number of NJPA
members import concentrated juice products for manufacturing
and these members are heavily reliant on the drawback program
to maintain the competitiveness of their domestic processing
operations, particularly in foreign markets.
NJPA believes that H.R. 3684 is symptomatic of a
fundamental problem in the implementation of the drawback
statute by the U.S. Customs Service, including the most recent
amendments to that statute. Through these comments, NJPA hopes
to direct the attention of the Committee to the need to address
this issue or risk jeopardizing the continued ability of U.S.
juice processors to compete in overseas markets.
1. Summary of H.R. 3684
H.R. 3684 would amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to authorize
the substitution of certain grape juice concentrate regardless
of color, variety, or any other characteristic for purposes of
the drawback of import duties on such products. The legislation
is rooted in Customs' narrow construction of the substitution
provisions of the manufacturing drawback statute (19 U.S.C.
Sec. 1313(b)).
NJPA does not oppose this legislation. NJPA believes,
however, that the Committee needs to consider the more
fundamental issue of how Customs is implementing the drawback
statute, to the extent the law permits the substitution of
imported and domestic merchandise. This issue arises, in
particular, in connection with the filing of unused merchandise
substitution drawback claims, which is discussed next.
2. Substitution of Juice Concentrates in the Filing of Unused
Merchandise Substitution Drawback Claims
The Customs Modernization and Informed Compliance Act (Mod Act)
established a new and more liberal standard of substitution for
purposes of claiming drawback under the unused merchandise substitution
drawback provision set forth in section 313(j)(2) of the Tariff Act of
1930, 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1313(j)(2). The new standard, commercial
interchangeability, replaced the narrow standard of fungibility, which
severely limited the use of unused merchandise substitution drawback
(previously substitution same condition drawback) under the pre-Mod Act
drawback regime.
In determining whether two articles are commercially
interchangeable for drawback purposes, Congress set forth in the
legislative history to the Mod Act certain criteria to be considered
including, but not limited to, governmental and industry standards,
part numbers, tariff classification and relative values. The standard
of commercial interchangeability was intended by Congress to more
closely align the administration of the drawback law with commercial
realities. Unfortunately, Customs' application of the new standard to
the juice producing industry has been fraught with problems. The
problem arises because, for a number of juice products, there exist no
governmental and industry standards that would facilitate a commercial
interchangeability analysis. Similarly, the relative values that are
reflective of market pricing in the juice producing industry can vary
for a number of reasons that have little or nothing to do with the
quality or commercial substitutability of the product. The reasons
might include fluctuations in supply, weather conditions, or the
seasonality of various types of fruits. The absence of governmental
standards and the problems inherent in a relative value analysis have,
therefore, virtually eliminated the availability of unused merchandise
substitution drawback to the juice producing industry, notwithstanding
the intent of Congress to increase its availability and enhance U.S.
producers' ability to export their products.
NJPA, therefore, urges Congress to amend the drawback statute to
accomplish the goals of the Mod Act. NJPA does not seek a change in the
standard of commercial interchangeability but, rather, a change in the
statute to recognize that specific concentrated juice products for
manufacturing, whether they are produced domestically or overseas, are
bulk commodities that are commercially interchangeable. With respect to
concentrated orange juice for manufacturing, the one juice product for
which a recognized governmental standard does exist, the USDA grading
system is the single most important factor upon which COJM is traded.
An amendment that therefore defines commercial interchangeability for
purposes of COJM on the basis of the standards of identity that
comprise the USDA grading system would be of great benefit. Thus, for
example, imported COJM that is rated Grade A under the USDA grading
system would be deemed commercially interchangeable with domestic,
duty-paid or duty free merchandise that is rated Grade A, provided that
the products also fall within the range of 93-96 for total USDA scores
(based on color, defects and flavor). Drawback could be claimed on the
exportation of domestic, duty-paid or duty free Grade A COJM (with USDA
scores in the range of 93-96), provided that the other requirements of
the drawback law are met.
With respect to other juice products, unused merchandise
substitution drawback should be permitted based on the existence of the
identical 8-digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule Numbers that define them.
3. Conclusion
The concerns reflected in H.R. 3684 are merely symptomatic
of a more fundamental problem with the administration of the
drawback program by U.S. Customs with respect to the entire
U.S. juice producing industry. The problem is caused by
Customs' narrow application of the legal standard for
substitution, both with respect to manufacturing and unused
merchandise drawback. The situation is particularly troublesome
with respect to unused merchandise drawback, where Congress has
recently established a new and more liberal standard, which
Customs has refused to properly implement. Even the courts have
recently rejected Customs' narrow application of the standard.
SeeTexport Oil Company v. United States, Slip. Op. 98-1352,-
1353, -1373 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
We respectfully ask that Congress and this Committee
revisit these issues, or the competitiveness of the U.S. juice
producing industry in world markets will be severely
undermined.
Atttachment 1
National Juice Products Association
Regular Members
Agrigold Juice Products
A. Lassonde, Inc.
American Fruit Processors
Americana Juice Products
Bascitrus Agro Industria
Camerican, A Con-Agra Co.
Canadaigua Concentrates
Cargill Citro-America
Caulkins Indiantown Cit.
CCPA/Valley Foods
Chiquita Brands, Int'l
Citrofrut, S.A.
Citrosol, S.A. De C.V.
Citrosuco North America
Citrosuco Paulista, S.A.
Citrus Belle, Div. A. Duda
Citrus Products, Inc.
Citrus World, Inc.
Clement Pappas & Co., Inc.
Cliffstar Corporation
Coca-Cola Foods
Confrutta, S.A.
Country Pure Foods
Cutrale Citrus Juices USA
Del Monte Foods
Del Oro, S.A.
Delano Growers Grape
Dinter GMBH
Dole Packaged Foods
Farmland Dairies, Inc.
Florida Flavors, Inc.
Flavors From Florida
Florida Global Citrus Ltd.
Golden Gem Growers, Inc.
Givadaun Roure
Gregory Packaging Int'l
H.J. Heinz Company
Holly Hill Fruit Products
Home Juice Company
Johanna Farms, Inc.
Jugos Concentrados, S.A.
Jugos Del Sur, S.A.
Juguera Veracruzana, S.A.
The Kroger Co.
Le Vignoble, S.A.
Lykes Pasco, Inc.
McCain Citrus, Inc.
Nestle
Northland Cranberries, Inc.
Ocean Spray Cranberries
Old Orchard Brands
Olympic Foods, Inc.
Orange-Co., Inc.
Orfiva, S.A.
Peace River Citrus Prod.
Pepsico, Inc.
Sabroso Company
San Joaquin Valley
Silver Springs Citrus Coop.
Sociedad Cooperativa
Sunbase U.S.A., Inc.
Sundor Brands, Inc.
Sunkist Growers, Inc.
Sun Pac Foods, Inc.
Sunpure
Tecnovin Do Brasil Icie, Ltda
Texas Citrus Exchange
Ticofrut, S.A.
Tree Top, Inc.
Tropicana Products, Inc.
United States Sugar Corp.
Ventura Coastal Corp.
Very Fine Products, Inc.
Vicente Trapani, S.A.
Vie Del Company
Vita-Pakt Citrus Prod. Co.
Welch's
Winter Garden Citrus
National Juice Products Association
Associate Members
A.G. Edwards & Sons
A.M. Beebe Company
American National Can
Automatic Machinery
B.A. Carlson of Fla.
Bowen Juices Int'l
Bradford Company
Brown International
Cargill Investor Services
Cerestar
Champion International
Citrico, Inc.
Citrus Assoc. N.Y. Cotton
Combibloc
Continental Plastic
Daystar Robinson Int'l
Directus International
Ecolab-Food and Bev. Div.
Eni Laboratories
Enerfab
Elopak, Inc.
Export Packers Co. Ltd.
Fabri-Kal Corp.
Ferreiro and Company
Fimat Futures USA, Inc.
Fleming Packaging
Florida Bulk Sales
Florida Worldwide Cit.
FMC Corporation
FMC do Brasil
G.B. International, Inc.
Graham Packaging Company
Harris Hollow Froz. Fruit
Hartog Foods Int'l
International Paper
Jefferson Smurfit Corp.
Johnson Controls, Inc.
Kendall Frozen Fruits
Leeward Resources
Koch Membrane
Merrill, Lynch, etc.
Miller & Smith Foods
Oakley Groves, Inc.
Paine Webber
Pittra Incorporated
Potomac Foods of VA
Premier Juices, Inc.
Purcell & Assoc.
Purkel Products, Inc.
Ryan Trading Corp.
Scholle Corp.
Sethness-Greenleaf
Silgan Containers
Smith Barney Shearson
Sonoco Products Co.
Tetra-Pak, Inc.
Vincent Corporation
White Cap, Inc.
Statement of Hon. Bill Thomas, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California
In Opposition to H. R. 3684
I cannot support H. R. 3684 because it undermines the rules
for duty drawback and fundamentally changes the nature of the
program into a new agricultural export subsidy. For all
practical purposes, it would have the same effect as H.R. 194,
a drawback proposal which I continue to oppose.
The drawback rules are intended to promote U.S. trade.
Drawback prevents duties on inputs used to create U.S. export
goods from becoming a drag on those goods' international sales.
By providing drawback, current law recognizes that the imports
or an equivalent amount of U.S. product will be returned to
international commerce.
H. R. 3684 and H.R. 194 would allow exporters of American
grape juice concentrate to obtain refunds of duties paid on
imported concentrate even though the concentrates exported and
imported are not the same product. The bill would permit an
exporter of grape juice concentrate to obtain duty refunds in
cases where American Concord or Niagara grape juice concentrate
had been exported and other grape juice concentrate imported.
What H. R. 3684 creates is a new form of export subsidy.
The trade does not consider the Concord or Niagara grape
concentrates to be the commercial equivalent of other red or
white grape concentrates. Concord and Niagara juices have a
unique taste. In fact, well over 90% of the world's production
of both Concord and Niagara grapes occurs in the United States.
As a result, enactment of H.R. 3684 would create an incentive
to export American Concord and Niagara grape juice concentrates
by transferring duties on imported grape concentrates to the
exporter. Like H. R. 194, H.R. 3684 would thus allow U.S.
concentrate exporters the unique benefit of being rewarded by
the U.S. Treasury for having exported a product that is not the
commercial equivalent of the product being imported. American
industries exporting other products are certain to seek similar
treatment.
Export subsidies seriously distort international trade. At
a time when the United States is seeking to improve the World
Trade Organization trade regimes, it would not be wise to adopt
a new means of subsidizing some farm exports. As a result, I
must oppose H. R. 3684.
H.R. 3704
To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States with respect to certain toys.
see International Mass Retail Association, under H.R. 1622
American Apparel Manufacturers Association
Arlington, VA
May 17, 2000
Mr. A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Ref: No. TR-20
Dear Mr. Singleton:
On behalf of the American Apparel Manufacturers
Association, the national trade association of the apparel
industry, I am writing to express our industry's perspectives
on several pieces of legislation currently pending before the
Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee for possible consideration in
an upcoming miscellaneous duty bill.
1. HR 3704/S 2128
AAMA Position: Opposed.
The legislation seeks to reclassify certain costumes or
dress-up outfits as toys, even when they are made of textile
materials, simply by packaging them with toys and other
accessories. When classified as toys, such apparel would then
enter the United States duty and quota free. AAMA is concerned
that this change would create an unintentional ``back door''
through which many kinds of garments could enter duty and quota
free, merely by being packaged with toys and marketed as
``dress up sets.'' If Congress intends to create duty and quota
free trade in apparel, it should do so as the result of a
determined public policy and not as the accidental consequence
of a marketing tool.
In addition, the proposal effectively drops the duty on
certain kinds of finished garments, while leaving intact the
duty on the component textile parts. Such a change constitutes
a tariff inversion that effectively subsidizes foreign
production at the expense of domestic manufacturers. We find no
compelling reason to create such a tariff inversion with these
products in this manner.
Finally, at least one AAMA member who makes costumes in the
United States has expressed explicit opposition to this
legislation, stating its enactment and the competitive
disadvantage to which it will subject them will cause
irreparable harm.
2. HR 4229/S. 2245
AAMA Position: Supports
This legislation corrects and updates a definition for
Harris Tweed wool. This change is technical in nature, but is
necessary so as to avoid inadvertent discrimination against the
import of the affected HTS lines
3. HR 4337
AAMA Position: Supports
This legislation makes changes necessary to implement the
Entry Revision Project (ERP) proposal, promulgated by the U.S.
Customs Service. ERP is intended to streamline and simplify the
entry process, and to bring customs processes in line with
modern business practices. AAMA strongly supports efforts to
simplify customs processes, especially in the area of textiles
and apparel where documentation requirements are unusually
burdensome. Customs has signaled that, for the purposes of the
new authority, treatment of textile and apparel imports will be
based on the same criteria as other sectors, subject to other
statutory requirements. On the basis of that understanding,
AAMA endorses HR 4337.
Thank you. Please contact me on 703-524-1864 if you have
any further questions.
Sincerely,
Stephen Lamar
Director, Government Relations
American Textile Manufacturers Institute
Washington, DC
May 16, 2000
Mr. A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
The American Textile Manufactures Institute (ATMI), the
national association of the domestic textile mill products
industry, offers the following comments regarding H.R. 3704, a
bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States with respect to certain toys.
The effect of this bill would be to have costumes made of
fabric--a textile material--treated as ``other toys'' and not
subject to import duty or the quantitative restraints governing
imports of textile and apparel products until January 1, 2005.
ATMI is strongly opposed to this proposed legislation on the
grounds that it flies in the face of past Congressional intent
and would convey substantial benefits--unilaterally--to an
undeserving trading partner.
Costumes, whether they be for Halloween, parties,
children's play or any other activity, are not ``other toys.''
They are made of fabric and worn on the body. Thus, they are
wearing apparel, pure and simple. Imported wearing apparel is
subject to duty and, where appreciable, quantitative restraint
-quotas. Through eight rounds of multilateral trade
negotiations convened under the (former) General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT), Congress had the opportunity to
eliminate duty on wearing apparel and declined, with good
reason, to do so. Now it is confronted with a bill which asks
Congress to overturn its policy of fifty years' standing.
Imports of wearing apparel are also subject to various
restraints maintained under the World Trade Organization
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing until 2005. Congress ought
not to, with respect to the apparel items in question,
invalidate a multilateral agreement painstakingly negotiated by
the United States and nearly one hundred other countries.
Perhaps the most unsettling aspect of H.R. 3704, however,
is the primary beneficiary. The great majority of costumes
imported into the United States are made in China. China has
done nothing to warrant the United States' providing it with
benefits worth tens of millions of dollars.
In fact, China's actions with respect to trade in textiles
and apparel warrant the most severe opprobrium, not a generous
reward. China has and continues to transship billions of
dollars' worth of textiles and apparel to the U.S. in order to
avoid its mutually agreed quotas. Chinese exporters (most often
the Government of China), in collaboration with dishonest
American importers, have committed every other kind of Customs
fraud there is. China subsidizes and dumps textiles in the
United States. China has stolen American textile designs and
patterns. One is hard pressed to find an offense China has not
committed.
Domestic producers of cloth costumes operate in the United
States despite China's past efforts to drive them all out of
business. ATMI members supply fabric to these domestic costume
manufacturers.
If H.R. 3704 becomes law, these remaining manufacturers
will be driven out of business, many jobs lost and the domestic
textile industry will lose a valued customer. Congress should
not allow this to happen.
Sincerely,
Carlos Moore,
Executive Vice President
Statement of Mattel, Inc., El Segundo, California
This statement is submitted on behalf of Mattel, Inc. in
connection with the April 20 request for public comment by the
House Committee on Ways and Means regarding the package of
miscellaneous trade bills being prepared by the committee.
Mattel strongly supports the inclusion in this package of
legislation which would require the U.S. Customs Service to
classify all ``dress-up sets and outfits, marketed year-round
for the amusement of children in role-play activity, whether or
not of textile materials and parts and accessories thereof,''
as toys in subheading 9503.70.10 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). This legislation was
introduced by Rep. Xavier Becerra as H.R. 3704 on February 29,
2000.
Headquartered in El Segundo, California, Mattel is the
world's largest toy company, with 1999 sales of $5.5 billion in
over 150 countries. The company has manufacturing, distribution
and sales operations in the United States and 35 other
countries, with over 7,700 U.S. employees and a global
workforce of 31,000.
Mattel, like many other U.S. toy companies, imports and
markets dress-up sets as part of its broader line of toy
products. There is no known production of dress-up sets in the
United States.
The dress-up sets addressed by H.R. 3704 are designed,
marketed and sold year round for the amusement of children in
role-playing activities. They are imported by toy companies and
others, and are marketed principally through toy stores and toy
departments of retail stores.
The products to which H.R. 3704 relates consist of various
assortments of articles packaged together for retail sale, to
permit a child to play doctor, nurse, grown-up lady, ballerina,
mermaid, actress, model, bride, princess, cheerleader, or any
other activity or role which children enjoy emulating in role-
playing activities.
The composition of these sets varies widely, and includes
an assortment of articles to permit a child to play the role
selected. These sets usually include any of a variety of
accessories, as appropriate to the intended use, such as
ballerina slippers, tiaras, apparel, gloves, collars, books,
doctor and nurse bags and instruments, and cosmetic kits for
model.
Dress-up sets differ materially from Halloween costumes and
costumes for other festive occasions which are sold seasonally,
prior to various holidays such as Halloween, Christmas, Easter,
and other special occasions, and which are sold primarily
without accompanying accessories, other than possibly masks,
for use solely on the particular festive occasion.
Various importations of dress-up sets have been classified
by the U.S. Customs Service under the duty-free provision for
``toys put up in sets or outfits,'' as provided for under HTS
9503.70, or under the duty-free provision for ``festive,
carnival or other entertainment articles,'' as provided for
under HTS 9505. H.R. 3704 would clarify and confirm the
correctness of the classification of dress-up sets composed of
various articles put up in sets or outfits for retail sale for
the use and amusement of children in role playing, under the
provision for ``toys put up in sets or outfits'' (HTS 9503.70).
Enactment of H.R. 3704 would assist Customs officers in
distinguishing dress-up sets from costumes, which usually
consist of more elaborate complete articles of wearing apparel
without accessories, other than possibly masks. It would also
confirm that dress-up sets represent a separate class of
products recognized in the trade and commerce of the United
States, which are distinguishable from the products which are
the subject of certain litigation pending before the U.S. Court
of International Trade involving whether ``costumes'' are
classifiable as festive, carnival or other entertainment
articles, or as articles of wearing apparel.
Please feel free to contact us should the Committee have
any questions regarding this matter.
Rubie's Costume Company
Richmond Hill, NY
May 16, 2000
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways & Means
233 Cannon House Ofc. Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515-1308
Re: Technical Corrections to the U.S. Trade Laws And Miscellaneous Duty
Suspension Bills
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This responds to your request for comments regarding the Technical
Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension bills
now before the Committee. Specifically, as President of Rubie's Costume
Co., the largest manufacturer of costumes in the United States, I write
in opposition to H.R. 3704. Ostensibly limited only to so-called
``dress-up sets,'' this bill would allow a much wider range of foreign-
made textile garments to enter into the United States, duty-free and
not subject to quota. This would occur because as drafted, importers
could use the proposed new classification to enter textile items,
including costumes, as ``dress-up sets.''
Currently, the U.S. Customs Service treats dress-up sets as
consisting of ``a combination of articles, most of which are toys . . .
. Thus, a police dress-up set would consist of a badge, toy gun, and
toy handcuffs.'' To be classified as a dress-up set, a retail item must
not include ``wearing apparel-type items'' made of textiles. See
Customs Ruling NYB88764. For example, Customs has stated that ``a
ballerina dress-up set would be limited to her shoes and head piece.
The presence of her tutu makes the retail package a costume.'' In
short, dress-up sets are currently limited to products which are not
considered to be costumes, or other items of apparel.
However, by the terms of H.R. 3704, dress-up sets could be
construed to include a wide range of textile products, including
costumes. The bill specifically defines dress-up sets as including
items ``whether or not of textile material.'' As such, costumes made of
textile material, which are currently subject to duty and quota
requirements, could be entered duty free as a dress-up set. This
represents a radical, and I believe, unintended, departure from the
ways such products are currently classified.
Passage of this bill would damage not only domestic costume
manufacturers, but producers of other textile products as well. For
instance, a child's theme pajamas, like a cowboy, could become a dress-
up set by packaging the pajamas with a few accessories. The same result
would obtain with respect to T-shirts and a variety of other textile
garments.
What is proposed in H.R. 3704 could hardly be characterized as a
``technical correction.'' On the contrary, it represents a fundamental
change in the way garments made of textiles are classified for tariff
purposes. It would result in serious economic injury to the domestic
costume industry and to the thousands of workers it employs in the
United States. I urge you to eliminate this provision from the
Miscellaneous Tariff bill.
Very truly yours,
Marc Beige, President
Rubie's Costume Co. Inc.
Toy Association of
Southern California
Los Angeles, CA
May 17, 2000
A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: Comments in Support of H.R. 3704
Dear Mr. Singleton:
In response to the Committee's Release No. TR-20 of April 20, 2000,
The Toy Association of Southern California is pleased to submit its
comments in support of H.R. 3704, an act to insure that toys known in
the toy industry as ``dress-up sets,'' offered at retail year-round for
amusement of children in role-playing, will be classified for tariff
purposes in Chapter 95, Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United
States [HTSUS].
Southern California is home to over 500 toy companies. The Toy
Association of Southern California is the largest trade group in
California representing the toy industry, and its members include
manufacturers, importers, and distributors of toys in the greater Los
Angeles area.
H.R. 3704 would safeguard the interests of these and other toy
companies located throughout the United States. The bill would codify
the Customs Service's existing practice of classifying children's
dress-up sets in Chapter 95 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the
United States (HTSUS), thereby ensuring that imports of these articles
continue to receive the duty-free and quota-free treatment they
currently enjoy. For over 50 years, the toy industry has manufactured
and marketed dress-up sets or outfits consisting of numerous articles
(including textile and apparel articles) used for amusement by children
in role-playing.
During the last several years, one company which manufactures and
imports costumes and not dress-up sets has attempted to insure that all
costumes and dress-up sets containing any textile components are
classified for tariff purposes as textiles and apparel in Chapters 61
and 62, HTSUS, which cover wearing apparel. This would subject dress-up
sets, which are generally recognized as not being normal articles of
wearing apparel, to high duties and tight quotas, requiring costly
textile visas. This would price these articles out of the market, above
prices consumers are willing to pay for play articles. H.R. 3704 would
guard against that result, thereby protecting the interests of U.S. toy
companies and consumers.
Inasmuch as the toy industry regards dress-up sets or outfits
marketed year round for amusement of children in role-playing, as toys,
our Association fully supports H.R. 3704, and asks that it be included
in any miscellaneous trade bill prepared by the Committee for
consideration by Congress during its present session.
Very truly yours,
Leeton Lee,
President
H.R. 3714
To extend the temporary suspension of duty on DEMT.
Bayer Corporation, U.S.A.
Pittsburgh, PA 15205-9741
May 16, 2000
Mr. A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
House Committee on Ways and Means May 16, 2000
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Subject: H.R. 3714--A bill to extend the duty suspension on DEMT
Dear Mr. Singleton:
Bayer Corporation is a research-based company with major businesses
in health care and life sciences and chemicals. The company had 1999
sales of $8.9 billion and employs more than 22,200 people throughout
the United States and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Bayer Corporation is a member of the worldwide Bayer Group, a $29
billion international life sciences, polymers and specialty chemicals
group based in Leverkusen with 120,400 employees worldwide.
Bayer Corporation is a regular importer of DEMT. Bayer's Industrial
Chemicals Division, headquartered, and with major import operations in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania would benefit from the extension of the tariff
suspension on DEMT.
Bayer AG in Uerdingen, Germany produces DEMT, which is imported by
Bayer Corporation. Bayer Corporation sells the imported DEMT to Eastman
Chemical in Kingsport, TN. Eastman Chemical, in turn, uses DEMT to make
color developers for photographic film. Color developers applied to
film, precipitate film development. According to Eastman, approximately
100 jobs are devoted to color developers, which could be adversely
impacted if the DEMT tariff suspension is not renewed. There are no
domestic suppliers of DEMT. DEMT is also competitively produced in
India. Finished color developers are currently being imported from
China. Extending the DEMT tariff suspension would promote the domestic
production of color developers. The DEMT tariff suspension would also
assist domestic color developer producers in being competitive with
color developer manufacturers in China.
We hope this supplemental information is useful in the House Ways
and Means Committee deliberations regarding extending the tariff
suspension for DEMT, proposed in H.R. 3714. Please do not hesitate to
contact me at Tel: 412-777-5616 with any questions. In the event that I
am unavailable, Julie Van Egmond in our Washington office (Tel.: 202-
756-3773) or Karen Niedermeyer at our Pittsburgh location (Tel: 412-
777-2058) could be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Stephen R. Johnsen
H.R. 3715
To revise the article description for monochrome glass
envelopes under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3716
To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain ultraviolet
dye.
Statement of Honeywell International Inc.
H.R. 3716
Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) appreciates the
opportunity to comment on H.R. 3716, introduced by Representative
Robert Matsui of California. This measure provides for temporary
suspension of the U.S. import duty on a certain ultraviolet dye,
classified under 2931.00.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS).
Granting a suspension of the duty on the product subject to this
legislation is justified and appropriate. To our knowledge there is no
U.S. commercial production of the exact product in question. For this
reason passage of H.R. 3716, while having a positive impact on the
competitiveness of Honeywell and many of its U.S. customers, would not
have a detrimental effect on an U.S. industry.
Description of Honeywell
Honeywell is a US$25-billion diversified technology and
manufacturing leader, serving customers worldwide with
aerospace products and services; control technologies for
buildings, homes and industry; automotive products; power
generation systems; specialty chemicals; fibers; plastics; and
electronic and advanced materials. Honeywell was formed by the
December 1999 merger of AlliedSignal Inc. and Honeywell Inc.
The company is a leading developer of software, solutions,
and Internet e-hubs, including MyAircraft.com and MyPlant.com.
Honeywell employs approximately 120,000 people in 95 countries
and is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol
HON, as well as on the London, Chicago and Pacific stock
exchanges. It is one of the 30 stocks that make up the Dow
Jones Industrial Average and is also a component of the
Standard & Poor's 500 Index.
Description of the Product and Its Uses
This compound can be added to certain formulations to
perform as an ultraviolet light absorbing dye. The compound has
been custom designed by Honeywell for use in proprietary
Honeywell formulations.
Granting Suspension of Duty on This Ultraviolet Dye is Warranted
There is no U.S. commercial production of the product
subject to this legislation. Because of the product's strictly
proprietary nature, we are certain Honeywell is the only
worldwide producer and importer of this dye. Further, based on
import projections for this product for the period covered by
H.R. 3716, this legislation also complies with the Committee's
``no-cost'' requirement.
Summary
There is no U.S. commercial production of the compound on
which suspension of duty is being sought. This legislation also
meets the Committee's ``no cost'' criterion.
For these reasons passage of H.R. 3716, while having a
positive impact on the competitiveness of Honeywell and many of
its U.S. customers, would not have a detrimental effect on an
U.S. industry. Granting temporary suspension of the duty on the
product subject to this legislation is justified and
appropriate.
Honeywell thanks the Committee for its careful
consideration of our testimony.
H.R. 3717
To suspend temporarily the duty on Vinclozolin.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3718
To suspend temporarily the duty on Tepraloxydim.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3719
To suspend temporarily the duty on Pyridaben.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3720
To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Acetylnicotinic acid.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3721
To suspend temporarily the duty on SAMe.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3722
To suspend temporarily the duty on Procion Crimson H-EXL.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3723
To suspend temporarily the duty on Dispersol Crimson SF
Grains.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3724
To suspend temporarily the duty on Procion Navy H-EXL.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3725
No comments submitted.
To suspend temporarily the duty on Procion Yellow H-EXL.
H.R. 3726
To suspend temporarily the duty on ortho-phenyl phenol
(``OPP'').
Bayer Corporation, U.S.A.
Pittsburgh, PA 15205-9741
May 11, 2000
A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
House Committee on Ways and Means May 11, 2000
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Subject: H.R.3726 ortho-Phenylphenol (``OPP'')
Dear Mr. Singleton:
Bayer Corporation is a research-based company with major businesses
in health care and life sciences and chemicals. The company had 1999
sales of $8.9 billion and employs more than 22,200 people throughout
the United States and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Bayer Corporation is a member of the worldwide Bayer Group, a $29
billion international life sciences, polymers and specialty chemicals
group based in Leverkusen with 120,400 employees worldwide.
Bayer Corporation is a regular importer of ortho-Phenylphenol
(``OPP''). Bayer's Logistics Division, with major import operations at
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Bayer warehouses in Pennsylvania, Chicago,
South Carolina, Texas and California as well as Bayer's customers in
Michigan, Georgia, Florida, Massachusetts, Kansas, Illinois,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri and New Jersey would benefit from tariff
suspension on this product. Ortho-Phenylphenol is effective for U.S.
customers against a wide variety of mold fungi and bacteria for the
preservation of glues and adhesives. It is also used in U.S. industry
in preservation applications for polymer emulsions (coatings, PVA
systems and rubber), thickeners, paper, textiles, dyes, metalworking
fluids, air filter oils, printing inks and polishes and waxes. Ortho-
phenylphenol also benefits the U.S. lumber industry as a temporary
sapstain control of fresh cut lumber and the building industry as a
preservative for concrete additives and masonry. Bayer is the sole
producer of ortho-Phenylphenol, which is not produced in the United
States. There is a foreign producer of other phenolic biocides in the
United Kingdom by the name of Nipa.
We hope this supplemental information is useful in the House Ways
and Means Committee deliberations regarding the proposed tariff
suspension for ortho-Phenylphenol bill number H.R. 3726. Please do not
hesitate to contact me at Tel: 412-777-2058 with any questions. In the
event that I am unavailable, Julie Van Egmond in our Washington office
(Tel.: 202-756-3773) or Stephen Johnsen at our Pittsburgh location
(Tel: 412-777-5616) could be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Karen L. Niedermeyer
H.R. 3727
To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Methoxypropene.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3728
To reduce temporarily the duty on 3,5-Difluroaniline.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3729
To reduce temporarily the duty on Quinclorac.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3730
To suspend temporarily the duty on Dispersol Black XF
Grains.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3731
To suspend temporarily the duty on fluroxypyr 1-
methylheptyl ester (FME).
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3733
To reduce temporarily the duty on ethylene/
tetrafluoroethylene copolymer (ETFE).
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3734
To suspend temporarily the duty on monolite green 860.
Sun Chemical Corporation
Cincinnati, OH
May 18, 2000
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
SunChemical Corporation Colors Group requests that these following
entries be removed from the Temporary Duty Suspension List; Dyes &
Pigments:
HR3734, Monolite Green 952, Pigment Green 7 (PG7)
HR3735, Monolite Green 860, Pigment Green 36 (PG36)
These organic green pigments are produced by Colors Group,
SunChemical Corporation, for the printing ink, coatings and
plastics by our manufacturing plants located in Staten Island,
NY; and, in Cincinnati, Ohio. With SunChemical Colors Group
pigment and colorant annual sales near $300 million, these
organic phthalocyanine pigment greens, PG7 and PG36, comprise a
significant portion of the total organic pigments that
SunChemical Colors Group produce specifically for the printing
ink and automotive coatings markets.
Pigment imports over these past 7 years have significantly
eroded our sales and margin volumes.Consequently, any lower
duties on these pigment green items would seriously impact our
ability to manufacture and compete in this printing ink
marketplace.
Based in Cincinnati, OH, with over 700 employees,
SunChemical Colors Group have become one of the top three world
recognised producers of synthetic organic pigments.Our Research
and Development Group have applied considerable effort on
innovative and technical development of our high quality
Sunfast Green PG7 and PG36 pigments.
I would appreciate your consideration on these important
issues.
Sincerely,
Stephen J. Schmidt,
Vice President of Purchasing
[An attachment is being retained in the Committee files.]
H.R. 3735
To suspend temporarily the duty on monolite green 952.
see SunChemical Corporation, under H.R. 3734
H.R. 3736
To suspend temporarily the duty on solsperse 17260.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3737
To suspend temporarily the duty on solsperse 17000.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3738
To suspend temporarily the duty on solsperse 5000.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3739
To suspend temporarily the duty on monolite blue 3R.
Sun Chemical Corporation
Cincinnati, OH
May 18, 2000
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
SunChemical Corporation Colors Group requests that these following
entries be removed from the Temporary Duty Suspension List; Dyes &
Pigments:
HR3739, Monolite Blue 3R, Pigment Blue 60 (PB60)
HR3759, Pigment Red 176, (PR176)
HR3772, Pigment Yellow 199, (PY199)
HR3773, Pigment Blue 60, (PB60)
Note: same as HR3739. Monolite Blue 3R is a Zeneca trade name
for its PB60.
HR3776, Pigment Yellow 147, (PY147)
HR3777, Pigment Yellow 191.1, (PY191)
HR3937, Pigment Yellow 184,(PY184)
HR3939, Pigment Orange 73, (PO73)
HR3944, Pigment Red 255, (PR255)
HR3951, Pigment Red 264, (PR264)
HR3958, Pigment Yellow 168, (PY168)
SunChemical Corporation, Colors Group, currently produces a wide
product range of similar high molecular weight, temperature resistant,
specialised synthetic pigments for the paint, coatings and plastics
markets. I have attached our pigment catalogues which list SunChemical
Colors Group pigments specifically designed for these coatings and
plastics markets.
SunChemical requests that duties not be reduced on these similar
pigments listed above. From its pigment manufacturing plants located in
Staten Island, NY; Newark and Brunswick, NJ; Cincinnati and Amelia, OH;
and Chicago, IL; Colors Group are fully capable of providing these type
pigments to our color-consuming customers.
I would appreciate your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Stephen J. Schmidt
Vice President of Purchasing
Colors Group
Cc: fax: Stephen Wanser, USITC 202-205-2150
H.R. 3740
To suspend temporarily the duty on certain TAED chemicals.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3741
To extend the temporary suspension of duty on a certain
polymer.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3742
No comments submitted.
To suspend temporarily the duty on isobornyl acetate.
H.R. 3743
To suspend temporarily the duty on sodium petroleum
sulfonate.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3746
To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 4-
hexylresorcinol.
Statement of Honeywell International Inc.
Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) appreciates the
opportunity to comment on H.R. 3746, introduced by Representative Jim
Ramstad of Minnesota. This measure provides for extension of the
temporary suspension of the U.S. import duty on the chemical 4-
Hexylresorcinol, normally classified under 2907.29.90, and temporarily
classified under 9902.29.07, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS).
Granting a suspension of the duty on the product subject to this
legislation is justified and appropriate. To our knowledge there is no
U.S. commercial production of the exact product in question. For this
reason passage of H.R. 3746, while having a positive impact on the
competitiveness of Honeywell and many of its U.S. customers, would not
have a detrimental effect on a U.S. industry.
Description of Honeywell
Honeywell is a US$25-billion diversified technology and
manufacturing leader, serving customers worldwide with aerospace
products and services; control technologies for buildings, homes and
industry; automotive products; power generation systems; specialty
chemicals; fibers; plastics; and electronic and advanced materials.
Honeywell was formed by the December 1999 merger of AlliedSignal Inc.
and Honeywell Inc.
The company is a leading developer of software, solutions, and
Internet e-hubs, including MyAircraft.com and MyPlant.com. Honeywell
employs approximately 120,000 people in 95 countries and is traded on
the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol HON, as well as on the
London, Chicago and Pacific stock exchanges. It is one of the 30 stocks
that make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average and is also a component
of the Standard & Poor's 500 Index.
Description of the Product and Its Uses
4-Hexylresorcinol is used by Honeywell customers for a variety of
applications, including in throat lozenges, to reduce spoilage in
shrimp, in topical antiseptics, and in other pharmaceutical and
cosmetic applications (some of which are still in the research and
development stage).
Extending the Existing Suspension of Duty on 4-Hexylresorcinol is
Warranted
There is no U.S. commercial production of the product subject to
this legislation.
This product was originally proposed for duty suspension in 1998. A
thorough review by the U.S. International Trade Commission, U.S.
Department of Commerce, and U.S. Customs Service determined the
proposal to be noncontroversial and compliant with the revenue impact
criterion established by the Committee on Ways and Means and the
Committee on Finance. This proposal became law as part of the
Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-
36), which was signed by the President on June 25, 1999.
Earlier, in 1997 the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
compiled a list (so-called ``zero list'') of chemical products whose
U.S. tariffs it tried unsuccessfully to use the November 1997 APEC
Ministerial meeting to eliminate. We submitted the product subject to
this bill for inclusion on that list. In a chemical industry-wide
formal review of the proposed list, undertaken at the behest of the
U.S. government, no one objected to this product's presence on the
list, i.e., had no objections to its duty being eliminated.
Summary
To Honeywell's knowledge there is no U.S. commercial production of
the exact product in question. Further, when scrutinized thoroughly in
the past as a product proposed to receive preferential tariff
treatment, such related proposals were deemed noncontroversial.
Regrettably, notwithstanding the good intentions and tireless efforts
of U.S. trade negotiators to achieve tariff elimination/reductions in
various fora, it is uncertain if and when the APEC, or for that matter
the WTO, process will yield the desired tariff cuts provided for in
H.R. 3746.
For these reasons passage of H.R. 3746, while having a positive
impact on the competitiveness of Honeywell and many of its U.S.
customers, would not have a detrimental effect on an U.S. industry.
Extending the temporary suspension of the duty on the product subject
to this legislation is justified and appropriate.
Honeywell thanks the Committee for its careful consideration of our
testimony.
H.R. 3747
To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain
sensitizing dyes.
Statement of Honeywell International Inc.
Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) appreciates the
opportunity to comment on H.R. 3747, introduced by
Representative Jim Ramstad of Minnesota. This measure provides
for extension of the temporary suspension of the U.S. import
duty on certain sensitizing dyes for photo/imaging
applications, normally classified under 2933.19.30, 2933.19.90,
2933.90.24, 2934.10.90, 2934.20.40, 2934.90.20, and 2934.90.90,
and temporarily classified under 9902.29.37, of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Granting a suspension of the duty on the products subject
to this legislation is justified and appropriate. To our
knowledge there is no U.S. commercial production of the exact
products in question. For this reason passage of H.R. 3747,
while having a positive impact on the competitiveness of
Honeywell and many of its U.S. customers, would not have a
detrimental effect on an U.S. industry.
Description of Honeywell
Honeywell is a US$25-billion diversified technology and
manufacturing leader, serving customers worldwide with aerospace
products and services; control technologies for buildings, homes and
industry; automotive products; power generation systems; specialty
chemicals; fibers; plastics; and electronic and advanced materials.
Honeywell was formed by the December 1999 merger of AlliedSignal Inc.
and Honeywell Inc.
The company is a leading developer of software, solutions, and
Internet e-hubs, including MyAircraft.com and MyPlant.com. Honeywell
employs approximately 120,000 people in 95 countries and is traded on
the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol HON, as well as on the
London, Chicago and Pacific stock exchanges. It is one of the 30 stocks
that make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average and is also a component
of the Standard & Poor's 500 Index.
Description of the Products and Their Uses
Polymethine sensitizing dyes are used by Honeywell customers to
improve the spectral response of photosensitive emulsions used on
films, including photographic films of all types, medical imaging
films, and graphic arts films. These dyes are complex organic
molecules, and each one is typically designed on a proprietary basis
for a specific film emulsion. Once a customer has decided upon a
particular molecular structure and specifications for the material
(e.g., metals content, crystal size, etc.), the product becomes truly
unique to that particular customer, to the supplier and to the
application. These dyes are generally added in tiny amounts to film
emulsions to adjust the photon sensitivity of the film.
Extending the Existing Suspension of Duty on Certain Sensitizing Dyes
for Photo/Imaging Applications is Warranted
There is no U.S. commercial production of the products subject to
this legislation.
These products were originally proposed for duty suspension in
1998. A thorough review by the U.S. International Trade Commission,
U.S. Department of Commerce, and U.S. Customs Service determined the
proposal to be noncontroversial and compliant with the revenue impact
criterion established by the Committee on Ways and Means and the
Committee on Finance. This proposal became law as part of the
Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-
36), which was signed by the President on June 25, 1999.
Earlier, in 1997 the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
compiled a list (so-called ``zero list'') of chemical products whose
U.S. tariffs it tried unsuccessfully to use the November 1997 APEC
Ministerial meeting to eliminate. We submitted the products subject to
this bill for inclusion on that list. In a chemical industry-wide
formal review of the proposed list, undertaken at the behest of the
U.S. government, no one objected to these products presence on the
list, i.e., had no objections to their duties being eliminated.
Summary
To Honeywell's knowledge there is no U.S. commercial production of
the exact products in question. Further, when scrutinized thoroughly in
the past as products proposed to receive preferential tariff treatment,
such related proposals were deemed noncontroversial. Regrettably,
notwithstanding the good intentions and tireless efforts of U.S. trade
negotiators to achieve tariff elimination/reductions in various fora,
it is uncertain if and when the APEC, or for that matter the WTO,
process will yield the desired tariff cuts provided for in H.R. 3747.
For these reasons passage of H.R. 3747, while having a positive
impact on the competitiveness of Honeywell and many of its U.S.
customers, would not have a detrimental effect on an U.S. industry.
Extending the temporary suspension of the duty on the products subject
to this legislation is justified and appropriate.
Honeywell thanks the Committee for its careful consideration of our
testimony.
H.R. 3748
To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain
organic pigments and dyes
Statement of Honeywell International Inc.
Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) appreciates the
opportunity to comment on H.R. 3748, introduced by Representative Jim
Ramstad of Minnesota. This measure provides for extension of the
temporary suspension of the U.S. import duty on certain organic
pigments and dyes for security applications, normally classified under
3204.90.00, and temporarily classified under 9902.32.07, of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Granting a suspension of the duty on the products subject to this
legislation is justified and appropriate. To our knowledge there is no
U.S. commercial production of the exact products in question. For this
reason passage of H.R. 3748, while having a positive impact on the
competitiveness of Honeywell and many of its U.S. customers, would not
have a detrimental effect on an U.S. industry.
Description of Honeywell
Honeywell is a US$25-billion diversified technology and
manufacturing leader, serving customers worldwide with aerospace
products and services; control technologies for buildings, homes and
industry; automotive products; power generation systems; specialty
chemicals; fibers; plastics; and electronic and advanced materials.
Honeywell was formed by the December 1999 merger of AlliedSignal Inc.
and Honeywell Inc.
The company is a leading developer of software, solutions, and
Internet e-hubs, including MyAircraft.com and MyPlant.com. Honeywell
employs approximately 120,000 people in 95 countries and is traded on
the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol HON, as well as on the
London, Chicago and Pacific stock exchanges. It is one of the 30 stocks
that make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average and is also a component
of the Standard & Poor's 500 Index.
Description of the Products and Their Uses
Organic luminescent pigments and dyes are used by Honeywell
customers in various products that require security and anti-
counterfeiting technology. Examples of end uses in which trace amounts
of highly specialized luminescent pigments, dyes and fibers may be used
are: Currency, stock certificates, credit cards, postal stamps, labels
for packages, software certificates of authenticity, drivers licenses,
etc. These luminescent compounds are complex organic molecules, and
each one is typically designed on a proprietary basis for a specific
anti-counterfeiting application. Once a customer has decided upon a
particular molecular structure, and specifications for the material,
the product becomes truly unique to that particular customer, to the
supplier and to the application.
Extending the Existing Suspension of Duty on Certain Organic Pigments
and Dyes for Security Applications is Warranted
There is no U.S. commercial production of the products subject to
this legislation.
These products were originally proposed for duty suspension in
1998. A thorough review by the U.S. International Trade Commission,
U.S. Department of Commerce, and U.S. Customs Service determined the
proposal to be noncontroversial and compliant with the revenue impact
criterion established by the Committee on Ways and Means and the
Committee on Finance. This proposal became law as part of the
Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-
36), which was signed by the President on June 25, 1999.
Earlier, in 1997 the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
compiled a list (so-called ``zero list'') of chemical products whose
U.S. tariffs it tried unsuccessfully to use the November 1997 APEC
Ministerial meeting to eliminate. We submitted the products subject to
this bill for inclusion on that list. In a chemical industry-wide
formal review of the proposed list, undertaken at the behest of the
U.S. government, no one objected to these products presence on the
list, i.e., had no objections to their duties being eliminated.
Summary
To Honeywell's knowledge there is no U.S. commercial production of
the exact products in question. Further, when scrutinized thoroughly in
the past as products proposed to receive preferential tariff treatment,
such related proposals were deemed noncontroversial. Regrettably,
notwithstanding the good intentions and tireless efforts of U.S. trade
negotiators to achieve tariff elimination/reductions in various fora,
it is uncertain if and when the APEC, or for that matter the WTO,
process will yield the desired tariff cuts provided for in H.R. 3748.
For these reasons passage of H.R. 3748, while having a positive
impact on the competitiveness of Honeywell and many of its U.S.
customers, would not have a detrimental effect on an U.S. industry.
Extending the temporary suspension of the duty on the products subject
to this legislation is justified and appropriate.
Honeywell thanks the Committee for its careful consideration of our
testimony.
H.R. 3751
To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain semi-
manufactured forms of gold.
Hale and Dorr LLP
Washington, DC 20004
May 19, 2000
A.L Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: Request for Comments on Miscellaneous Tariff Provision, H.R. 3751
Dear Mr. Singleton:
This letter is filed on behalf of Micron Technology, Inc., in
strong support of H.R. 3751, a miscellaneous tariff bill that would
continue the temporary duty suspension for gold bonding wire used in
the semiconductor assembly process. Micron does believe, however, that
duty free treatment should be extended to 2005, rather than 2003, as in
the current draft of this legislation. A companion Senate bill would
extend duty free treatment through 2005.
Gold bonding wire is an indispensable material used in assembling
semiconductors and integrated circuits. In the semiconductor assembly
process, very fine gold wire is used to connect the pads on the
semiconductor die to the leads on the leadframe of the semiconductor
package.
Semiconductor-grade gold wire is unlike gold wire used for any
other application. First, it is very fine, with a diameter of 0.06
millimeters or less. It is also very pure, usually having a purity of
99.99 percent or greater. Semiconductor gold bonding wire also contains
very specific dopants, which are added to control wirebonding
characteristics. This type of gold wire is used only for semiconductors
and integrated circuits and cannot be used for any other purpose.
Semiconductor gold bonding wire is classified under Harmonized
Tariff Number 7108.13.7000, and carries a duty rate of 5.1 percent. The
duty on this product is currently suspended, however, due to
legislation passed in October 1996. The current temporary tariff
classification for this product is 9902.71.08.
Gold bonding wire should be duty free an a permanent basis. The
``zero-for-zero'' round of duty elimination negotiations that took
place during the Uruguay Round and the Information Technology Agreement
eliminated most of the duties on semiconductor manufacturing equipment
and materials. Gold bonding wire was overlooked during these
negotiations. United States duties were eliminated on the end product,
semiconductors, in the 1980's.
There is clear historical industry consensus regarding duty
suspension for gold bonding wire. It would benefit all U.S. companies
assembling semiconductors in the United States. As noted above, gold
bonding wire for semiconductors was included in a temporary duty
suspension bill passed in October 1996. (It is for this reason that
gold bonding wire currently has a zero duty rate.) In conjunction with
that bill, the Senate requested public comment. No adverse comments
were received. In fact, Victoria Hadfield, filing comments on behalf of
Semiconductor and Equipment Manufacturers International (``SEMI''),
stated that for gold bonding wire ``I can identify no domestic
opposition to these proposed tariff reductions and would support (its)
passage.'' SEMI's support is important because this trade organization
represents the U.S. producers of materials used in the semiconductor
manufacturing process. The Semiconductor Industry Association, the
trade association representing U.S. semiconductor manufacturers, also
supports this legislation.
Duty free treatment for gold bonding wire would make U.S.
semiconductor manufacturers more competitive and would reinforce and
encourage greater assembly of semiconductors in the United States,
rather than abroad where many assemblers already enjoy duty free
treatment of material inputs and equipment.
Finally, Micron believes that this legislation is non-controversial
because, to Micron's knowledge, there are no companies that make
semiconductor gold bonding wire in the United States. Micron also
believes that the revenue impact of this legislation would be de
minimis.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please do not
hesitate to contact me at (202) 942-8371. Thank you for your help on
this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Bonnie B. Byers
Semiconductor Industry Association
May 19, 2000
A.L Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: Request for Comments on Miscellaneous Tariff Provision, H.R. 3751
Dear Mr. Singleton:
The Semiconductor Industry Association (``SIA'') urges passage of
H.R. 3751 introduced by Congressman Simpson. Specifically, the bill
would continue the suspension of the 6.6 percent duty for gold bonding
wire used in the semiconductor manufacturing process.
SIA has long supported the elimination of tariffs on
semiconductors, semiconductor manufacturing equipment and materials,
and information technology products. The US eliminated semiconductor
duties in 1985, and during the Uruguay Round and the Information
Technology Agreement, eliminated duties on many types of equipment and
materials related to the semiconductor fabrication process. Many duties
remain, however, on equipment and materials that relate to the assembly
stage of the semiconductor manufacturing process. During this step,
individual silicon chips are placed in packages. This is done by
attaching the chips to lead frames with very fine gold wire and then
literally molding a plastic package around the chip and the lead frame.
The gold wire used to attach the die to the lead frame is of a certain
grade, purity and chemical composition suitable for use only in the
semiconductor manufacturing process.
The US semiconductor industry is a major contributor to the US
economy providing 284,000 US jobs. In 1999 worldwide sales of
semiconductors reached $174 billion. The world market is expected to
grow to $234 billion by the year 2002. Duty free treatment for items
used in the semiconductor assembly process would improve the
competitiveness of the US semiconductor industry, particularly those
companies who locate assembly operations in the US. Moreover, to SIA's
knowledge, this tariff suspension bill is not controversial, since
there is no bonding wire industry in the United States.
SIA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned
tariff suspension provision, and urges you to include it in any
miscellaneous tariff bill reported out of the Ways and Means Committee.
Sincerely,
Daryl G. Hatano
Vice President Public Policy
H.R. 3752
To suspend temporarily the duty on 4-Nitro-o-xylene.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3753
To suspend temporarily the duty on certain copper foils.
Copper & Brass Fabricators
Council, Inc.
May 19, 2000
Mr. A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Singleton:
RE: Request for Written Comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade
Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills
In response to your notice of April 20, 2000, subject as above,
this statement is submitted on behalf of the Copper and Brass
Fabricators Council, Inc., (``Council'') and its 22 member companies
(see attached list of Council member companies). The Council is a trade
association which represents the principal copper and brass mills in
the United States. These mills together account for the fabrication of
more than 80 percent of all copper and brass mill products produced in
the United States, including sheet, strip, plate, foil, bar, rod and
both plumbing and commercial tube. These products are used in a wide
variety of applications, chiefly in the automotive, construction, and
electrical/electronic industries.
The Council's comments are limited to H.R.3753 and H.R.3869 which
are listed as components of the Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade
Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension legislation compiled in the
Committee's notice of April 20.
As background, it should be noted that since early 1985, the
Council and its member companies have brought a series of antidumping
and countervailing duty cases before the Department of Commerce and
International Trade Commission to counter large increases of imports of
brass mill products. These proceedings have led to determinations that
respondent countries were guilty of unfair pricing and resulted in the
issuance of eleven antidumping duty orders and three countervailing
duty orders against imports of brass sheet and strip and of low-fuming
brazing rod from a total of eleven countries.
In taking these measures, the Council was reacting to a steady
increase in the share of imports that were dumped and subsidized
beginning in the late 1970's and continuing to the present.
Correspondingly, with respect to regular U.S. import tariffs, in
the series of multilateral trade negotiations following the GATT
agreement of 1948, the U.S. Government has consistently stated that the
world trading system should be free and nondiscriminatory and that U.S.
commerce should have competitive opportunities substantially equivalent
to those of its trading partners within that system.
Unfortunately, none of the multilateral trade negotiations,
including the Uruguay Round, has secured those goals for the U.S. brass
mill industry. Excessive and unmatched reductions in U.S. brass mill
product tariffs have resulted in a persistent and substantial
unfavorable trade balance in brass mill products. For copper foil the
product covered by H.R.3753 (HTS No. 7410.11.00) U.S. imports from all
countries in 1999 totaled 55,468,020 pounds while U.S. exports were
23,428,815 pounds.
Brass mill product markets are marked by intense price competition
and sales are won or lost on differences as small as a penny per pound.
Consequently, temporary suspension of normal tariffs on copper foil as
proposed in H.R.3753 would certainly lead to even larger trade deficits
in the product.
Because of this likely adverse impact on the U.S. market for copper
foil, the Council objects to the enactment of H.R.3753 as part of the
Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty
Suspension legislation.
The Council's reliance upon the United States' unfair trade laws is
of vital importance to this industry, and the continuance of the
antidumping and countervailing duty orders won by the Council has been
a matter to which the United States copper and brass mills assign a top
priority. This industry is similar to other United States domestic
industries that have successfully prosecuted antidumping and
countervailing duty proceedings. The cost of these cases is high, and
petitioners understandably expect that the unfair trade remedies which
they have fought so hard to obtain will remain viable.
The Council has discovered in its cases that enforcement of unfair
trade orders must be pursued vigorously by the domestic industry in
several major respects. Of pertinence to this matter, the Council has
found that there is no effective mechanism in place by which the
Customs Service and Department of Commerce can accurately record what
antidumping and countervailing duties have been assessed and collected
on legally entered imports in a particular proceeding or over-all. Over
the past several years, the Council has asked for documented and
detailed accountings of the aggregated duties brought in under its
orders. These efforts have produced limited and often inconsistent data
and only after considerable checking and special compilation by the
agencies.
In the Council's antidumping and countervailing duty cases it has
become evident that the Customs Service and Department of Commerce do
not know what antidumping and countervailing duties are being paid.
These data are simply not being maintained on a regular basis in a
manner that enables the agencies to say with any assurance that
particular unfair trade orders are being enforced. It is assumed that
the duties are being collected, but there is no trustworthy evidence to
substantiate this claim or to ascertain the amounts of the duties.
The Council has been advised that the situation sought to be
remedied by H.R.3869 may represent an example of the Customs Service
failing to accurately collect antidumping duties on brass sheet and
strip. Since becoming aware of H.R.3869, the Council has attempted to
obtain verification of the claim that the bill would simply correct
errors on the part of the Customs Service. Those attempts have not
resulted in the receipt of any documentation of the alleged Customs
Service errors.
H.R.3869 would mandate the liquidation or reliquidation of
approximately 235 entries of brass sheet and strip subject to an
antidumping duty order and ranging in time from 1987, which was the
first full year of the order's existence, to as recently as 1996.
While the Council would not contest the possibility that the
Customs Service may have erroneously administered collection of
antidumping duties on brass sheet and strip, the large number of
entries and extended period of time covered by H.R.3869 compel the
Council to object to its inclusion in the Technical Corrections to U.S.
Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension legislation currently
under consideration.
The Council would welcome, and cooperate in, an effort to ascertain
the accuracy of the entries listed in H.R.3869 but until that
determination is made in an open process the Council does not believe
that Congressionally mandated liquidation or reliquidation of the
subject entries is justified.
In closing, it should be noted that Outokumpu American Brass, a
Council member company, does not support that portion of this
submission which relates to H.R.3869.
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph L. Mayer
President & General Counsel
Copper and Brass Fabricators Council, Inc.
Attachment
Copper and Brass Fabricators Council, Inc.
Membership List
THE AMPCO GROUP
P.O. Box 2004
Milwaukee, WI 53201
(414) 645-3750x358
ANSONIA COPPER & BRASS, INC.
P.O. Box 109
Ansonia, CT 06401
(203) 732-6606x606
BRUSH WELLMAN, INC.
17876 St. Clair Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44110
(216) 486-4048
CAMBRIDGE-LEE INDUSTRIES, INC.
(Reading Tube Division)
P.O. Box 14026
Reading, PA 19612-4026
(610) 926-7366
CERRO COPPER PRODUCTS CO.
(A member of The Marmon
Group of companies)
P.O. Box 66800
St. Louis, MO 63166-6800
(618) 874-8670
CERRO METAL PRODUCTS CO.
(A member of The Marmon
Group of companies)
P.O. Box 388
Bellefonte, PA 16823
(814) 355-6200
CHASE BRASS & COPPER CO., INC.
P.O. Box 152
Montpelier, OH 43543
(419) 485-3193
CHICAGO EXTRUDED METALS CO.
401 N. Michigan Avenue, #700
Chicago, IL 60611
(312) 670-1515
EXTRUDED METALS
302 Ashfield Street
Belding, MI 48809
(616) 794-4842
HEYCO METALS, INC.
1069 Stinson Drive
Reading, PA 19605
(610) 926-4131
HUSSEY COPPER LTD.
Washington Street
Leetsdale, PA 15056-1099
(724) 251-4238
KOBE COPPER PRODUCTS, INC.
P.O. Box 160
Pine Hall, NC 27042
(336) 427-6611
METALS AMERICA
135 Old Boiling Springs Road
Shelby, NC 28150
(215) 517-6000X125
THE MILLER COMPANY
290 Pratt Street
Meriden, CT 06450-1010
(203) 639-5234
MUELLER INDUSTRIES, INC.
8285 Tournament Drive, #150
Memphis, TN 38125
(901) 753-3201
OLIN CORPORATION-BRASS GROUP
427 N. Shamrock Street
East Alton, IL 62024-1174
(618) 258-3775
OUTOKUMPU AMERICAN BRASS
P.O. Box 981
Buffalo, NY 14240-0981
(716) 879-6979
OUTOKUMPU COPPER FRANKLIN, INC.
P.O. Box 539
Franklin, KY 42135-0539
(270) 586-8201x155
PMX INDUSTRIES, INC.
5300 Willow Creek Drive, SW
Cedar Rapids, IA 52404-4303
(319) 368-7700x1155
REVERE COPPER PRODUCTS, INC.
One Revere Park
Rome, NY 13440-5561
(315) 338-2332
WATERBURY ROLLING MILLS, INC.
P.O. Box 550
Waterbury, CT 06720
(203) 754-0151x246
WIELAND METALS, INC.
567 Northgate Parkway
Wheeling, IL 60090
(847) 537-3990
H.R. 3754
To suspend temporarily the duty on certain activated
carbon.
Calgon Carbon Corporation
Pittsburgh, PA
April 25, 2000
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: H.R. 3754
Calgon Carbon Corporation (CCC), as the largest manufacturer of
activated carbon in the United States and representing the best
interests of our industry, strongly opposes H.R. 3754. The main reasons
for our opposition to H.R. 3754 are as follows:
The current import duty is not restrictive to the import
of activated carbon. This is evident particularly by the dramatic
increase in Chinese activated carbon imports from 5 million pounds in
1991 to 32 million pounds in 1998. In other words, the rate of
activated carbon imports from China has grown at an average rate of 30%
per year since 1991. This is an unprecedented growth rate in a market
that has only grown at an average of 3% to 5% per year since 1991.
The US trade deficit has climbed to astronomic proportions
fueled in large part due to our soaring trade deficit with China.
Suspending the duty will only serve to accelerate the rate of growth of
our trade deficit.
US based activated carbon manufacturers serving the
municipal water and wastewater treatment markets have idled and reduced
capacity. These actions have eliminated US industrial workers of their
livelihood and have taken place largely due to the sharp decrease in
pricing due to inexpensive imported activated carbons mainly from
China. Specifically, CCC has been forced to make several major
production capacity decisions. In response to artificially low priced
activated carbon produced in China flooding markets in Japan, US, and
Europe, In November 1991 CCC permanently shutdown an activated carbon
production line at our Kentucky plant eliminating 18 million pounds of
capacity. In November 1999 we permanently shutdown another activated
carbon production line at our Kentucky plant and an activated carbon
pellet production line at our Pennsylvania plant eliminating an
additional 25 million pounds of capacity. In May 2000 we will have
completed our shutdown an activated carbon production line in Belgium
eliminating 25 million pounds of capacity. The total job loss due to
the elimination of our production capacity is approximately 220
employees in the US and 100 employees in Belgium.
US based activated carbon manufacturers are held to
stringent environmental standards which is commendable considering
activated carbon is one of the major solutions to air and water
pollution. Yet, it is ironic that countries exporting activated carbon
do not hold their manufacturers to the same environmental standards.
This is especially true in China where no air pollution abatement
equipment is utilized in their production of activated carbon from high
ash coals. The air pollution they create at their plants knows no
boundaries. It travels across the Pacific Ocean and ends up in US water
supplies where activated carbon is required to make the water
drinkable.
In conclusion, CCC and other US activated carbon manufacturers are
quite similar to many large and more publicized US industries such as
steel manufacturers who are also facing challenges from inexpensive
imports. Their arguments against foreign manufactures are similar to
ours along with the specific reasons noted above. At this time we see
no logical reason why suspending the 4.8% duty is prudent. Rather, we
recommend increasing the duty to 10-15%.
We appreciate the opportunity to express of our position. If you
have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (412) 787-6762.
Sincerely,
Karl D. Krause
Marketing Manager Carbon Platform
H.R. 3755
To suspend temporarily the duty on certain buff brushes.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3757
To temporarily suspend the duty on Solvent Blue 124.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3758
To temporarily suspend the duty on Solvent Blue 104.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3759
To temporarily suspend the duty on Pigment Red 176.
see SunChemical Corporation under H.R. 3739.
H.R. 3760
To temporarily suspend the duty on benzenesulfonamide, 4-
amino-2, 5-dimethyoxy-N-phenyl
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3762
To suspend temporarily the duty on undecylenic acid.
ELF Atochem North America, Inc
Arlington, VA 22209
May 10, 2000
The Hon. A. L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
RE: Copy of Statement of Purpose Submitted Upon Request to the U.S.
International Trade Commission and to U.S. Department of Commerce
Covering Duty Suspension for Undecylenic Acid (HR 3762).
Dear Mr. Singleton,
In response to inquiries made by both the U.S. International Trade
Commission and the U.S. Department of Commerce, the enclosed document
was prepared in support of passage of the measure. On behalf of Elf
Atochem NA, importer of the products designated, I am submitting these
copies to the Committee for the record.
Thank you for your attention. Please advise should your office have
additional questions.
Regards,
Charles A. Kitchen
Director--Government Relations
ELF Atochem/ATO--Product/Market Information
Note: This information is provided in response to U.S.
International Trade Commission inquiry.
Product Information and Project Import Volume Data for Undecylenic Acid
(H.R. 3762 & S. 2427)
CAS Reference Number
Undecylenic Acid -CAS #112-38-9
Background
Undecylenic acid is a carboxylic acid derived from natural
castor oil. It is used in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals,
cosmetics and perfumery including anti-dandruff shampoos, anti-
microbial powders and as a musk in perfumes and aromas.
Undecylenic acid is not produced in the U.S. It must be
imported. Imported undecylenic acid is subject to a 6.1% duty
under HTS 2916.19.30.
Undecylenic Acid should be re-classified as duty free
No Domestic production. There are no U.S.
producers of undecylenic acid that would be affected by re-
classifying undecylenic acid as duty free.
Derived from a renewable resource. Undecylenic
acid is derived from castor oil and is of very high purity
(98%), which is not typical of carboxylic acids of this type.
Production / Importation
Importer: Elf Atochem North America, Inc., Corporate
Headquarters, 2000 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Tel:
215/419-7000
Undecylenic acid is produced at Elf Atochem SA's production
facility in Marseilles, France. Material is imported by Elf
Atochem N.A. for direct sale to end-user market customers. No
subsequent production processing is required. Imported material
is warehoused in the following location prior to shipment to
end-use customers:
Stored at Edison, NJ (Linden Distribution). Imported
through New York. No additional processing at any Elf Atochem
facilities.
H.R. 3763
To suspend temporarily the duty on n-Heptaldehyde.
ELF ATOCHEM North America, Inc.
Arlington, VA 22209
May 10, 2000
The Hon. A. L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
RE: Copy of Statement of Purpose Submitted Upon Request to the U.S.
International Trade Commission and to U.S. Department of Commerce
Covering Duty Suspension for n-Heptaldehyde (HR 3763).
Dear Mr. Singleton,
In response to inquiries made by both the U.S. International Trade
Commission and the U.S. Department of Commerce, the enclosed document
was prepared in support of passage of the measure. On behalf of Elf
Atochem NA, importer of the products designated, I am submitting these
copies to the Committee for the record.
Thank you for your attention. Please advise should your office have
additional questions.
Regards,
Charles A. Kitchen
Director--Government Relations
ELF Atochem/ATO--Product/Market Information
Note: This information is provided in response to U.S.
International Trade Commission inquiry.
Product Information and Project Import Volume Data for n-Heptaldehyde
(H.R. 3763 & S. 2428)
CAS Reference Number
n-Heptaldehyde -CAS # 111-71-7
Background
N-heptaldehyde is an aldehyde that is derived from natural
castor oil. It is used primarily in the manufacture of alpha
amyl cinnamic aldehyde (ACA), a key ingredient in fragrances
and perfumes as well as for certain industrial uses, including
tire manufacture. N-heptaldehyde is not produced in the U.S. It
must be imported. Imported n-heptaldehyde is subject to a 5.5%
duty under HTS 2912.50.50.
n-Heptaldehyde should be re-classified as duty free.
No Domestic production. There are no U.S.
producers of n-heptaldehyde that would be affected by re-
classifying n-heptaldehyde as duty free.
Production / Importation
Importer: Elf Atochem North America, Inc., Corporate
Headquarters, 2000 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Tel:
215/419-7000
The material, n-Heptaldehyde, is produced at Elf Atochem
SA's production facility in Marseilles, France. Material is
imported by Elf Atochem N.A. for direct sale to end-user market
customers. No subsequent production processing is required.
Imported material is warehoused in the following location prior
to shipment to end-use customers:
Stored at Edison, NJ (Linden Distribution). Imported
through New York. No additional processing at any ATO site.
Please Note: In response to your earlier inquiry, Firmenich
and Penta Manufacturing are Elf Atochem's customers for n-
heptaldehyde. Aldrich has not bought from us in the recent
past, but they are a supplier of laboratory quantities
(milliliters to liters). They have over 30,000 items in their
catalog. They do not produce n-heptaldehyde in any commercial
quantity.
H.R. 3764
To suspend temporarily the duty on n-Heptanoic acid.
ELF ATOCHEM North America, Inc.
Arlington, VA 22209
May 10, 2000
The Hon. A. L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
RE: Copy of Statement of Purpose Submitted Upon Request to the U.S.
InternationalTrade Commission and to U.S. Department of Commerce
Covering Duty Suspension for n-Heptanoic Acid (HR 3764).
Dear Mr. Singleton,
In response to inquiries made by both the U.S. International Trade
Commission and the U.S. Department of Commerce, the enclosed document
was prepared in support of passage of the measure. On behalf of Elf
Atochem NA, importer of the products designated, I am submitting these
copies to the Committee for the record.
Thank you for your attention. Please advise should your office have
additional questions.
Regards,
Charles A. Kitchen
Director, Government Relations
ELF Atochem/ATO--Product/Market Information
Note: This information is provided in response to U.S.
International Trade Commission inquiry.
Product Information and Project Import Volume Data for n-Heptanoic Acid
(H.R. 3764 & S. 2426)
CAS Reference Number
n-Heptanoic Acid -CAS # 114-14-8
Background
Imported n-heptanoic acid is a carboxylic acid that is
derived from natural castor oil. It is used to make lubricants
(including those for jet engines), paint additives and in
manufacturing a plastisizer for PVB (polyvinyl butyral), an
interlayer in laminated safety glass for auto and architectural
applications.
Domestically produced n-heptanoic acid is a synthetic
product. It is used for similar applications, but is derived
from hexene, a petrochemical. The supply of domestically
produced n-heptanoic acid is not sufficient to meet the
domestic demand. Even with imports, the domestic demand for n-
heptanoic acid exceeds the available supply Imported n-
heptanoic acid is subject to a 4.2% duty under HTS 2915.90.18.
n-Heptanoic Acid should be re-classified as duty free.
1. Environmentally advantageous to use imported n-heptanoic
Acid. The environmental advantage of using imported n-heptanoic
acid is that it is based on a renewable resource, Castor oil,
which is a vegetable oil. The imported product is also very
pure. The domestic product is synthetic. It is manufactured by
reacting hexene, a flammable liquid petrochemical, with carbon
monoxide (a toxic gas) and hydrogen gas (explosive). Since
imported n-heptanoic acid is derived from a natural and
renewable resource, hazardous chemical precursors are not
utilized in the production process.
Domestic production is not sufficient to satisfy
domestic demand. Projected Y2000 domestic demand for n-
heptanoic acid is estimated at 48 million lbs. In 1999, U.S.
sales of imported n-heptanoic acid were approximately 15
million lbs. and U.S. sales of domestically produced n-
heptanoic acid were approximately 31 million lbs. No U.S.
producer or any other potential new producers have indicated an
intent to increase or start-up production of n-heptanoic acid
in the U.S.
Production / Importation
Importer: Elf Atochem North America, Inc., Corporate
Headquarters, 2000 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Tel:
215/419-7000
The material, n-heptanoic acid is produced at Elf Atochem
SA's production facility in Marseilles, France. Material is
imported by Elf Atochem N.A. for direct sale to end-user market
customers. No subsequent production processing is required.
Imported material is warehoused in the following location prior
to shipment to end-use customers:
No additional processing occurs at any Elf Atochem site.
Imported product is stored at Elizabeth, NJ (Croda Storage).
Imported through New York City.
H.R. 3772
To suspend temporarily the duty on pigment yellow 199.
see SunChemical Corporation under H.R. 3739.
H.R. 3773
To suspend temporarily the duty on pigment blue 60.
see SunChemical Corporation under H.R. 3739.
H.R. 3774
To suspend temporarily the duty on solvent violet 13.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3775
To suspend temporarily the duty on solvent blue 67.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3776
To suspend temporarily the duty on pigment yellow 147.
see SunChemical Corporation under H.R. 3739.
H.R. 3777
To suspend temporarily the duty on pigment yellow 191.1.
see SunChemical Corporation under H.R. 3739.
H.R. 3778
To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States to provide duty-free treatment for, and clarify the
classification of, machines and components used in the
manufacture of digital versatile discs (DVDs).
Statement of Alex Greenspan on Behalf of Digital Matrix Corporation,
Hempstead, New York
I am Alex Greenspan, president of Digital Matrix
Corporation, a New York-based company that manufactures and
integrates equipment used for the production of optical disc
media, including compact discs (CDs) and digital versatile
discs (DVDs). Of the three major components of the DVD
production process (mastering, electroforming, and
replication), Digital Matrix specializes in electroforming.
Specifically, Digital Matrix manufactures electroforming
equipment used to produce, by an electolytic plating process,
CD/DVD stampers from CD/DVD masters, which are then used to
produce CDs and DVDs.
Digital Matrix's comments concern those duty suspension
bills, H.R. 3778 through H.R. 3795, currently before the
Subcommittee that relate to the optical disc industry, and
specifically to the importation of equipment used to
manufacture DVD media. These bills would eliminate the tariff
on the importation of such equipment, in a misguided and
unnecessary attempt to stimulate growth of the DVD format.
Digital Matrix vigorously opposes these bills. The impact would
be to increase the market advantage and profits of the foreign
manufacturers at the expense of U.S. companies. Further, it is
patently unfair to suspend tariffs for foreign companies when
no such tariff relief is available for the same U.S. made
products sold in European and Asian markets. Furthermore, these
bills would inflict special harm on domestic companies as the
same tariff-free equipment used for DVD production can and will
be used to produce a wide range of optical media including CD-
ROMs and audio CDs.
The introduction of these bills is predicated on the
representations of foreign companies, specifically Japan's
Panasonic and the Dutch Toolex/ODME, that there are no US
companies involved in the manufacturing of optical disc media
producing equipment. This is quite simply not so, as these
companies well know. In fact, there are numerous U.S. companies
competing in this arena, including ourselves, Optical Digital
Corporation, and Record Products of America. The only
difference is that most of the US equipment manufacturers adopt
to a modular design, while most foreign makers tend to produce
all-in-one in-line equipment. Despite Toolex's assertions that
the development and production of optical storage media started
in Europe, much of the development, testing, and production of
these new formats has been performed in the United States.
While both Toolex and Panasonic claim that all or nearly all
equipment used by domestic DVD manufacturers is of foreign
origin, again this is simply false. In fact the majority of
electroforming equipment alone (Digital Matrix's sole line of
business) used in the United States is of domestic origin.
As a U.S. company, Digital Matrix constantly struggles in
foreign markets. This difficult task is complicated by several
factors. First, the strength of the U.S. Dollar increases the
price of our equipment abroad. Second Digital Matrix must
overcome the distinct ``anti-American'' sentiment pervasive in
European, and to some extent Asian, markets. Only with our top-
quality equipment backed up by the best support in the industry
are we able to overcome this bias. The tariffs on American
products only exacerbate the situation.
Our competitors have clearly embarked on an aggressive
campaign to increase their already substantial market share of
the US Market. For example, Toolex has acquired many of its
competitors, including one US company. By using such anti-
competitive practices as ``dumping,'' ``bundling,'' and ``tie-
in sales,'' we believe that Toolex has crossed the line into
attempting to dominate the market. In many cases, Toolex will
only sell mastering equipment to a customer who buys
electroforming equipment with it.
Toolex and Panasonic allege relieving them of the required
tariff on the machinery they export to the US will make US DVD
manufacturers more competitive. Realistically though, the cost
of machinery used to produce DVD's is only a fraction of the
cost of each DVD, and the three percent tariff Toolex pays
would not likely find its way to lower priced DVDs. The three
percent is enough, however, to encourage the use of domestic
equipment.
While the foreign corporations recommending this favorable
treatment for themselves attempt to draw a parallel to the 1994
tariff relief for foreign producers of video laser disks
(VLDs), this is a poor analogy. DVDs are much more than the
next incarnation of VLDs. Equipment used in the production of
VLDs served to produce only VLD discs used for home movie
viewing. DVD equipment, on the other hand, has a substantially
broader range of uses. Also, while there were no major domestic
manufactureres of VLD machinery in 1994 thus necessitating
imported equipment, there are a number of DVD equipment
manufacturers, as previously stated. Additionally, the 1994
tariff relief effectively eviscerated the market for US made
VLD manufacturing machinery, and eventually served to move the
production of VLDs themselves offshore. The same will happen to
the DVD, audio CD, and CD-ROM production if these bills are
passed.
Additionally, it is important to understand that DVD
manufacturing is essentially the same as CD manufacturing.
There is almost no difference between the way a CD stamper is
made and the way a DVD stamper is made. The only major
difference is that the specifications and tolerances are more
rigorous for DVD stampers than for CD stampers. The basic
process, however, is the same. As a result, equipment imported
tariff-free as DVD producing equipment will also be used to
produce audio CDs, video game discs, computer CD-ROMs, and
other formats with little or no modification. Thus, a lifting
of tariffs on DVD-related equipment is effectively a lifting of
tariffs relevant to such other media as well.
In addition to the damage to the businesses that produce
DVD and CD manufacturing equipment, the upstream effects could
be significant as well. Digital Matrix contracts millions of
dollars worth of business from dozens of vendors that produce
and supply parts, components, design work, assemblies, and
services necessary to produce such a technology intensive
product. A sample partial list Digital Matrix's suppliers is
attached as Exhibit A. Other domestic manufacturers have
similar support networks. The loss of business to Digital
Matrix and the other domestic optical disc companies affected
would affect potentially hundreds of companies, and thousands
of American employees. While Toolex believes their theoretical
increase in domestic DVD production will mean more jobs, this
will surely be more than offset by the offshore production of
these machines and their components.
Finally, Toolex has stated that there will be no loss of
tariff revenue. Their tortured logic states that ``any loss of
revenue . . . would be set off against the duties gained
through Customs' reclassification of DVD machines. It is simply
inconceivable that by importing these machines duty-free,
Customs will collect more tariff revenue.
In conclusion, in addition to the loss to the U.S. of
millions in tariff revenue, the net effect of this legislation
would be great harm to American businesses, the loss of
American jobs, and the tariff-free importation of many types of
optical disc equipment, all to serve the interests of foreign
corporations and further tilt the playing field in their favor.
We therefore urge the subcommittee to reject these bills, and
any future similar bills.
[An attachment is being retained in Committee files.]
International Electronics Manufacturers
and Consumers of America
Washington, DC
May 19, 2000
The Honorable Bill Archer
Chairman
Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: H.R. 3778 through H.R. 3795--Committee Request for Comments on
Miscellaneous Tariff and Technical Measures
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am writing on behalf of the International Electronics
Manufacturers and Consumers of America (``IEMCA''), to endorse
legislation to provide tariff relief for machinery and components used
to make digital versatile discs (DVDs).
IEMCA is a trade association founded in 1987 and located in
Washington, D.C. IEMCA's principal members are major manufacturers of
consumer electronics; optical, telecommunications, and computer
products; DVDs and DVD machinery. IEMCA's associate members are leading
electronics retailers. The U.S. investment of IEMCA's members and their
direct suppliers exceeds $75 billion, their annual U.S. sales exceed
$100 billion, and they employ over 300,000 American workers.
IEMCA advocates enactment of legislation, H.R. 3778 through H.R.
3795, introduced by Congressman Collins (R., Georgia), with Congressmen
Boehner (R., Ohio), Kuykendall (R., California), and Matsui (D.,
California). This legislation will increase U.S. employment, reduce
U.S. production costs, enable domestic producers to be more competitive
in this important sector of the electronics industry, and, we believe,
harm no domestic producers. It will also help to deter widespread
piracy of software and entertainment media around the world by
encouraging DVD production in the U.S., where anti-piracy laws are
strongest.
DVD Technology.
DVDs, using cutting-edge optical disc technology, provide consumers
the highest quality audio and video reproduction. Used in DVD players,
as part of home theater systems, and in DVD-ROM-equipped computers,
these discs have grown enormously in popularity since their
introduction in 1997. In three years, sales of DVDs have grown from 8
million units annually to a projected 586 million units in 2000. In
fact, it is expected that DVD technology will replace both
videocassette tapes and video laser discs as the preferred medium for
presentation of movies in the home.
There are at least 17 domestic producers of DVDs, including
Hitachi, JVC, Panasonic, Sanyo, Sony, and Time Warner.
DVDs are the ``next generation'' recorded video media in the
marketplace, succeeding video laser discs (VLDs) that were produced in
the early 1990s. Recent advancements in technology enable DVDs to hold
more recordings on smaller discs than VLDs. The machines that make DVDs
consist of several components (including a master recording system, a
replicating system, and such individual machines as a laser encoder and
an injection mold machine) that function together to produce DVDs.
In 1994, Congress passed new, duty-free tariff legislation for VLD
manufacturing machines. It helped companies like Time Warner (WEA
Manufacturing) create and save jobs in the U.S. that were threatened as
a result of foreign production of CDs and VLDs. Importantly, the 1994
legislation did not adversely affect any U.S. company because the
industry-standard optical disc technology, such as that used in VLDs
and DVDs, was first developed overseas.
Shortly after enactment of the legislation allowing duty-free
import of machines that make VLDs, home video entertainment shifted to
DVDs. Production was shifted from VLDs to DVDs using substantially the
same systems, and companies like Panasonic began manufacturing DVDs in
the U.S. Accordingly, a proper interpretation of existing law would
accord DVD manufacturing machines the same duty-free treatment as VLD
manufacturing machines. The Customs Service, however, has ruled that
DVD manufacturing machines are not explicitly named in current law, and
that the components of DVD manufacturing machines should be classified
under several separate tariff headings, bearing an average duty of 3
percent. This ruling has had the effect of negating the benefits that
Congress intended when it passed legislation in 1994.
Benefits.
The proposed legislation would help make domestic DVD manufacturers
more competitive with foreign DVD manufacturers. Competition from
Taiwan, Japan, and the European Union in particular is very strong. A
recent study indicated that some overseas competitors are trying to
sell their DVD discs in the U.S. at a price as low as 75 cents each,
compared to a cost of $1.61 for domestic production.
There is also a major anomaly in DVD manufacture and import: Duties
on imported DVDs (up to 2.7 percent) are lower than duties on DVD
manufacturing machines themselves (up to 4.4 percent), a fact which
encourages foreign production at the expense of domestic production.
The proposed legislation would remove this anomaly, thereby stimulating
U.S. jobs in DVD manufacturing in the U.S.
According to industry analysts, demand for DVDs is expected to rise
from 586 million units in 2000 to 2.3 billion units in 2003. Demand for
DVDs is expected to increase further as recordable DVDs come on line in
2001. This market development will be enhanced by the legislation
advocated by IEMCA.
The proposed legislation also will protect U.S. intellectual
property rights. Movie studios have invested heavily in the protection
of movie content for DVDs. Keeping production of DVDs in the U.S.,
rather than in countries that have weaker intellectual property laws
and enforcement, will help prevent the mass piracy of software that
occurs overseas.
IEMCA believes that the enactment of the legislation providing
duty-free entry of DVD machinery and components will not injure any
domestic producer.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IEMCA strongly supports
prompt enactment of H.R. 3778 through H.R. 3795.
Respectfully submitted,
Keith Smith
Executive Director
[Attachments are being retained in the Committee files.]
May 18, 2000
The Honorable Bill Archer
House Ways and Means Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Archer:
Recently, I joined my colleagues, Representatives Mac Collins, John
Boehner, and Bob Matsui, to introduce legislation suspending the duties
on the machinery and components necessary for the manufacture of
digital versatile discs (DVDs). I urge that these bills be included in
the Committee's miscellaneous tariff package that it will consider
shortly.
Our legislation, represented by House Resolutions 3778-3795, is
intended to help domestic DVD manufacturers compete against companies
who make DVDs in Hong Kong and Taiwan at half the cost. One of the
reasons for this lower cost is that these countries do not face the
prospect of paying duties on the manufacturing equipment.
I am particularly supportive of this legislation because one of the
major domestic manufacturing companies, Panasonic Disc Services, is
located in my district. Although a major player in the domestic disc
market, Panasonic is just one of 17 domestic companies manufacturing
16.6 million discs annually, to serve entertainment industry companies
such as Universal, Paramount, and Disney. None of the equipment
necessary to manufacture DVDs is made in the United States. It must all
be imported. Although DVDs are arguably the next generation of video
laser disc technology that receives tariff-free treatment, the Customs
Service ruled that DVD manufacturing equipment should not be classified
under these provisions. Instead, Customs indicated that the 17
different components of DVD manufacturing machines should be classified
under 11 separate tariff headings, with an average duty of three
percent.
The purpose of our legislation is to make clear that the 17
different components should, like the earlier generation technology,
receive duty-free treatment. In turn, this will reduce per unit
production costs for DVDs, helping domestic manufacturers remain
competitive while ensuring good paying, high-tech jobs for Torrance,
California, Pickneyville, Illinois and other sites around the country.
Demand for DVDs worldwide is expected to reach 394 million units
this year, with much of the production likely to occur in the United
States. For US companies to remain viable in this exploding
marketplace, it must receive tariff relief on the production equipment.
For this reason, I urge the inclusion of these bills within the
Committee's miscellaneous tariff relief package that it is now
considering.
Thank you for considering this request. I am happy to discuss this
with you in greater detail.
Sincerely,
Steven T. Kuykendall
Member of Congress
Statement of Richard L. Wilkinson, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, California
My name is Richard L. Wilkinson, and I am President and CEO
of Optical Disc Corporation (ODC). ODC is a U.S. manufacturer
of optical disc mastering system machinery and components. ODC
holds 12 U.S. patents in optical disc technology, and its staff
was part of the U.S. team that developed the world's first
optical disc masters, video laser discs (VLDs) and recordable
laser videodiscs (RLVs). We are deeply concerned about bills
H.R. 3778 through H.R. 3795 which would suspend import tariffs
on foreign machinery and components used to manufacture digital
versatile discs (DVDs) as well as amend all HTS production
classification codes to include equipment used to manufacture
DVDs. The legislation would be detrimental to the U.S.
government, domestic equipment manufacturers, suppliers, and,
ultimately, U.S. consumers.
Suspending import tariffs on the equipment our foreign
competitors provide to the U.S. customer base would provide
them with an unfair trade advantage over domestic competition.
During our 17 years in business, we have seen large direct
foreign competitors, including Toolex International/ODME, Sony
and Panasonic, Nimbus, and others enter the market with their
own government-backed programs for financing, reducing prices,
and driving down our pricing structures and profits. We
estimate that the current foreign trade advantages have
directly resulted in a 75 percent loss in U.S. market share for
ODC.
Contrary to statements made by proponents of this
legislation, the U.S. has at least three major suppliers of
optical disc manufacturing equipment. These suppliers serve
both domestic and international customers and are supported by
thousands of U.S.-based sub-suppliers. There are also well over
300 optical disc manufacturers and VHS duplication houses in
the U.S. that have the potential to evolve into DVD producers.
This legislation would impact a greater marketplace and
involve much greater loses in tariff revenue for the U.S.,
potentially in the multiple millions of dollars, than what has
been conveyed by the bills' proponents. The bills would not
only impact suppliers of optical disc manufacturing equipment,
but would also have significant impacts on the companies that
supply optical disc manufacturers. Suspending these import
tariffs would have a significant ripple effect that would
negatively impact many hundreds of U.S. companies and thousands
of domestic jobs. We strongly oppose these bills.
If any of these bills became law, they would effectively
eliminate tariff duties on all optical disc manufacturing
equipment, not just DVDs. Foreign suppliers would easily be
able to claim their compact disc (CD) and multi-format
production equipment as ``DVD equipment'' in order to evade
customs tariffs. In most cases, the equipment used to produce
DVDs is actually multi-format equipment that can produce other
formats as well, including:
CD-ROM (retail computer software),
CD-Audio (music CDs),
Discs for game consoles,
CD-R, and
Various types of hybrid discs.
In addition, DVD equipment that is not multi-format is
designed to be easily reconfigured for CD production.
The representations of the bills' proponents not
withstanding, DVD is not simply a replacement of the video
laser disc (VLD). DVD, unlike the VLD, was originally designed
to be a generic digital data carrier, not just a movie medium.
Uses for DVD include movie distribution, video console games,
video presentations and advertising, computer software, audio,
and others. Therefore it is important to recognize that, unlike
VLD tariff legislation passed in 1994, the customs tariff
exemptions embodied in these bills would be applied to
equipment that serves a much larger marketplace.
The VLD experience, however, does offer a glimpse of what
the impact of these bills would be. After the 1994 legislation
that suspended tariffs on VLD equipment, U.S. manufacturers of
high quality VLD equipment could no longer compete in the
domestic marketplace. After 1994, all new VLD mastering
equipment started coming from Japan and was installed in U.S.
plants owned by Japanese equipment manufacturers. Eventually,
foreign manufacturers moved all of their VLD production from
the U.S., back to their own countries.
Contrary to statements made by the proponents of these
bills, it is not true that jobs are being lost to foreign
entities because of the current import tariffs. By continuing
to allow U.S. equipment companies to have a domestic trade
advantage, CD/DVD manufacturing equipment jobs in the U.S. will
remain steady or grow. The proposed bills will only benefit
foreign competitors and stimulate the economies of foreign
governments.
Further, jobs that might be created by expanded DVD
production can only mean the net loss of jobs in the VHS tape
duplication industry. The majority of DVD production in the
U.S. is used for the release of movies, which is in direct
competition with the current U.S. VHS tape duplication
industry. The domestic VHS tape duplication industry has almost
no competition from anywhere else in the world. Ultimately,
most industry experts agree that the VHS duplication industry
will be replaced by the DVD replication industry. Thus any of
the supposed benefits to domestic DVD production will be at the
expense of the domestic VHS industry.
We would like to clarify that, in spite of suggestions by
our foreign competitors to the contrary, in-line mastering
systems compete directly with modular/batch mastering systems
in the same market. To clarify, in-line systems are those that
complete all of the components of the process sequentially as
to each DVD master. Modular/batch systems complete work on each
component as to a group of masters before proceeding to the
next component. H.R. 3780 defines DVD mastering machinery as an
``in-line system machine,'' which is how some foreign
competitors define their mastering equipment. We believe that
this ``in-line system machine'' definition may be an attempt to
confuse the issue and to make it appear that this type of
equipment is not currently manufactured in the U.S. The
machinery should be referred to as ``mastering equipment'' or
``mastering systems,'' which can be designed either as an in-
line style or modular/batch style system. Both are automated
mastering systems. Both provide the same function and product--
CD and DVD master discs.
Optical Disc Corporation's mastering systems have a
modular/batch design, and incorporate the complete set of
components necessary to produce master discs (see The ODC
Mastering System--Introduction). ODC is also currently
developing an in-line system, which is being planned for
release in late 2000.
Panasonic Disc Services Corporation (PDSC), a vocal
proponent of these bills, has argued that ``Optical Disc
Corporation (U.S. Company) makes the laser encoder, a major
component of the mastering system, but their machines use
technology that is incompatible with PDSC technology.'' (see
May 2, 2000 letter to Hon. Lynn Bragg from Robert B. Pfannkuch,
page 2) Essentially PDSC is supporting this legislation as
necessary because they claim there is no domestically-made
equipment available that is compatible with their systems.
However, on July 23, 1998, Mitchell Brown, General Manager,
Manufacturing and Process Engineering at PDSC sent an e-mail to
staff at ODC confirming the compatibility of ODC's mastering
technology with their own (see July 23, 1998 e-mail--
Replication Tests using Optical Disc Corporation Stampers). We
believe these sorts misrepresentations should pose serious
concerns regarding the credibility and motives of PDSC as a
proponent of this legislation.
We do not think it is appropriate to enact legislation that
is detrimental to the success of U.S. manufacturers nationwide.
We do not believe Congress should consider providing foreign
companies, which already dominate the U.S. marketplace, with
such a strong competitive advantage when U.S. companies, such
as ODC, remain levied with tariffs whenever we sell the same
type of equipment into their countries. Eliminating import
tariffs for foreign entities without the elimination of tariffs
on U.S. goods imported overseas would ultimately place U.S.
firms at an even greater trade disadvantage and burden the U.S.
government with an even wider trade imbalance.
We urge you to consider the potentially significant adverse
implications of enacting legislation such as this, and we hope
that you will ultimately oppose these bills, or others like
them in the future.
[Attachments are being retained in the Committee files.]
Panasonic
Torrance, CA
May 19, 2000
The Honorable Bill Archer
Chairman
Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Re: H.R. 3778-3795--Committee Request for Comments on Miscellaneous
Tariff and Technical Measures
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As President of Panasonic Disc Services Corporation (PDSC) in
Torrance, California, I wish to express my strong support for H.R.
3778-3795, duty-suspension legislation for machinery used to
manufacture digital versatile discs (DVDs), introduced by Congressman
Mac Collins, and co-sponsored, by Congressman Steve Kuykendall,
representing our factory; Congressman Bob Matsui, representing JVC,
another DVD manufacturer; and Congressman John Boehner, representing
other Panasonic facilities. PDSC was established in 1996 and is the
world's first DVD-only replication facility. It is a subsidiary of
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd., one of the leading developers
and producers of digital electronic products for the home and office.
Consumers use DVDs both in DVD players as part of a home theatre
system and in DVD-ROM equipped computers. Based on the growing demand
for DVD, the industry expects, ultimately, that DVDs will replace both
videocassette tapes and video laser discs for home viewing. The leading
DVD producers, such as Panasonic, Sony, Warner, Nimbus/Technicolor,
Deluxe Digital (formerly Pioneer), JVC, and Sonopress, make discs for
such movie studios as Universal, Paramount, Columbia TriStar, and MGM.
All use predominantly imported DVD machinery. Like most of our
competitors, PDSC uses an integrated line of machines to make DVDs,
sourced to our specifications from a number of overseas companies,
including Panasonic.
DVDs are the ``next generation'' video media for the marketplace,
succeeding video laser discs (VLDs) that were produced from the early
1970s through the 1990s. Both VLD and DVD manufacturing machines create
a master, using a laser encoder to create pits on optical recording
media, and then the information on the master is replicated. Although
VLD manufacturing machines enter the United States under one duty-free
tariff provision, the Customs Service ruled that DVD manufacturing
machines must enter the United States under eleven separate tariff
headings, with an average tariff of 3 percent. The total duties on an
average line, therefore, are approximately $75,000.
There are only a limited number of DVD disc manufacturers in the
United States. This group is small because the technology is still new,
the initial investment cost in establishing a production line is high,
and every manufacturer must have a guaranteed source of content for the
discs, which currently is predominantly from the movie studios. For
instance, PDSC makes discs for Universal, Fox, and Paramount; and
Warner makes discs for Warner, New Line, MGM and Artisan.
There are two major operations in making DVDs--mastering and
replication. The mastering system used by PDSC consists of a series of
steps to make the ``master'' copy and uses the industry standard
photoresist technology. The first step is the preparation of a glass
substrate by chemically cleaning and polishing the glass. Next, the
glass substrate is loaded into the in-line mastering machine for a
mechanical cleaning and a photoresist coating. The newly created glass
master is then transferred automatically to the laser beam recorder.
The recording machine modulates the laser to record information onto
the surface of the photoresist, creating a layer of digitally recorded
information. After rinsing the glass master with a developing solution,
the result is a series of digitally encoded pits in the surface of the
photoresist. A sputtering machine then deposits a thin film of nickel
onto the surface of the master, and the master then is cycled through
an electrolytic plating bath. The electrolytic nickel layer of bumps,
carefully removed from the master disc, is called a ``stamper.'' An
ashing machine cleans the stamper's surface, a lapping machine polishes
the back of the stamper; and a center hole is punched in the stamper to
complete the mastering process.
The replication process (making copies from the ``stamper'')
consists of three major and separate manufacturing operations. First,
during the molding process, the stampers are installed in custom DVD
molds and, using injection molding machines, the mold cavities are
filled with a polycarbonate molding resin. As this molding resin cools
in the mold cavity, it replicates the layer of bumps on the stamper as
pits in the plastic substrates. The molded substrate is now an exact
copy of the original master. Second, during the metalizing process, the
encoded substrates are coated with a reflective metal layer. The
encoded side of the single-sided replica is sputtered with a reflective
layer of aluminum. The top-side layer of a dual layer disc (layer 1) is
sputtered with aluminum. The bottom layer of the dual layer disc (layer
0) is sputtered with gold. The aluminum-coated substrates and the gold-
coated substrates are then stacked on separate spindles before the
final bonding process. During the bonding process, an adhesive is
dispensed between the two substrate layers. A DVD-5 has one encoded
aluminum substrate and one clear ``dummy'' substrate. A DVD-9, dual
layer disc, has one encoded aluminum substrate and one encoded gold
substrate. The UV bonding resin is cured using UV light to create a
permanent bond between the substrates. An optical inspection machine or
laser scanner checks each disc for defects. Finally, label art is
printed on the backside using an offset or silk-screen printing method,
and the finished DVDs are then packaged and wrapped.
Although there are a number of manufacturers of CD equipment (a
similar technology), only a limited number of companies, called
integrators (e.g., Panasonic, Sony, and Toolex), provide a full DVD
production system, sourcing from a number of companies, predominantly
located overseas. A DVD mastering system, consisting of eight separate
machines designed to work together, uses very advanced technology, and
consequently has only a few manufacturers. Examples of integrators that
provide mastering system equipment, are Panasonic, Sony, Toolex,
Nimbus, and Optical Disc Corporation. Examples of integrators that
provide replication system equipment are Panasonic, Singulus, Marubeni,
and FirstLight. Other companies produce the individual machines or
``batch'' systems for either the mastering or replication process, but
do not produce the entire DVD production system.
Between our facility in Torrance, California and a joint venture
with Universal Music in Pinckneyville, Illinois, we employ over 1000
employees, and we anticipate PDSC employment to be 1,500 by 2003. By
July 2000, the two plants will be producing 5.2 million DVD discs per
month on 22 lines; and by 2001, we plan to be producing 10 million DVD
discs per month. To meet these projected numbers and an increasing
consumer demand, we anticipate the need for additional lines and plan
to have 66 lines running by 2004. In fact, the DVD machinery industry
estimates that within three years there will be a demand for 92 new
mastering systems and 275 new replicating systems valued at $600
million. However, that investment is small compared to the value of the
discs they will produce. By 2003, the industry expects to be making 227
billion DVD discs per year, at a retail value of $136 billion.
Currently the U.S. industry faces competition from overseas makers
of DVD discs who are trying to sell their discs at one-half the cost of
production in the United States. In addition, the average 3 percent
U.S. tariff on machines to make DVDs is higher than the EU tariff of
1.7 percent and the 0 percent tariff in Japan, and the 2.7 percent
tariff on the imported DVD discs themselves is lower than the average 3
percent duty on the imported machinery. Reduced production costs for
PDSC and other DVD disc manufacturers in the United States would help
the DVD industry be more competitive and ensure the growth of
employment in the United States as the demand for DVDs grows
dramatically. This legislation would alleviate that unfairness.
In addition, the proposed legislation will protect U.S.
intellectual property rights. Because of strong IP laws in the United
States, domestic production of DVDs would reduce the threat of
international digital piracy of software by encouraging more production
in the United States, rather than in Taiwan and other Asian countries.
Movie studios have invested heavily in the protection of movie content
for DVDs and fear an increased threat of piracy with the shift to the
DVD format. Keeping production in the United States, rather than in
countries that can produce DVD discs cheaper but have weaker
intellectual property laws and enforcement, will help prevent the mass
piracy of software overseas.
Therefore, we believe duty-suspension legislation for DVD machinery
would be beneficial to the United States and the growing domestic DVD
industry, and should be supported by the U.S. Congress.
Sincerely,
Robert B. Pfannkuch
President
Sony Electronics Inc.
Woodcliff Lake, NJ
May 19, 2000
Mr. A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Archer:
On behalf of Sony Electronics, I wish to express our strong support
for H.R. 3778-H.R. 3795, duty suspension legislation for machinery used
in the manufacture of digital versatile discs (DVDs). Our facility in
Terre Haute, Indiana, which opened in 1983 as the first compact disc
production facility in the United States, will soon employ over 1,100
employees. Sony is adding 25 new DVD production lines, quintupling our
current output from 2 million discs per month to 10 million.
Currently, the U.S. Customs Service classifies the machinery used
to master and replicate DVD discs in a number of separate tariff
heading with average duties of three percent. Consequently, over
several years, Sony has paid substantial duties on this machinery, and
we anticipate continued sizeable duties in the future. Because of 1994
tariff reduction legislation, machinery for manufacturing ``previous
generation'' laser video discs (the precursor to current technology)
enters the United States duty-free.
As you may know, consumer demand for this popular new digital
technology is growing rapidly. Consumers are buying both DVD players as
part of a home theater or mobile entertainment system and DVD-ROM
equipped computers. In fact, in three years, U.S. companies have sold
5.4 million DVD players and analysts predict the sale of an additional
10 million units by the end of the year. Our industry is struggling to
keep up with the incredible demand for discs to play on these machines.
In fact, in the same three years, consumer demand for DVD discs has
grown from eight million to 394 million discs, as analysts expect. By
the year 2003, demand is expected to be 2.27 billion at an estimated ex
factory value of $6.8 billion.
However, the DVD disc industry faces competition from overseas
manufacturers that are trying to sell their discs in the United States
at half U.S. production costs. Elimination of tariffs on the imported
machinery used to manufacture DVD discs would reduce U.S. production
costs and would enable the U.S. producers of DVDs to maintain our
competitiveness in this important area of growth for the electronics
industry.
In addition, because of strong intellectual property laws in the
United States, domestic production of DVDs reduces the risk of
international digital piracy. Movie studios, such as Sony Pictures,
have invested heavily in the protection of movie content for DVDs, but
see an increased threat of piracy with the shift to DVD technology. The
United States can prevent the mass overseas piracy by keeping the
production of DVDs in the United States, rather than allowing overseas
production in countries that have weaker intellectual property laws and
enforcement.
Sony Electronics believes this legislation is good for U.S. high-
technology employment, will reduce U.S. production costs, and will
enable U.S. companies to compete favorably in the world. Therefore, we
urge the Ways and Means Committee to give the legislation favorable
consideration.
Sincerely,
Jim Palumbo
Senior Vice President
External Affairs
Toolex USA
Irvine, CA
May 19, 2000
Mr. A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1100 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: H.R. 3778-H.R. 3795--Committee Press Release TR-20, Request for
Comments on Miscellaneous Tariff and Technical Measures
Dear Mr. Singleton:
On behalf of Toolex USA, Inc. headquartered in Irvine, California,
I am writing to express my strong support for H.R. 3778 -H.R. 3795,
legislation providing tariff relief for machinery used in the
manufacture of digital versatile discs (``DVDs''). Our parent company,
Toolex International is one of the world's largest producers of
machines used for the manufacture of optical discs such as video laser
discs (``VLDs'') and digital versatile discs (``DVDs''). Headquartered
in the Netherlands, Toolex has operations in the United States and
throughout the world. Toolex designs, engineers, manufactures, sells,
services and assembles a complete line of optical discs manufacturing
equipment, including equipment specifically used for the manufacture of
DVDs.
The worldwide market for optical disc media is growing
exponentially and the demand for machines that produce this media is
dramatically increasing as well. From 8 million DVD discs sold in 1997,
industry analysts anticipate year 2000 sales to exceed 580 million,
with over 2.3 billion discs expected to be purchased by 2003. U.S.
sales of DVD players are expected to reach 10 million units by the end
of this year. It is expected that DVDs will replace both VLDs and
videocassette tapes as the preferred medium for the presentation of
movies in the home.
In March 2000, Toolex USA, Inc. made a multi-million dollar
investment in relocating its headquarters and manufacturing operations
to an expanded state-of-the-art facility in Irvine, CA. There, Toolex
USA produces complete mastering machines for compact discs (``CDs''),
which complement our complete lines of optical disc manufacturing
equipment currently produced in Europe. In the next several months,
Toolex USA will also be producing substrates for use with both CD and
DVD mastering machines. Additionally, given the extraordinary demand
for DVDs, Toolex USA expects to begin producing mastering and
replication systems for the DVD manufacturing industry later this year.
As a domestic manufacturer, Toolex USA strongly supports this
legislation because it will increase the size of the U.S. DVD market,
benefiting U.S. equipment producers because there will be more sales of
both mastering and replication systems. U.S. consumers will also
benefit from lower cost DVDs.
As a result of a U.S. Customs Service ruling last year, equipment
used to master and replicate DVDs is classified under a variety of
tariff headings with an average duty rate of three percent. However,
machinery for manufacturing earlier generation video laser discs
(``VLDs'') which is very similar to the equipment used for DVD
production today--enters duty-free, due to tariff reduction legislation
enacted by Congress in 1994. Consequently, our U.S. customers--the
domestic DVD manufacturers--are paying duties amounting to millions of
dollars annually, which places them in a less competitive position vis-
a-vis DVD manufacturers in Japan, Taiwan, China and the European Union.
In addition, due to an anomaly in the U.S. tariff schedules,
imports of finished DVDs enter the United States at a lower duty rate
than imports of machinery used to manufacture the discs, thus placing
U.S. DVD manufacturers at a further disadvantage with their foreign
competitors. As DVD manufacturing is a fairly low profit-margin
business, the relatively small decrease in the U.S. duty rates for
machinery will translate into a significant advantage for American DVD
producers. To further illustrate the worldwide competitive environment,
a recent industry study indicates that some foreign DVD manufacturers
are attempting sell finished discs in the United States at prices as
low as 75 cents each, compared to a U.S. production cost of $1.61.
Clearly, reduced production costs will help American DVD manufacturers
be more competitive and will ensure the continued and growing
employment of American workers in these companies.
The temporary duty suspension legislation will also help U.S. DVD
manufacturers remain competitive in the export market. Currently, DVD
mastering systems may be imported into Japan duty-free. The European
Union charges an essentially nuisance tariff of 1.7 percent--
approximately one-half the rate imposed by the United States. As the
development and refinement of optical disc technology that is now the
industry standard was pioneered in Europe and Japan in the 1980's,
production of DVD manufacturing equipment has been predominantly
foreign. Imports of this machinery currently account for virtually all
of the market in the United States.
Finally, industry surveys indicate that there are no anticipated
imports of VLD manufacturing machines. As DVD is simply the next
generation of VLD, and importantly, there is no production of VLD
machinery, any loss of revenue associated with this legislation should
be offset against the duties gained through Customs' reclassification
of DVD machines. The proposed legislation does not result in any loss
of revenue, but merely clarifies existing legislation and international
commitments to provide duty free treatment to optical disc
manufacturing equipment used to produce home videos. Toolex USA would
like to emphasize that to the extent there is any revenue loss created
by the proposed legislation, this possible loss would be more than
offset by the revenue generated by the creation of DVD manufacturing
jobs in the United States.
In summary, Toolex USA believes that this legislation, which is
good for U.S. high-tech employment, clearly will reduce U.S. DVD
manufacturing costs and will enable U.S. companies to compete favorably
in the world. We urge the Congress to approve H.R. 3778-H.R. 3795 as
soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Arnold S. Block
Executive Vice President
ASB/ck
H.R. 3779
To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs
(DVDs).
see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778
see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778
see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778
see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778
see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778
see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778
see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778
H.R. 3780
To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs
(DVDs).
see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778
see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778
see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778
see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778
see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778
see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778
see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778
H.R. 3781
To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs
(DVDs).
see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778
see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778
see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778
see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778
see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778
see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778
see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778
H.R. 3782
To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs
(DVDs).
see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778
see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778
see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778
see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778
see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778
see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778
see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778
H.R. 3783
To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs
(DVDs).
see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778
see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778
see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778
see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778
see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778
see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778
see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778
H.R. 3784
To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs
(DVDs).
see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778
see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778
see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778
see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778
see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778
see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778
see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778
H.R. 3785
To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs
(DVDs).
see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778
see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778
see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778
see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778
see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778
see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778
see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778
H.R. 3786
To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs
(DVDs).
see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778
see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778
see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778
see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778
see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778
see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778
see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778
H.R. 3787
To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs
(DVDs).
see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778
see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778
see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778
see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778
see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778
see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778
see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778
H.R. 3788
To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs
(DVDs).
see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778
see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778
see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778
see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778
see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778
see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778
see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778
H.R. 3789
To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs
(DVDs).
see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778
see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778
see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778
see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778
see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778
see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778
see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778
H.R. 3790
To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs
(DVDs).
see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778
see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778
see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778
see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778
see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778
see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778
see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778
H.R. 3791
To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their
parts, for use in the maunfacture of digital versatile discs
(DVDs).
see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778
see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778
see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778
see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778
see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778
see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778
see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778
H.R. 3792
To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs
(DVDs).
see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778
see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778
see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778
see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778
see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778
see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778
see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778
H.R. 3793
To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs
(DVDs).
see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778
see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778
see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778
see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778
see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778
see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778
see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778
H.R. 3794
To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs
(DVDs).
see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778
see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778
see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778
see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778
see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778
see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778
see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778
H.R. 3795
To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs
(DVDs).
see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778
see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778
see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778
see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778
see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778
see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778
see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778
H.R. 3796
To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Methyl-4-
chlorophenoxyacetic acid.
May 18, 2000
A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Singleton:
I am writing to offer my comments in support of H.R. 3796, which
would suspend duties on 4-Chloro-2-methylphenoxyacetic acid (``MCPA'').
As an effective herbicide used to control a variety of broadleaved
weeds in a large number of agricultural crops, there would be an
important cost savings from the suspension of the relatively high 9.3%
duty on this important agricultural input. In these times of low
commodity prices, the ability of agricultural producers to continue
reducing their costs of production, it is critical to any possibility
of profitability for our farmers.
These savings also find their way to US consumers that ultimately
are benefited by lower costs of agricultural production.
These cost savings to US growers and consumers are achieved without
any effect on US manufacturers. There are no domestic producers of MCPA
in the United States. Thus no domestic industry is threatened by the
suspension of duties under H.R. 3796.
In addition, the suspension of duties and lowering of costs on
imported MCPA will allow for expansion of employment in my district and
other sites in the United States. Moreover, the duty free importation
of MCPA should increase export opportunities throughout NAFTA and other
export markets, which will result in added manufacturing, distribution
and related administrative employment positions.
Because of the critical cost savings to agriculture, and the
opportunity to generate new jobs from duty free imports of MCPA, I
submit that it will ultimately benefit the economy of the United States
to forego the duty revenue on this imported product in lieu of
commensurate advantages to the US economy from duty suspension.
Sincerely,
Pat Danner
Member of Congress
Nufarm
St. Joseph, MO 64506
May 18, 2000
A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C.
RE: Written Comments Supporting Duty Suspension Bill H.R. 3796 (4-
Chloro-2-methylphenoxyacetic acid (MCPA))
Dear Mr. Singleton:
Pursuant to Advisory TR-20 dated April 20, 2000, we respectfully
submit these supportive comments on behalf of Nufarm Limited and Nufarm
America's, Inc. with respect to H.R. 3796 which concerns the suspension
of duty on 4-Chloro-2-methylphenoxyacetic acid (MCPA).
MCPA is a plant growth regulator-type herbicide used to effectively
control a wide variety of broadleaved weeds in cereals, grasses,
orchards, grapes, flax, sugarcane, pulses, and non-crop areas. MCPA is
currently classified under HTSUS No. 2918.90.2015 with a duty rate of
9.3%. However, imports are duty free under the Generalized System of
Preferences with the exception of India, the Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act, the Andean Trade Preference Act, the United States-Israel
Free Trade Area, and the North American Free Trade Agreement (Canada
and Mexico).
There are no manufacturers of MCPA in the United States. Because
MCPA is not domestically produced and is used in crop protection for
numerous agricultural crops grown in the United States, the market
demand will continue to be met by imports. Furthermore, the suspension
of duties is not expected to result in a price changes that will
substantially change market demand. Thus, there are no grounds on which
to anticipate significant changes in import levels resulting from duty
suspension.
MCPA has a substantial end use as an input for agricultural
application and production. Thus the cost savings from duty will be
strategically important agricultural commodity growers who are
presently experiencing significant price and cost pressures. These duty
savings in part will ultimate benefit the end consumer.
The imported MCPA affected by HR 3796 is involved in significant
downstream production activity. Imported acid product is further
processed into amines and esters, or blended into branded product and
other active ingredients, or formulated into lesser concentrates of
amines and esters at numerous general formulators throughout the United
States. Approximately ten formulators in the United States with over 20
operation sites, in addition to approximately 2-3 local smaller or
family owned blenders per state throughout the United States will
benefit from lower cost and possibly expanded use of duty free
product..
The suspension of duty on MCPA will also create significant export
activity for US producers and formulators. As you are aware, the North
American agricultural commodity market is a major market for
agricultural inputs, including crop protection materials. US producers
and formulators of MCPA based products would have more competitive
access to the significant Canadian and Mexican markets were duty to be
suspended.
Presently under NAFTA requirements, when imported product enters
the United States duty free under bond for formulating or further
processing (i.e, a TIB under HTS 9813.00.05), any subsequent export to
a NAFTA country triggers payment of US duty on the base material
entered under bond as if it were entered for consumption in the United
States. (19 CFR 181.53(A)(2)(i)). That relatively high 9.3% duty must
be born in any cost structure of exports to Canada or Mexico, and
therefore makes US produced product less price competitive. If US duty
were suspended on imported MCPA, US producers and formulators could
export more competitively a wide variety of blended and formulated
products in North America without this cost burden
Because the current tariff rate is staged and is reduced annually,
any loss of revenue will be decreased in the coming years. In addition,
this product is an agricultural input designated for possible
multilateral duty elimination in the ``Zero for Zero'' initiative
supported by the United States. Thus, revenues from duties on this
product may be eliminated through this avenue in the future even if
duty were not suspended under this bill.
For the above stated reasons, we strongly support the suspension of
duty on MCPA in H.R. 3796.
Sincerely yours,
United Agri Products
Greeley, CO
May 18,2000
A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
RE: Written comments supporting suspension bill H.R. 3796 (4-chloro-Z-
methylacetic acid, its salts and esters (``MCPA'')).
Dear Mr. Singleton,
I wish to express my support in suspension of duties on (4-chloro-
Z-methylacetic acid, it's salts and esters (``MCPA'')) in conjunction
with HR 3796.
MCPA is an important agronomic tool in controlling a variety of
broadleaf weeds in a vast number of small grain and feed crops in the
U.S.
As we are all aware, today's agriculture economy demands the most
effective, low cost on ag inputs in crop production. MCPA with it's
9.3% duty is one of these inputs.
There are no U.S. manufacturers of MCPA . Therefore, it is of no
economic disadvantage to the U.S. industry. I submit that suspension of
duty would effectively enhance the American farmers' profitability. It
would also enable my company to fully utilize U.S. owned assets to
participate in NAFTA nation export without the 9.3% penalty , which now
exists.
Very Truly Yours,
James Sell
Vice President, Distribution
United Agri Products
H.R. 3797
To suspend temporarily the duty on 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, its salts and esters.
May 18, 2000
A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Singleton:
I am writing to offer my comments in support of H.R. 3797 which
would suspend duties on (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid, Its Salts and
Esters (``2,4-D'')).
One of the first herbicides to be registered in the United States,
2,4-D is extensively used in agriculture because of its efficacy, low
toxicity, and cost-effectiveness. It thus is a necessary product for
the American farmer in today's climate of low commodity prices.
Consequently, the suspension of the relatively high duty rate of
9.3% on this imported product represents a substantial savings on this
important agricultural input. Such a savings not only helps American
growers to compete more profitably in current depressed markets, but
consumers also benefit from the reduction in costs represented by the
duty suspension.
The suspension of duty on 2,4-D will also enhance the U.S. economy
through creation of jobs in my district as well as other cities in the
United States, and through additional added export opportunities under
NAFTA. With additional supplies of duty free 2,4-D acid, herbicide
product formulators will be able to access the important Canadian and
Mexican markets without having to absorb the competitive disadvantage
of the 9.3% duty cost.
These savings and opportunities for the US economy are achieved
without apparent harm to any US industry. The single US producer of
2,4-D holds a dominant market share that has not been effected
detrimentally by the majority of imports of 2,4-D that already are low-
priced and duty free under the Generalized System of Preferences.
Consequently, the suspension of duty on the one company which pays
duties on the imported product would not appear to have any detrimental
effect on US production that heretofore has not been affected by the
larger volumes of lower-priced, duty-free imports.
With critical cost savings to agricultural growers and US
consumers, with new employment and export opportunities, and with no
apparent detrimental effect on the US industry, the suspension of
duties on 2,4-D will be a worthwhile action by Congress. I therefore
support the suspension of duty under H.R. 3797.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Pat Danner
Member of Congress
Dow Agro Sciences
Indianapolis, IN 46268-1054
April 4, 2000
Mr. A. L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Committee on Way and Means
U. S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: H. R. 3797--Temporary Suspension of Duty
Dear Mr. Singleton:
We are writing to register our strong objection to H. R. 3797. A
bill introduced by Representative Danner from the 6th District of
Missouri at the request of an Australian competitor of Dow AgroSciences
LLC. This bill, if enacted, would temporarily suspend the U. S. duty
rate for three years on at least three related chemicals (identified
below) that are produced solely by Dow AgroSciences (DAS) in the United
States. We are asking that the Ways and Means Committee support our
strong objection by seeking the withdrawal or defeat of H. R. 3797. We
recognize that the committee has not yet called for public comments on
this or other recently introduced temporary duty suspension bills, but
we wanted to make our views known early on H. R. 3797 as it is
extremely important to DAS.
We will also be writing similar letters to the U. S. International
Trade Commission, the Department of Commerce and the U. S. Trade
Representative in registering our objection to H. R. 3797 for the
reasons outlined in this letter.
DAS is the only U. S. producer of 2,4-dichclorophenoxyacetic acid
(2,4-D), (CAS number 94-75-7), and its salts and esters (different CAS
numbers) at a plant located in Midland, Michigan. This product, its
production and the U. S. market for 2,4-D is very important to the
company. The plant producing 2,4-D employs over 150 people and our
investment in this plant exceeds $60 million. 2,4-D is one of the most
widely used herbicides in the U. S. broadleaf market. It is used to
treat more than 80 million acres each year. The U. S. market for 2,4-D
is the largest in the world, so it is the only significant target for
foreign competitors.
On a more technical point regarding the chemicals named in H. R.
3797, please note in the text of H. R. 3797 that the CAS number
indicated (29091-09-6) for 2,4-D is not correct. As noted above, the
correct CAS number for 2,4-D is 94-75-7. Furthermore, the salts and
esters of 2,4-D have different CAS numbers, but none are 29091-09-6.
This CAS number is for 2,4-Dichloro-3,5-dinitrobenzotrifluoride.
Nevertheless, we believe the intent of H. R. 3797 is to cover 2,4-D,
and its salts and esters, chemicals DAS produce in Midland, Michigan.
In recent years, imports of 2,4-D from GSP eligible countries have
already taken a substantial share of the U. S. market because of the
duty-free benefit under the GSP program. H. R. 3797 would allow more
duty-free imports from Australia, the EU, and potentially from other
countries where 2,4-D is produced. We do not think that a foreign
manufacturers in a developed country like Australia should be given
even a temporary suspension of the U. S. duty on their imports of 2,4-
D. If they were to receive such a suspension, it would enable the
foreign manufacturers to sell their product at a reduced price from
what it is now, and displace some of the U. S. market share that DAS
currently has in the domestic market for 2,4-D. Beyond opening the U.
S. market to three years of no duty on imports from Australia, H. R.
3797 would also open the U.S. market to imports from European
manufactures. Currently, they are not competing in the U. S. market
today because of the applicable U. S. duty that would be assessed to
their imports. It is also noteworthy that the European Union has a duty
rate of 6.5% on 2,4-D, and that imports from DAS would to be assessed
this duty while the U. S. duty would be suspended if H. R. 3797 were
enacted.
Another factor that should be considered carefully is the amount of
revenue from collection of duties that would be lost for the proposed
three-year period. Based on 1999 U. S. import data, the customs value
of imports of 2,4-D from Australia were $9,961,495. At the 1999 duty
rate of 10%, duties collected should have been nearly $1,000,000. As
you know, suspension of the duty at this level would significantly
exceed the annual ``PAYGO'' limitations, yet another reason for the
bill to be withdrawn or defeated.
DAS has ample production capacity current utilization rates at
Dow's plant in Midland, Michigan to supply all the domestic demand for
2,4-D. Imports are not needed to fill this demand, and should certainly
not be enabled by a temporary suspension of the applicable U. S.
duties. We would hope, that as the sole U. S. producer of 2,4-D, we
would have more than adequate justification for our objection to H. R.
3797. Furthermore, that it would override any request from a foreign
interest in a developed country to temporarily suspend the U. S. duty
on imports of 2,4-D, and its salts and esters.
Clearly, the maintenance of the U. S. duty rate on 2,4-D is an
important factor for DAS in keeping its 2,4-D plant, production,
employees and domestic market at operating levels economically viable
to justify the investments we have made in Michigan and at many other
U. S. locations where products are formulated from 2,4-D and sold into
the domestic market. Any future expansion, product development and
related investment in this important product line are dependent upon
maintaining the domestic market share we have. Decreases or suspensions
of U. S. duty will allow more imports to displace market share, thereby
clearly affecting any realization of new investments in our 2,4-D
plant, and the related positive economic effects to the U. S. economy
and agriculture community.
As the only U. S. producer of 2,4-D, we believe there should be no
reason for favorable consideration of H. R. 3797. Clearly it is
controversial at this early stage after its introduction, and should be
withdrawn. We urge your support of our objection and will appreciate
the committee's help with the defeat of H. R. 3797 if Representative
Danner does not withdraw it.
Please do not hesitate to contact Tom Campbell of Dow AgroSciences
in our Washington, D. C. office at (202) 429-3438 if you have any
questions. We would be pleased to meet with you or the appropriate
committee staff about this matter if you would like to discuss this
matter directly. Please let us know an appropriate time if you would to
meet with DAS representatives.
Sincerely,
Gregory E. McDaniel
Global Business Leader
Copy: Representative Pat Danner, Trade Subcommittee
Nufarm
St. Joseph, MO 64506
May 18, 2000
A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C.
RE: Written Comments Supporting Duty Suspension Bill H.R. 3797 (2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid, Its Salts and Esters (2,4-D))
Dear Mr. Singleton:
Pursuant to Advisory TR-20 dated April 20, 2000, we respectfully
submit these supportive comments on behalf of Nufarm Limited and Nufarm
America's, Inc. with respect to H.R. 3797 which concerns the suspension
of duty on 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid, Its Salts and Esters (2,4-
D).
As some of the first herbicides to be registered in the United
States, 2,4-D acid, its salts and esters have been widely used in the
control of broadleaf and woody plants on rangelands, lawns, golf
courses, forests, roadways, parks, and agricultural land, as well as in
aquatic environments for the control of nuisance aquatic weeds.
Currently, 2,4-D is classified under HTSUS No. 2918.90.2010 with a duty
rate of 9.3%. Imports of 2,4-D are duty free under the Generalized
System of Preferences with the exception of India, the Caribbean Basin
Economic Recovery Act, the Andean Trade Preference Act, the United
States-Israel Free Trade Area, and the North American Free Trade
Agreement (Canada and Mexico).
Although there are substitutable products, none of them are more
cost effective, and in some cases are more toxic to the environment,
than 2,4-D. Additionally, 2,4-D is extensively used because of its
efficacy, low toxicity, and cost-effectiveness, thus making it a
necessary product for the American farmer in today's climate of low
commodity prices.
There is a significant barrier to entry for any imports, in that
manufacturers of 2,4-D that are able to access the US market include
only the members of a 2,4-D industry Task Force that have product
quality similar to the TF II material. The 2,4-D Task Force was formed
under an exemption from the antitrust laws of the U.S. to allow
companies requiring the generation of EPA mandated data to collaborate
on the generation of that data. (The Memorandum of Understanding which
created the Task Force is attached as Attachment A hereto.) The Task
Force has gone through a vast amount of change since its inception of
2,4-D Industry Task Force I to its present form as Industry Task Force
II. The original Task Force began with thirteen members equally sharing
the cost of generating data. As TF I came to conclusion it was obvious
that TF II would see fewer participants with larger expenditures. The
present total expenditure has eclipsed $30 million and the present
number of seats has shrunk to four seats representing three full
memberships and two affiliate memberships.
Full memberships include: Nufarm Ltd., Dow AgroSciences Agro.,
BASF, and AgroGore; made up of two affiliate members, PBI Gordon and
Atanor, which is owned 52% by Albaugh.
The present Task Force is about to complete the battery of data
generation put out by the EPA and is expecting the EPA to issue the RED
for 2,4-D sometime next year. The only companies that can utilize the
data generated in support of their registration are those included as
full members or affiliated members listed above. These members can use
the information as outlined in the MOU to support their labels outside
of the United States. No member or affiliate can extend this
information outside the control of the TF II
At the present time the only potential importers of product would
include Dow AgroSciences (Midland Michigan), Dow AgroSciences, SanaChem
(South Africa), Nufarm Ltd. (Mebourne Australia), Nufarm (Linz
Austria), and Atanor (Argentina).
The U.S. market Share of these companies is as follows:
Dow AgroSciences Michigan 33.0 Million Lb. 66%
Atanor Argentina 10.0 Million Lb. 20%
Nufarm Ltd. Australia 7.0 Million Lb. 14%
There are nine countries which export 2,4-D to the US. Under the
Task Force membership as presently constituted, there is only one
company eligible to import that currently pays duty on imported
product, i.e. Nufarm. All other imports are duty free under GSP.
Exports from Argentina and Brazil are GSP duty free and constitute
63% of US imports. However, with the exception of isolated shipments
from the UK, France, and Germany, a majority of the duty paid imports
is from Nufarm Limited facilities in Australia and Austria. As a result
of this high percentage of GSP shipments, the weighted average value of
GSP shipments in 1999 was $1.28 per pound, whereas the weighted average
value of Nufarm Limited shipments in 1999 was 19% higher at $1.52 per
pound. The difference in the low value of GSP imports and the 19%
higher value of Nufarm imports suggests that suspension of the 9.3%
duty will merely cause values of the 37% of imports that were duty paid
to trend towards a value closer to but still above duty free imports.
Thus, suspension of duties on 2,4-D will result in savings to US
growers and ultimately consumers.
Economic Effects
The following conclusions can be reached from the U.S. Census
Bureau import data for 2,4-D:
1. Sixty-three per cent (63%) of all imports are GSP duty free,
principally from Argentina and Brazil.
2. With the exception of isolated shipments from the UK, France,
and Germany, the duty paid imports were from Nufarm facilities in
Australia and Austria.
3. The weighted average value of GSP shipments in 1999 was $1.28
per lb. whereas the weighted average value of Nufarm shipments in 1999
was 19% higher at $1.52 per lb.
No deleterious effects on the U.S. economy or industry are
anticipated from the suspension of duty on 2,4-D.
The suspension of duties on this crop protection material will
result in savings to U.S. growers and ultimately consumers. According
to a report from the National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment
Program, ``Throughout the past five decades, weed management provided
by 2,4-D has contributed to the production of billions of tons of crops
throughout the world, which otherwise would not have been available for
human consumptiona??2. The herbicide 2,4-D is registered (tolerances
have been established) for use on over 65 crops in the United States,
and other phenoxy herbicides are registered on over 25 crops. Also, the
phenoxy herbicides are registered for numerous noncropland uses.'' The
report notes that elimination of 2,4-D from the U.S. would result in a
loss of $2.559 Billion annually, from increased weed management cost,
decreased crop yields, and ``a net societal loss for consumers because
of higher retail commodity prices.'' (The report can be found at Error!
Bookmark not defined..) Thus, the costs of 2,4-D have a direct impact
on growers and consumers that will be reduced with the suspension of
duty.
The domestic industry should not be impacted by suspension of
duties. Firstly, no significant change in import sourcing will occur
because of the unavoidable barrier to entry represented by the Task
Force membership requirements. Furthermore, Nufarm is informed and
believes that imports from Brazil will be all but eliminated because of
``trade out'' agreements between its competitors that will divert
Brazilian production to non-U.S. markets.
Secondly, if there were any threat to the domestic industry from
duty free imports, the effects would be evident already from the
majority of lower priced imports from GSP eligible countries.
Yet, the only U.S. producer of 2,4-D acid, Dow Agro Services
(``DAS''), has a well established dominant market share of
approximately 66%. This dominant market share, moreover, will not be
reduced any time soon because of the current ``Dow Premier Program.''
Under this multi-year program, DAS's current customers are locked into
significant product discounts for purchase of DAS 2,4-D product at
levels that maintain or increase its market share; the majority of the
discount payout occurs only after three years of purchases, and large
penalties are incurred for leaving the program.
Moreover, the suspension of duty is consistent with DAS's
leadership position of strongly supporting worldwide elimination of
duty on crop protection materials, including 2,4-D. DAS has been an
influential participant in the Crop Protection Chemicals Coalition, a
world body comprised of related national associations, e.g. ACPA,
Avcare, etc. Its ``Zero For Zero'' Initiative for the multilateral
elimination of duty on crop protection materials has achieved the
agreement of countries comprising over 85% of world trade. In the
United States, the USTR has been presented with the proposal, which has
been through the ISAC and approved.
Finally, the difference in the low value of GSP imports and the 19%
higher value of Nufarm imports suggests that suspension of the 9.3%
duty will merely cause values of the 37% of imports that were duty paid
to trend towards a value closer to but still above duty free imports.
Thus, there is no indication of downward pricing pressure on prices
received by the domestic industry to the extent they are set by low
value GSP imports.
The imported 2,4-D affected by HR 3797 is involved in significant
downstream production activity. Imported acid product is further
processed into amines and esters, or blended into branded product and
other active ingredients, or formulated into lesser concentrates of
amines and esters at numerous general formulators throughout the United
States. Approximately ten formulators in the United States with over 20
operation sites, in addition to approximately 2-3 local smaller or
family owned blenders per state throughout the United States will
benefit from lower cost and possibly expanded use of duty free product.
The suspension of duty on 2,4-D will also create significant export
activity for US producers and formulators. As you are aware, the North
American agricultural commodity market is a major market for
agricultural inputs, including crop protection materials. US producers
and formulators of 2,4-D based products would have more competitive
access to the significant Canadian and Mexican markets were duty to be
suspended.
Presently under NAFTA requirements, when imported product enters
the United States duty free under bond for formulating or further
processing (i.e, a TIB under HTS 9813.00.05), any subsequent export to
a NAFTA country triggers payment of US duty on the base material
entered under bond as if it were entered for consumption in the United
States. (19 CFR 181.53(A)(2)(i)). That relatively high 9.3% duty must
be born in any cost structure of exports to Canada or Mexico, and
therefore makes US produced product less price competitive. If US duty
were suspended on imported 2,4-D, US producers and formulators could
export more competitively a wide variety of blended and formulated
products in North America without this cost burden
Revenue Loss
According to Census Bureau Data, duty paid in 1998 totaled $688,601
and in 1999 totaled $810,531. The increase in 1999 appears to be the
result of an increase in value (36%) rather than an increase in
quantity (14%) of dutiable imports.
Because the current tariff rate is staged and is reduced annually,
any loss of revenue will be decreased in the coming years. In addition,
this product is an agricultural input designated for possible
multilateral duty elimination in the ``Zero for Zero'' initiative
supported by the United States. Thus, revenues from duties on this
product may be eliminated through this avenue in the future even if
duty were not suspended under this bill.
For the above stated reasons, we strongly support the suspension of
duty on 2,4-D in H.R. 3797.
Respectfully submitted,
Roger Unruh,
Vice President
United Agri Products
Greeley, CO 80632-1286
May 18, 2000
A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
RE: Written comments supporting duty suspension bill H.R. 3797 (2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid, it's salts and esters (*2,4-D*)
Dear Mr. Singleton,
I am writing in support of H.R. 3797 that will relinquish duties on
(2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid, it's salts and esters (``2,4-D'')).
In today's agricultural economy it is mandatory on the producer to
minimize all input costs. The suspension of duties on 2,4-D will
enhance not only the producers cost, but will enable our company's
ability to further utilize our U.S assets through additional exports
into NAFTA nations (Canada and Mexico).
The only U.S producer of 2,4-D holds a dominant position in the
U.S. market and all other producers that import into the U.S enjoy duty
free status under Generalized System of Preferences.
We, therefore, desire to express our support in suspension of all
duties in reference to 2,4-D as a cost savings to the American
producer.
Very Truly Yours
James Sell
Vice President, Distribution
H.R. 3801
To suspend temporarily the duty on Iminodisuccinate.
Bayer Corporation, U.S.A.
Pittsburgh, PA 15205-9741
May 1, 2000
A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
House Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Subject: H.R.3801
Dear Mr. Singleton:
Bayer Corporation is a research-based company with major businesses
in health care and life sciences and chemicals. The company had 1999
sales of $8.9 billion and employs more than 22,200 people throughout
the United States and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Bayer Corporation is a member of the worldwide Bayer Group, a $29
billion international life sciences, polymers and specialty chemicals
group based in Leverkusen with 120,400 employees worldwide.
Bayer Corporation is a regular importer of Iminodisuccinate.
Bayer's Logistics Division, with major import operations at Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania and Bayer warehouses in Morrisville, PA, Los Angeles, CA,
Chicago, IL and Houston, TX as well as Bayer's customers in Burlington,
NC, Hazlet, NJ, San Diego, CA and Logansport, IN would benefit from
tariff suspension on Iminodisuccinate via cost reductions for waste
water treatment and formulations for the textile, agricultural, cleaner
and detergent industries. Bayer is the sole producer of
Iminodisuccinate, which is not produced in the United States. Although
BASF, DOW and Monsanto manufacture products with similar applications,
Iminodisuccinate is unique in the fact that it is biodegradable and
therefore an environmentally friendly complexing agent used in laundry
detergents, dishwashing detergents, industrial and institutional
cleaners, and chelated micronutrients thus benefiting American industry
and the environment.
We hope this supplemental information is useful in the House Ways
and Means Committee deliberations regarding the proposed tariff
suspension for Iminodisuccinate bill number H.R. 3801. Please do not
hesitate to contact me at Tel: 412-777-2058 with any questions. In the
event that I am unavailable, Julie Van Egmond in our Washington office
(Tel.: 202-756-3773) or Stephen Johnsen at our Pittsburgh location
(Tel: 412-777-5616) could be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Karen L. Niedermeyer
H.R. 3802
To suspend temporarily the duty on Iminodisuccinate salts
and aqueous solutions.
Bayer Corporation, U.S.A.
Pittsburgh, PA 15205-9741
May 1, 2000
A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
House Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Subject: H.R.3802
Dear Mr. Singleton:
Bayer Corporation is a research-based company with major businesses
in health care and life sciences and chemicals. The company had 1999
sales of $8.9 billion and employs more than 22,200 people throughout
the United States and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Bayer Corporation is a member of the worldwide Bayer Group, a $29
billion international life sciences, polymers and specialty chemicals
group based in Leverkusen with 120,400 employees worldwide.
Bayer Corporation is a regular importer of Iminodisuccinate salts
and aqueous solutions. Bayer's Logistics Division, with major import
operations at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Bayer warehouses in
Morrisville, PA, Los Angeles, CA, Chicago, IL and Houston, TX as well
as Bayer's customers in Burlington, NC, Hazlet, NJ, San Diego, CA and
Logansport, IN would benefit from tariff suspension on Iminodisuccinate
salts and aqueous solutions via cost reductions for waste water
treatment and formulations for the textile, agricultural, cleaner and
detergent industries. Bayer is the sole producer of Iminodisuccinate
salts and aqueous solutions, which are not produced in the United
States. Although BASF, DOW and Monsanto manufacture products with
similar applications, Iminodisuccinate salts and aqueous solutions are
unique in the fact that they are biodegradable and therefore
environmentally friendly complexing agents used in laundry detergents,
dishwashing detergents, industrial and institutional cleaners, and
chelated micronutrients thus benefiting American industry and the
environment.
We hope this supplemental information is useful in the House Ways
and Means Committee deliberations regarding the proposed tariff
suspension for Iminodisuccinate salts and aqueous solutions bill number
H.R. 3802. Please do not hesitate to contact me at Tel: 412-777-2058
with any questions. In the event that I am unavailable, Julie Van
Egmond in our Washington office (Tel.: 202-756-3773) or Stephen Johnsen
at our Pittsburgh location (Tel: 412-777-5616) could be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Karen L. Niedermeyer
H.R. 3803
To suspend until June 30, 2003, the duty on transformers
for use in certain radiobroadcast receivers capable of
receiving signals on AM and FM frequencies.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3804
To suspend until June 3, 2003, the duty on transformers for
use in certain radiobroadcast receivers with compact disc
players and capable of receiving signals on AM and FM
frequencies.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3805
To suspend temporarily the duty on polyvinylchloride (PVC)
self-adhesive sheets.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3808
To suspend temporarily the duty on BEPD 2-Butyl-2-
ethylpropanediol.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3813
To suspend temporarily the duty on cyclohexadee-8-en-1-one
(CHD).
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3818
To suspend temporarily the duty on octylmethoxycinnamate.
Haarmann & Reimer
Teterboro, NJ 07608
May 11, 2000
Mr. A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: H.R. 3818
Dear Mr. Singleton:
This note is being sent to offer comments to the aforementioned
Bill, which looks to suspend duty on Octyl Methoxy Cinnamate, HTS
2918.90.30.
As the U.S. manufacturer, Haarmann & Reimer objects to this
legislation as it would give an unfair advantage to the importers and
have the tendency over time to negatively affect our manufacturing
facility in Goose Creek, South Carolina.
We respectfully request that this Bill be withdrawn from the 2000
Trade Tariff Bill.
We thank you for your attention to this detail.
Sincerely,
William J. Ludlum
President
WJL:ra
cc:
Eric Land--U.S. International Trade Commission
Mike Kelly--U.S. Department of Commerce
Jim Smith--Smith, Dawson & Andrews
Barnes, Richardson & Colburn
Washington, DC 20005
May 19, 2000
A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515.
Re: Comments on Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Proposals; In Support of
H.R. 3818
Dear Mr. Singleton:
These comments are submitted on behalf of Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc.
in response to the notice issued April 20, 2000 by the House Committee
on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Trade, announcing a request for
written comments on miscellaneous corrections to trade legislation and
miscellaneous duty suspension bills. Hoffman-LaRoche strongly supports
H.R. 3818, a bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
octylmethoxycinnamate.
Hoffman-LaRoche is a manufacturer and marketer of a variety of
pharmaceutical and health products, including vitamins,
pharmaceuticals, and cancer-prevention products. Hoffman-LaRoche
employs approximately 7000 people at its vitamin and pharmaceutical
sites throughout the United States. Included in the Roche line are
ultraviolet sun ray filters and dermal protection products, designed to
help prevent melanomas and ameliorate the skin-damaging effects of
ultraviolet B (UVB), medium wave-length radiation. One such product is
sold in the United States as ParsolMCX, a specially
formulated, patented UVB broad spectrum skin protectant.
UVB is the most active ultraviolet radiation for producing
erythema, and it significantly decreases enzymic and non-enzymic
antioxidants in the skin, thus impairing its ability to protect itself
against the free radicals generated by exposure to sunlight. UVB is
responsible for producing skin cancer due to DNA damage, and is
suspected of affecting the immune system by depleting the Langerhans
cells in the epidermis, which play an important role in the immunologic
defense of the skin. Hoffman-LaRoche's Parsol, recently developed and
approved by FDA, and imported for use in skin care applications, is
especially effective in preventing infiltration of UVB radiation and
decreasing the epidermal exposure to medium-length ultraviolet
radiation. The active ingredient, octyl methoxycinnamate (also known as
ethylhexyl p-Methoxycinnamate) is imported by Hoffman-LaRoche only from
its affiliates in Europe, where the only facilities used to synthesize
the active ingredient are located.
Octyl methoxycinnamate is imported under Item 2918.90.30 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States, dutiable at a rate of
6.5% ad valorem. UV radiation protection chemicals in the same family
of pharmaceutical products, such as avobenzone (which provides broad-
spectrum protection against UVA and UVB radiation), are currently
eligible for duty-free treatment upon importation pursuant to the
multilateral pharmaceutical tariff elimination agreement under the
auspices of the World Trade Organization. However, due to the
relatively recent development and approval of this product--
ParsolMCX--the precise active ingredient has not yet been
added to the duty-elimination list, since it has not yet been assigned
an International Non-proprietary Name (INN) by the World Health
Organization. When an INN is assigned, octyl methoxycinnamte will
presumably be accorded like duty-free treatment under the international
agreement. In the meantime, the current 6.5% tariff is a deterrent to
the free movement of this unique cancer-fighting chemical, which is
cannot be made in the United States. Thus, there is no trade-protective
reason for the tariff, and its only effect is to restrict access to
consumers.
Hoffman-LaRoche supports a temporary suspension of the tariff on
this chemical, pending its inclusion in the zero-for-zero tariff
agreement on a multilateral and permanent basis. A suspension is
appropriate in light of the absence of available domestic supply, and
importance of ParsolMCX in helping to prevent cancers of the
skin and other illnesses caused by immunological impairment due to UVB
exposure. Hoffman-LaRoche is aware of no competitive reason to maintain
the duty, especially since the product will soon become eligible for
duty free treatment under the WTO arrangement. Suspension of the tariff
will facilitate trade in this beneficial new product and help control
costs to U.S. companies and consumers. Furthermore, the company
estimates that the total tariff revenue effect of this proposed duty
suspension will be less than $500,000 per year.
We appreciate the Committee's consideration of these comments, and
we would be pleased to provide any additional information the Committee
would find helpful.
Sincerely
Matthew T. McGrath
Counsel to: Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc.
H.R. 3820
To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain
entries of carbides.
May 15, 2000
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Crane:
According to Advisory No. TR-20, which was posted on the web site
of the Committee on Ways and Means on April 20, 2000, the Subcommittee
on Trade has solicited comments on a number of bills, including H.R.
3820, which have been offered for inclusion in a miscellaneous trade
package. I oppose H.R. 3820, and urge that it not be included in any
miscellaneous trade bill that the Committee may favorably report out.
The merchandise that is the subject of this legislation, described
in H.R. 3820 as ``carbides'' classified under subheading 2849.90.50 of
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, is otherwise known
as vanadium carbides, vanadium carbonitrides, and/or nitrided vanadium.
These products are chiefly used as additives in the manufacture of
steel. They are interchangeable and compete head-to-head for sales with
ferrovanadium manufactured by the two remaining U.S. producers of that
product.
H.R. 3820 would require the U.S. Customs Service to retroactively
refund Customs duties that were paid for merchandise that entered the
United States during a seven month period from July 1998 to January
1999. The retroactive refunds required by H.R. 3820 would be
significant, since the ``general'' rate of duty that should have been
paid for these goods is 3.7 percent of their value. In fact, the
legislation would create a windfall for a single importing company, to
the detriment of competing U.S. producers of ferrovanadium. This would
be unfair and inappropriate.
Obviously, this bill is not revenue neutral. It would require the
Treasury to issue substantial refunds to the importer. Consequently, it
would result in a budget loss that would require an equivalent offset.
In addition, H.R. 3820 would undermine our country's negotiating
stance and establish bad precedent. I understand that the importer that
would benefit from this bill successfully petitioned for a waiver of
the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) ``competitive need limit,''
so that it could import unlimited quantities of this merchandise from
South Africa free of duty. Presidential Proclamation 7107 of June 30,
1998 (63 Fed. Reg. 36531 (July 6, 1998)). However, the effective date
of the provisions granting benefits to carbides and certain other
products of South Africa was intentionally left to the discretion of
the U.S. Trade Representative, based on concerns regarding South
Africa's Medicines Act and its protection of patent rights for
pharmaceuticals. The law requires that the President consider the GSP's
eligibility requirements, including a country's protection of
intellectual property rights, before granting waivers or extending
other benefits under the program. Once the U.S. Trade Representative
received adequate assurances as to South Africa's commitment to
protecting intellectual property rights, these provisions were
implemented. 64 Fed. Reg. 72138 (December 23, 1999). Hence, the delay
in implementing preferential tariff treatment for carbides and other
products from South Africa served a legitimate negotiating purpose. If
our trading partners and companies that are affected by a trade dispute
expect that those companies will ultimately be reimbursed retroactively
for duties or other costs incurred during the negotiation, they will
have no incentive to seek a speedy resolution.
Moreover, if Congress authorizes retroactive duty refunds to
compensate for a legitimate delay in unilaterally implementing a
preferential tariff rate, then we must anticipate that similarly-
situated importers of other products will step forward to seek
retroactive refunds, as well.
For these reasons, I urge that H.R. 3820 be excluded from any
miscellaneous trade bill that the Committee may favorably report out.
Thank your for your consideration, and please do not hesitate to call
me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Ney
Member of Congress
cc: A.L. Singleton,
Chief of Staff Committee on Ways and Means
Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation
Newfield, NJ 08344-0768
May 18, 2000
A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Request for Comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws
and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills: Opposition to H.R. 3820
Dear Mr. Singleton:
As President of Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation, one of two
remaining U.S. producers of ferrovanadium, I am writing to advise the
Subcommittee on Trade of Shieldalloy's strong opposition to H.R. 3820,
a bill offered for inclusion in a miscellaneous trade package. On
behalf of Shieldalloy and the more than 250 individuals that the
company employs at its manufacturing facilities in Cambridge, Ohio and
Newfield, New Jersey, I urge that H.R. 3820 not be included in any
miscellaneous trade bill that the Committee may favorably report out.
The merchandise that is the subject of H.R. 3820, described in the
legislation as ``carbides'' classified under subheading 2849.90.50 of
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, is otherwise known
as vanadium carbides, vanadium carbonitrides, and/or nitrided vanadium.
These products are chiefly used as additives in the manufacture of
steel. They are interchangeable and compete head-to-head for sales with
ferrovanadium manufactured in the United States by Shieldalloy.
H.R. 3820 would require the U.S. Customs Service to retroactively
refund Customs duties that our competitor paid for merchandise that it
imported during a seven-month period from July 1998 to January 1999.
These retroactive refunds would be a significant windfall for our
competitor, since the ``general'' rate of duty that would have been
paid for these goods is 3.7 percent of their value. In short, the
legislation would reward our competitor for importing product, and
unfairly penalize Shieldalloy for producing ferrovanadium in the United
States.
Obviously, H.R. 3820 is not revenue neutral. It would require the
Treasury to issue substantial refunds to the importer. Consequently, it
would result in a budget loss that would require an equivalent offset.
In addition, H.R. 3820 would undermine our country's negotiating
stance and establish bad precedent. The importer that would benefit
from this bill successfully petitioned for a waiver of the Generalized
System of Preferences (GSP) ``competitive need limit,'' so that it
could import unlimited quantities of this merchandise from South Africa
free of duty. Presidential Proclamation 7107 of June 30, 1998 (63 Fed.
Reg. 36531 (July 6, 1998)). However, the effective date of the
provisions granting benefits to carbides and certain other products of
South Africa was intentionally left to the discretion of the U.S. Trade
Representative, based on concerns regarding South Africa's Medicines
Act and its protection of patent rights for pharmaceuticals. The law
requires that the President consider the GSP's eligibility
requirements, including a country's protection of intellectual property
rights, before granting waivers or extending other benefits under the
program. Once the U.S. Trade Representative received adequate
assurances as to South Africa's commitment to protecting intellectual
property rights, these provisions were implemented. 64 Fed. Reg. 72138
(December 23, 1999). In other words, the delay in implementing
preferential tariff treatment for products from South Africa served a
legitimate negotiating purpose. If our trading partners and companies
that are affected by a trade dispute expect that those companies will
ultimately be reimbursed retroactively for duties or other costs
incurred during the negotiations, they will have no incentive to seek a
speedy resolution.
Moreover, if Congress authorizes retroactive duty refunds to
compensate for this legitimate delay in unilaterally implementing a
preferential tariff rate, then it must anticipate that similarly
situated importers of other products will step forward to seek
retroactive refunds, as well.
On behalf of Shieldalloy and its employees, I urge the Subcommittee
to exclude H.R. 3820 from any miscellaneous trade bill that it may
favorably report out. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
Eric E. Jackson
President
cc: The Honorable Bob Ney
The Honorable Frank A. LoBiondo
Stratcor
Danburg, CT
May 19, 2000
Hon. Phil Crane
United States House of Representatives
Ways and Means Committee
Subcommittee on Trade
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In February, representatives of Strategic Minerals Corporation
(``STRATCOR'') met with Savatri Singh of your staff regarding how we as
a U.S. Company found itself in the middle of trade fight between the
United States Trade Representative and the Republic of South Africa.
Our letter today is to advise you that Representative Jay Dickey (R-AR)
introduced a Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff Bill, HR 3820, which is
presently before your committee, and which will correct the financial
impact of the international dispute. These comments support this
measure to remedy an unprecedented action against an innocent U.S.
company, a bystander to an unrelated dispute. On behalf of Strategic
Minerals Corporation and its subsidiaries, this letter requests you to
include HR 3820 into the omnibus trade bill.
Background:
On July 1, 1998 the United States Trade Representative (USTR)
granted U.S. Vanadium Corporation (USV), a Competitive Need Limit (CNL)
waiver for vanadium carbides produced by Vametco Minerals Corporation,
a Delaware corporation with manufacturing operations in the Republic of
South Africa. This waiver was requested by USV in 1997 to allow duty-
free treatment of such imports to continue under the Generalized System
of Preferences (GSP) program. Without precedent, the USTR's office then
suspended the effective date of this waiver pending resolution of an
unrelated dispute regarding pharmaceutical patents. That dispute was
settled in September 1999.
U.S. Vanadium and Vametco Minerals are both wholly-owned
subsidiaries of Strategic Minerals Corporation, a Connecticut
corporation with vanadium operations in Arkansas, New York, and South
Africa, plus a new facility being constructed in Louisiana. The company
also has tungsten interests in California.
When USTR restored GSP treatment to a number of South African
products, it did not do so retroactively for the USV's vanadium CNL.
One of the GSP ``hostages'' to the pharmaceutical debate was the
effective date for implementing this CNL waiver. The implementation
delay cost U.S. Vanadium, an innocent company, approximately a million
dollars to date, and has figured prominently in Strategic Minerals'
1999 annual loss. Compared to the pharmaceutical industry, Strategic
Minerals is a tiny company, with fewer than 160 employees in all its
U.S. operations combined.
These developments were particularly egregious because the sole
producer and the sole U.S. importer of these vanadium carbides are both
wholly-owned subsidiaries of an American company. Neither Vametco
Minerals, nor U.S. Vanadium, nor any of the products they make or
import were the subject of the dispute. Clearly, it was inappropriate
for USTR to use one trade tool (GSP) to achieve another trade objective
(resolution of the intellectual property dispute) in a manner that only
hurts an innocent American company. USTR should have made the effective
date for the CNL waiver for Vanadium Carbides from South Africa the
date it was originally granted, i.e. July 1, 1998.
Strategic Minerals unsuccessfully lobbied key USTR officials until
December 1999 to remedy the situation. However, conversations with USTR
staff and an understanding of trade law leads us to request your
support for the private relief bill (HR 3820) to recover approximately
half the duties paid during the ``implementation delay'' imposed by
USTR for over two years. We ask that you include this measure with the
House Ways and Means Committee Omnibus Trade Bill mark-up.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Nicholas A. Pyle
Washington Representative
H.R. 3821
To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain
color television receiver entries to correct an error that was
made in connection with the original liquidation.
Statement of US JVC Corp., Wayne, New Jersey
This statement is submitted on behalf of US JVC Corp. (JVC) in
connection with the April 20 request for public comment by the House
Committee on Ways and Means regarding the package of miscellaneous
trade bills being prepared by the committee. JVC strongly supports the
inclusion in this package of legislation which would require the U.S.
Customs Service to refund the antidumping duties it improperly
collected on certain JVC entries of color television sets in 1989 and
1990. This legislation, introduced by Rep. William Pascrell as H.R.
3821 on March 31, 2000, parallels other bills included in previous
miscellaneous trade packages to resolve similar disputes in recent
years, and it should be completely noncontroversial.
US JVC Corp. is a subsidiary of JVC Americas Corp. Headquartered in
Wayne, NJ, JVC Americas Corp. has 1,830 U.S. employees. In addition to
its New Jersey headquarters, the company has U.S. manufacturing
operations in Tuscaloosa, Alabama and Sacramento, California. JVC also
has sales, service, research and development, and entertainment
software facilities in California, Illinois, Georgia and Hawaii.
As noted above, H.R. 3821 would require Customs to refund the
antidumping duties the agency collected in 1989 and 1990 on certain JVC
entries subject to Commerce Department antidumping reviews, despite
instructions from Commerce not to liquidate the entries until the
reviews were complete. These reviews eventually found that no
antidumping duties were due on JVC's entries, but Customs refused to
refund the duties because the deadline for filing protests had passed.
JVC imported 19 entries of color television receivers from Taiwan
between June 1989 and November 1990. These TV receivers were the
subject of an antidumping duty order at the time, and thus JVC
deposited approximately $130,000 in estimated antidumping duties with
the U.S. Customs Service when the TV receivers entered the United
States. After JVC deposited these estimated duties, the Commerce
Department instructed Customs to suspend liquidation of these entries
until Commerce published the results of its final determination in the
administrative reviews of color TV receivers from Taiwan during the
periods from April 1989 through March 1990 and April 1990 through March
1991. Customs specifically notified JVC of this suspension of
liquidation for these entries.
On January 9, 1992, Commerce directed Customs to continue to
suspend final assessment of duties on the TV receivers until
specifically instructed otherwise. However, on February 28, 1992,
Customs proceeded to assess JVC's entries at the duty rate deposited by
JVC, and published bulletin notices of the final assessments. Customs
officials have acknowledged that this liquidation was in error, and
that it occurred as a result of a misreading by a Customs official of
the Commerce instructions to continue the suspension of liquidation for
JVC's entries.
On May 12, 1992, Commerce released the final results of its
administrative review of TV receivers from Taiwan. As part of this
announcement, Commerce determined that no antidumping duties should be
assessed on the type of receivers imported by JVC during the review
period. However, several participants in the review challenged the
results of this review and, because of the ensuing delay, Commerce did
not instruct Customs to assess JVC's TV receivers with a dumping margin
of zero until September 27, 1995.
Following Commerce's final action, JVC requested a refund of the
antidumping duty deposits it had paid on the receivers. However,
Customs denied this request and also a subsequent JVC protest of
Customs' 1992 decision to assess the antidumping duties on the
television receivers, arguing that the 90-day limit for filing such
protests had expired. Subsequent court cases brought by JVC challenging
this Customs decision in the Court of International Trade and the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have been rejected, primarily
due to precedents established in a similar case involving improperly
collected duties on concentrated orange juice imported by Juice Farms,
Inc.
During the course of this appeal process, these courts suggested
that JVC should seek a legislative remedy through congressional
legislation, noting that Juice Farms had succeeded in receiving duty
refunds through such legislation in 1996. In fact, Juice Farms was one
of several companies which succeeded in obtaining refunds of duties
improperly collected by Customs as part of the package of miscellaneous
trade bills approved by the 104th Congress in 1996 (Public Law 104-
295). Similar duty refund legislation was also passed as part of the
Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1999 (Public Law
106-36). Given these precedents, Rep. Pascrell introduced H.R. 3821 on
behalf of JVC on March 1, 2000.
In conclusion, JVC strongly supports the inclusion of H.R. 3821 in
the miscellaneous trade package being prepared by the Committee on Ways
& Means. The enactment of this legislation as part of the miscellaneous
trade package would allow JVC to finally receive refunds of the duties
improperly collected by Customs ten years ago. Furthermore, the measure
is noncontroversial, as evidenced by the inclusion of virtually
identical provisions to resolve similar situations in previous
miscellaneous trade packages enacted by Congress.
Please feel free to contact us should the Committee have any
questions regarding this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas F. St. Maxens
St. Maxens & Company
H.R. 3828
To suspend until January 1, 2003, the duty on a paint
additive chemical.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3837
To suspend temporarily the duty on ortho-cumyl-octylphenol
(OCOP).
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3838
To suspend temporarily the duty on certain polyamides.
ELF ATOCHEM North America, Inc.
Arlington, VA 22209
May 10, 2000
The Honorable A. L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
RE: Copy of Statement of Purpose Submitted Upon Request to the U.S.
International Trade Commission and to U.S. Department of Commerce
Covering Duty Suspension for Micro-Porous, Ultra-Fine, Spherical Forms
of Polyamides 6, 12, and 6/12 (HR 3838).
Dear Mr. Singleton,
In response to inquiries made by both the U.S. International Trade
Commission and the U.S. Department of Commerce, the enclosed document
was prepared in support of passage of the measure. On behalf of Elf
Atochem NA, importer of the products designated, I am submitting these
copies to the Committee for the record.
Thank you for your attention. Please advise should your office have
additional questions.
Regards,
Charles A. Kitchen
Director--Government Releations
Product & Market Information
Note: This information is provided in response to U.S.
International Trade Commission inquiry.
Micro-Porous, Ultra Fine, Spherical Forms of Polyamides 6, 12 and 6/12
Should Be Duty Free Imports (HR 3838 & S. 2240)
CAS Reference Numbers
Polyamide 6 -CAS # 25038-54-4
Polyamide 12 -CAS # 25038-74-8
Polyamide 6/12 -CAS # 25191-04-2
Product Line / Trademark
The Micro-Porous, Ultra Fine, Spherical Forms of Polyamide
6, 12, and 6/12 copolymer are sold under Elf Atochem's
Registered Trademark ORGASOL.
No Domestic Competition
While there are domestic producers of the ubiquitous
pelletized or granular form of polyamides 6 and 12 that finds
application in a long list of high-volume plastic molded or
extruded products, there are no domestic producers of the
micro-porous, ultra fine, spherical forms of polyamide 6, 12,
and 6/12 copolymer material. In fact, Elf Atochem is the only
global producer the this specialized polyamide line.
The term polyamide as used in HTS 3908.10. is the chemical
designation for ``nylon''--the original brand name coined by
DuPont decades ago. Polyamides 6, 12 and the 6/12 copolymer,
classified under HTS 3908.10, are subject to a 6.3% duty.
There are process variations in how polyamides are
polymerized that produce Polyamides 6, 12 and a 6/12 copolymer
that, while chemically the same, have distinctly different
structural characteristics that provide unique features and
benefits in certain ``niche'' product applications.
Most polyamides are polymerized by standard methods
resulting in Polyamides 6, 12 and 6/12 products that are
pelletized--i.e., granular in structure. However Polyamides 6,
12 and a 6/12 are polymerized by the solution method (see
attached ``Fact Sheet'') of production yielding polymer
material that is a micro-porous, ultra fine, spherical
polymerized powder that has special and exclusive niches in the
industrial coatings and cosmetics markets.
Production / Importation
Importer: Elf Atochem North America, Inc., Corporate
Headquarters, 2000 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Tel:
215/419-7000
ORGASOL micro-porous, ultra fine, spherical form polyamide
6, 12, 6/12 powder resins are produced at Elf Atochem SA's
production facility in Mont, France. Material is imported by
Elf Atochem N.A. for direct sale to end-user market customers.
No subsequent production processing is required. Imported
material is warehoused in the following location prior to
shipment to end-use customers:
Linden Warehouse Company, Linden NJ (Port of Newark)
ORGASOL Specialized Polymers Meet Performance Requirements of the
Cosmetics Industry and of the High-End Industrial Coatings Market
Cosmetics Market
Micro-porous, ultra fine, spherical polyamides 6, 12, and
6/12 copolymer powder forms are used as carriers of pigments
and to absorb oils in the skin. Personal care/cosmetics
marketers use our ORGASOL micro-porous powder resins to give
products such as pressed powder, superior texture and a
pleasant or soft-to-the-touch feel. There are no domestic
producers of these unique form of polyamides 6. 12 and 6/12
copolymer.
High-End Industrial Coatings
ORGASOL micro-porous, ultra fine, spherical form powder
resins also are used by manufacturers of industrial coatings,
paints and varnishes to increase abrasion resistance, texturing
and gloss control in UV cured coatings -without significantly
increasing viscosity. There are no domestic producers of these
micro-porous, ultra fine polyamides that meet the unique
product features is high-end ``niche'' coatings applications
that can only be realized with ORGASOL powder resins.
H.R. 3853
To reduce temporarily the duty on Mesamoll.
Bayer Corporation, U.S.A.
Pittsburgh, PA 15205-9741
May 5, 2000
Mr. A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
House Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Subject: H.R. 3853 A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Mesamoll
Dear Mr. Singleton:
Bayer Corporation is a research-based company with major businesses
in health care and life sciences and chemicals. The company had 1999
sales of $8.9 billion and employs more than 22,200 people throughout
the United States and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Bayer Corporation is a member of the worldwide Bayer Group, a $29
billion international life sciences, polymers and specialty chemicals
group based in Leverkusen with 120,400 employees worldwide.
Bayer Corporation is a regular importer of Mesamoll. Bayer's
Logistics Division, with major import operations at Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania and Bayer warehousing in Morrisville, PA and Greenville,
SC as well as Bayer's customers would benefit from tariff suspension on
Mesamoll. Mesamoll is very specialized material occupying less than 1%
of the 1 billion plus pound plasticizer market and is a non-phthalate
plasticizer for flexible PVC and other polymers.
Over 400 U.S. customers are served by use of these products as a
replacement for phthalates in a wide variety of end use applications.
This product has also proven to be a safe alternative to chlorinated
solvents such as methylene chloride in the cleaning of polyurethane
processing equipment. Mesamoll is not produced in the United States and
is extremely helpful to the automotive industry to assist with high
performance applications in competing with imported goods. Mesamoll has
humanitarian applications raging from the manufacture of tents and
shelters based on PVC coated fabric to medical apparatus. United States
compounders seeking to reach new performance levels economically will
reap economic benefits from duty reduction of this product. Bayer AG is
the only producer of this type of Alkyl Acid Ester of Phenol (Mesamoll)
with its unique balance of properties and high performance
characteristics.
We hope this supplemental information is useful in the House Ways
and Means Committee deliberations regarding the tariff suspension for
Mesamoll, proposed in H.R. 3853. Please do not hesitate to contact me
at Tel: 412-777-2058 with any questions. In the event that I am
unavailable, Julie Van Egmond in our Washington office (Tel.: 202-756-
3773) or Stephen Johnsen at our Pittsburgh location (Tel: 412-777-5616)
could be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Karen L. Niedermeyer
H.R. 3854
To reduce temporarily the duty on Vulkalent E/C.
Bayer Corporation, U.S.A.
Pittsburgh, PA 15205-9741
May 1, 2000
Mr. A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
House Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Subject: H.R. 3854 A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Vulkalent
E/C
Dear Mr. Singleton:
Bayer Corporation is a research-based company with major businesses
in health care and life sciences and chemicals. The company had 1999
sales of $8.9 billion and employs more than 22,200 people throughout
the United States and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Bayer Corporation is a member of the worldwide Bayer Group, a $29
billion international life sciences, polymers and specialty chemicals
group based in Leverkusen with 120,400 employees worldwide.
Bayer Corporation is a regular importer of Vulkalent E/C. Bayer's
Rubber Division, with operations in Akron, OH, import operations in
Pittsburgh, PA, Bayer warehouses in Greenville, SC and Bayer customers
in the states of Ohio, California, North Carolina, Texas, Illinois,
Tennessee, Virginia, New Jersey and Rhode Island would benefit from
tariff suspension on Vulkalent E/C. Vulkalent E/C is a very uniquely
balanced retardant for rubber products with high performance
applications, occupying less than 1% of the $1 billion + rubber market.
United States compounders seeking to reach new performance levels
will reap technical benefits from duty reduction of this product.
Vulkalent E/C has an advantage for the U.S. industry because of its
unique balance of properties and high performance applications. U.S.
customers are served by use of this product as part of base rubber
compound recipes in the production of rubber goods, such as automotive
hoses and shoes, where it is used as a vulkanization retarder. This
product is not produced in the United States and is extremely
technically effective and thereby helpful to U.S. industry in competing
with other imported rubber products in a wide variety of uses.
We hope this supplemental information is useful in the House Ways
and Means Committee deliberations regarding the tariff suspension for
Vulkalent E/C, proposed in H.R. 3854. Please do not hesitate to contact
me at Tel: 412-777-2058 with any questions. In the event that I am
unavailable, Julie Van Egmond in our Washington office (Tel.: 202-756-
3773) or Stephen Johnsen at our Pittsburgh location (Tel: 412-777-5616)
could be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Karen L. Niedermeyer
H.R. 3855
To reduce temporarily the duty on Baytron M.
Bayer Corporation, U.S.A.
Pittsburgh, PA 15205-9741
May 1, 2000
Mr. A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
House Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Subject: H.R. 3855 A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Baytron M
Dear Mr. Singleton:
Bayer Corporation is a research-based company with major businesses
in health care and life sciences and chemicals. The company had 1999
sales of $8.9 billion and employs more than 22,200 people throughout
the United States and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Bayer Corporation is a member of the worldwide Bayer Group, a $29
billion international life sciences, polymers and specialty chemicals
group based in Leverkusen with 120,400 employees worldwide.
Bayer Corporation is a regular importer of Baytron M. Bayer's
Logistics Division, with major import operations at Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania and Bayer warehousing in Simpsonville and Rock Hill, SC as
well as Bayer's customers in Simpsonville, SC and Bridgeville, IL would
benefit from tariff suspension on Baytron M. Baytron M is a patent-
protected, very specialized monomer used for the production of
electrostatic and antistatic coating of films. The product is an
environmentally friendly, cost-effective material occupying less than
1% of the electronics industry.
United States compounders seeking to reach new performance levels
economically will reap economic benefits from duty reduction of this
product. Baytron M has an advantage for the U.S. industry because of
its unique electrostatic and anti-static properties. This product is
not produced in the United States, and is extremely helpful to the U.S.
industry in competing with imported goods from the Asian market. There
are a wide variety of applications of Baytron M from electronics, glass
and circuit boards to organic light emitting diodes.
We hope this supplemental information is useful in the House Ways
and Means Committee deliberations regarding the tariff suspension for
Baytron M, proposed in H.R. 3855. Please do not hesitate to contact me
at Tel: 412-777-5616 with any questions. In the event that I am
unavailable, Julie Van Egmond in our Washington office (Tel.: 202-756-
3773) or Karen Niedermeyer at our Pittsburgh location (Tel: 412-777-
2058) could be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Stephen R. Johnsen
H.R. 3856
To reduce temporarily the duty on Baytron C-R.
Bayer Corporation, U.S.A.
Pittsburgh, PA 15205-9741
May 1, 2000
Mr. A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
House Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Subject: H.R. 3856 A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Baytron C-
R
Dear Mr. Singleton:
Bayer Corporation is a research-based company with major businesses
in health care and life sciences and chemicals. The company had 1999
sales of $8.9 billion and employs more than 22,200 people throughout
the United States and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Bayer Corporation is a member of the worldwide Bayer Group, a $29
billion international life sciences, polymers and specialty chemicals
group based in Leverkusen with 120,400 employees worldwide.
Bayer Corporation is a regular importer of Baytron C-R. Bayer's
Logistics Division, with major import operations at Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania and a Bayer warehouse and Bayer customers in Simpsonville,
SC would benefit from tariff suspension on Baytron C-R. Baytron C-R is
a very specialized aqueous catalytic dispersion material with high
performance, and environmentally friendly characteristics occupying
less than 1% of the electronics industry.
United States compounders seeking to reach new performance levels
economically will reap economic benefits from duty reduction of this
product. Baytron C-R has an advantage for the U.S. industry because of
its unique electrostatic and anti-static properties and ability to be
used even in the fine pores of circuit boards. This product is not
produced in the United States, and is extremely cost-effective and
thereby helpful to U.S. industry in competing with imported goods from
the Asian market. There are a wide variety of applications of Baytron
C-R from the production of capacitors to printed circuit boards.
We hope this supplemental information is useful in the House Ways
and Means Committee deliberations regarding the tariff suspension for
Baytron C-R, proposed in H.R. 3856. Please do not hesitate to contact
me at Tel: 412-777-5616 with any questions. In the event that I am
unavailable, Julie Van Egmond in our Washington office (Tel.: 202-756-
3773) or Karen Niedermeyer at our Pittsburgh location (Tel: 412-777-
2058) could be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Stephen R. Johnsen
H.R. 3858
To suspend temporarily the duty on iced teas.
Statement of V. Venkiteswaran, President, Tata Tea, Incorporated, Plant
City, Florida
Tata Tea, Incorporated, based in Plant City Florida,
produces and markets instant tea powders. We have been in
business for more than 20 years and annual sales amount to
approximately $16 million.
Bill Summary
H.R. 3858 is a bill that would eliminate a 10% tariff on
iced tea drink mixes containing sugar that are imported into
the United States.
Description of Manufacturing Process
Instant iced tea drink mixes are composed of sugar,
powdered tea, flavors and coloring.
Tata Tea imports powdered tea extracted from tea leaf. The
tea powder is extracted in India by our parent company. In
Plant City, Florida, the powdered tea is dissolved in water,
mixed with caramel color, spray dried and milled to a fine
powder.
Our customers are private label companies and some of them
purchase tea powder as a pre-mix to manufacture instant iced
tea drink mixes. They export the tea powder to Canada in order
to add sugar and other ingredients. The finished product is
then packaged for retail sale and imported into the United
States.
Tariff Treatment
Tea leaves and tea powders are generally imported into the
United States duty free.
In contrast, iced tea drink mixes containing sugar are
dutiable and may be subject to tariff rate quotas that exist
under the U.S. sugar program. The sugar quotas are administered
by imposing high tariffs on over quota merchandise. Drink mixes
imported within the quota are dutiable at the lower rate of 10
percent ad valorem. The tariff that applies to in quota drink
mixes is unrelated to the sugar quota program. Drink mixes
imported within the quota may also be imported into the United
States duty free if they qualify for preferential duty
treatment under the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA).
Although our tea powder is further processed in the United
States, it does not qualify for preferential treatment under
the NAFTA rules of origin. In order to qualify for NAFTA, the
tea powder must be extracted in North America.
At present, Tata Tea imports tea powder into the United
States duty free. However, our customers would have to pay a
10% tariff if they import the drink mix into the United States.
Effect on the Market
The existing tariff structure places Tata Tea at a
competitive disadvantage with producers that extract tea powder
in the United States. Our customers must pay duties on drink
mixes that are imported into the United States from Canada.
However, they pay no duties if the tea powder is purchased from
a supplier that extracts powder in the United States. This
occurs despite the fact that all of the major producers extract
tea powder from foreign tea leaf.
The situation described above is distorting the market for
instant tea drink mixes. Producers that rely on tea powder
extracted abroad have difficulty competing with manufacturers
that extract tea powder in the United States. This results in
less competition and fewer choices for the consumer.
Tata Tea has explored the possibility of establishing an
extraction facility in the United States in order to qualify
for NAFTA. This is not feasible primarily due to environmental
concerns. For the same reason, most of our competitors have
moved their extraction facilities offshore. In the long-term,
it may not be viable for any manufacturer to extract tea powder
in the United States.
Proposed Duty Suspension
Congress did not intend to shield domestic producers of tea
powder from foreign competition. This is evident because there
is no tariff on tea powder imported into the United States.
Nevertheless, due to the tax on finished iced tea mixes,
suppliers that extract tea overseas are placed at a competitive
disadvantage. If enacted, H.R. 3858 would eliminate this
disparity in tariff treatment by suspending the tariff on
instant iced tea drink mixes. As a consequence, all producers
of tea powder will be placed on an equal footing.
The proposal to suspend duties will have no effect on the
United States sugar program because it applies only to instant
iced tea drink mixes that are entered within the sugar quota.
That is, the rates used to administer the tariff rate quotas on
sugar will remain unchanged and will apply to all over quota
merchandise. Consequently, we do not believe that the cane and
beet sugar industry will lodge an objection to this bill.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we urge the Subcommittee on
Trade to include H.R. 3858 in the next miscellaneous trade
package.
H.R. 3868
To provide for the reliquidation of certain entries of
vacuum cleaners.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3869
To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain
entries of copper and brass sheet and strip.
May 17, 2000
Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Phil:
I am responding to your April 20th press advisory in which you
request written comments regarding a list of trade proposals you are
considering for inclusion into a Miscellaneous Tariff and Duty
Suspension package.
Specifically, I am writing to urge you to incorporate legislation I
have introduced, H.R. 3869, into the proposal you are crafting. I
introduced H.R. 3869 on behalf of a company headquartered in my
district, Outokumpu Copper, Inc. (Outokumpu). Indeed, Outokumpu is
located just down the road from your district in Bloomingdale,
Illinois. Technically, the bill would ``provide for the liquidation or
reliquidation of certain identified entries of copper and brass sheet
and strip.'' In layman's terms, my bill would refund to Outokumpu
monies owed to it by the federal government as a result of duty
payments Outokumpu made that were in excess of the final duty it was
determined to owe. The excess payments come to slightly over $1 million
in principal and interest.
Outokumpu imports brass sheet and strip from the Netherlands and
Sweden. These imports have been subject to antidumping orders since the
late 1980s. Under Customs procedure, Outokumpu pays (``deposits'') the
estimated antidumping duties at the time its imports enter the United
States. A final assessment (``liquidation'') of the actual duty amount
that should be paid is not made until the Import Administration of the
Department of Commerce Service completes a review. During the period in
which deposits are made on the imports, and prior to review, the
Customs Service is supposed to suspend the liquidation of the entries.
Notwithstanding the suspension requirement, the Customs Service
inadvertently liquidated many of Outokumpu's entries at the original
deposit amount even though many were in excess of the final assessed
duty. The company should have been refunded the amount of its
overpayments, which date back to a period of time covering 1988-1992.
Unfortunately, it was not, a fact which Outokumpu only recently
discovered. Outokumpu's only recourse to recover the money owed to them
by the federal government is through enactment of legislation.
It is my understanding that in the past your Committee has granted
similar requests with respect to liquidated duties, and I respectfully
urge you to include H.R. 3869 in your legislative trade package. The
federal government owes Outokumpu money--money that Outokumpu deposited
with the federal government in good faith. This money belongs to the
taxpayer and ought to be returned to the taxpayer with appropriate
interest.
Needless to say, I would be happy to provide you with any
additional information you may require. Thank you for your
consideration of my request.
Very truly yours,
Henry Hyde
HJH:ns
Outokumpu Copper
Bloomingdale, IL 60108
May 16, 2000
The Honorable Phil Crane
Chairman
Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
We are writing in response to your April 20th Advisory requesting
written comments for the record with regard to a list of trade
proposals you are considering for inclusion into a Miscellaneous Tariff
and Duty Suspension package.
Specifically, as company officers for Outokumpu Copper, Inc. and
Outokumpu Copper (USA), Inc. (``Outokumpu''), we are writing in strong
support of H.R. 3869, legislation to ``provide for the liquidation or
reliquidation of certain identified entries of copper and brass sheet
and strip.'' H.R. 3869, introduced by your Illinois colleague,
Representative Henry Hyde, will refund to Outokumpu monies owed to it
by the federal government as a result of the inadvertent liquidation of
duties by the U.S. Customs Service. The remainder of this letter will
explain in detail the circumstances surrounding this case and the
necessity for enactment of H.R. 3869. For your information, Senator
Dick Durbin has introduced similar legislation, S. 2295, in the Senate.
Outokumpu is a U.S. importer of brass sheet and strip from the
Netherlands and Sweden. Headquartered in Bloomingdale, Illinois, our
company imports these products from Outokumpu Copper Strip BV
(Netherlands) and Outokumpu Rolled Products AB (Sweden). Imports of
Outokumpu brass have been subject to antidumping orders since 1987
(Sweden) and 1988 (Netherlands). Under Customs procedure, Outokumpu
pays (``deposits'') the estimated antidumpting duties at the time its
imports enter the United States. A final assessment (``liquidation'')
of the actual duty amount that should be paid is not made until the
Import Administration of The Department of Commerce completes a review
for the applicable 12-month period covering the imports. During the
period in which deposits are made on the imports, and prior to the
Import Administration's review, the Customs Service is supposed to
suspend the liquidation of entries subject to antidumping orders.
Notwithstanding the suspension order, the Customs Service
inadvertently liquidated many of Outokumpu's entries at their original
deposit amount even though many were in excess of the final assessed
duty. The company should have been refunded the amount of its
overpayments, which date back to a period of time covering 1988-1992.
Unfortunately, it was not. Until very recently, the company believed
that these entries were still unliquidated. Consequently, Outokumpu's
only recourse to recover these entries, amounting to slightly over $1
million (in excess duty deposits and interest cost), is through federal
legislation--namely H.R. 3869.
We would note that the $1 million figure is a ``net'' figure. The
net figure is referenced because not only have we provided Customs with
a list of those liquidated entries where Outokumpu overpaid, but we
have also provided Customs with a list of liquidated entries where
Outokumpu actually owes additional duty. In short, we want to set the
entire record straight. We believe that the Customs evaluation of the
entry list we have provided will unequivocally support our claim. For
your information and for the record, in this transmittal we have
provided you with the same detailed list of entries that we have
provided to Customs. Finally we would note for the record that, to
date, Customs has been very cooperative in working with us to evaluate
the entries in question.
We stand prepared to provide you and your Subcommittee with any
additional information you may require to evaluate the merits of this
legislation. As a matter of principle and as a matter of equity and
fairness, we strongly believe Outokumpu should be refunded the amount
of duty it has overpaid along with appropriate interest. It is our
understanding that in the past your Subcommittee has granted similar
requests with respect to liquidated duties, and we urge you to include
H.R. 3869 in your legislative trade package.
Thank you for your time and for your consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
Martin A. Kroll Ulf Anvin
President President
Enclosure
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.006
May 16, 2000
The Honorable Phil Crane
Chairman
Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Phil:
It is my understanding that you have asked for public comment on a
list of trade proposals you recently listed in a press advisory dated
April 20th. I am writing to express my support for a proposal contained
on that list, H.R. 3869, legislation introduced by our colleague, Henry
Hyde.
Specifically, I am writing to urge you to incorporate H.R. 3869
into the Miscellaneous Tariff and Duty Suspension bill you are
currently crafting. Representative Hyde introduced H.R. 3869 on behalf
of an Illinois company, Outokumpu Copper, Inc. (Outokumpu),
headquartered in Bloomingdale, Illinois. Essentially, the bill would
refund monies owed to Outokumpu by the federal government resulting
from duty payments Outokumpu made that were in excess of the final duty
it was determined to owe. The excess payments come to slightly over $1
million in principal and interest. The only way Outokumpu can recoup
its money is through federal legislation.
Outokumpu imports brass sheet and strip, imports that have been
subject to antidumping orders since the late 1980s. Under Customs
procedure, Outokumpu pays (``deposits'') the estimated antidumping
duties at the time its imports enter the United States. A final
assessment (``liquidation'') of the actual duty amount that should be
paid is not made until the Import Administration of the Department of
Commerce Service completes a review. During the period in which
deposits are made on the imports, and prior to review, the Customs
Service is supposed to suspend the liquidation of the entries.
Notwithstanding the suspension order, the Customs Service inadvertently
liquidated many of Outokumpu's entries at the original deposit amount
even though many were in excess of the final assessed duty. The company
should have been refunded the amount of its overpayments, which date
back to a period of time covering 1988-1992. Unfortunately, it was not,
a fact that Outokumpu only recently discovered.
I know your Subcommittee has addressed similar requests in the
past, and on behalf of the Illinois company in question, I urge you to
include Chairman Hyde's bill into your Duty Suspension package.
Thank you for your consideration of my request. Please feel free to
contact Jeanette Forcash of my staff at (5-3635) with any questions.
Sincerely,
Jerry Weller
H.R. 3875
To suspend temporarily the duty on certain steam or other
vapor generating boilers used in nuclear facilities
McDermott International, Inc.
Arlington, VA
May 19, 2000
A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: HR 3875
Dear Mr. Singleton:
McDermott International is strongly opposed to the adoption of HR
3875 which proposes to eliminate tariffs on certain steam or other
vapor generating boilers used in nuclear facilities and classified
under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
Subheading 8402.11.
McDermott is a leading energy services and manufacturing company,
providing engineering, procurement, manufacturing of equipment and
project management for customers involved in the production of energy
and in other industries. Babcock & Wilcox is a subsidiary of McDermott
that manufactures power generation systems, including steam or other
vapor generating boilers used in nuclear facilities. Babcock & Wilcox's
North American facilities are located in Barberton, Ohio; Cambridge,
Ontario, Canada; Ebensburg, Pennsylvania; Lancaster, Ohio; Alliance,
Ohio; Melville, Saskatchewan, Canada; Mount Vernon, Indiana; St
Petersburg, Florida; West Palm Beach, Florida; and West Point,
Mississippi.
Suspension of the 5.2 percent duties as expressed in HR 3875, or
permanent elimination of the duties as expressed in'S 2158, on certain
steam or other vapor generating boilers that are used in nuclear
facilities, would result in substantial loss of revenue to the U.S.
Treasury. In the month of February 2000, imports classified under HTSUS
Subheading 8402.11 were valued at the amount of $31,058,850. Based on
information available to the company, we are confident that this value
reflects the importation from Spain of boilers to be used in a nuclear
facility. The calculated duty for the month of February, based on the
current 5.2 percent rate, is $1,615,060. Based on additional
information received from sources in the trade, we believe that imports
of boilers for use in nuclear facilities under HTSUS Subheading 8402.11
for calendar year 2000 will be in the range of $150,000,000, thus
resulting in potential revenue to the U.S. Treasury of about
$7,800,000. In addition, we are aware of numerous U.S. orders to
foreign suppliers for delivery in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Please see
Enclosure 1 for a listing of these orders. We have also included a list
of nuclear plants expected to replace their boilers during the 2006-
2010 time-frame (see Enclosure 2). To further document the value of
these orders, enclosures 3 and 4 are trade press announcements of
significant orders to Korea's Hanjung for 2 nuclear boilers ($50
million) and one to Ansaldo of Italy for L 100 billion for 2 nuclear
boilers (roughly $57 million in 1998). Steam generators are the
industry term for nuclear boilers.
Nuclear boiler contracts are often awarded on a supply, remove and
install basis. The company awards the overall contract and then
contracts with a nuclear boiler manufacturer for the supply of the
equipment. The contract price for the overall contract, including
removal and installation, is often public knowledge. However, the price
just for the equipment is often not made public. But, there are only a
few major models of nuclear boilers in the U.S. and by knowing the
pricing of nuclear boilers at another plant with the same basic model
of boilers, one can closely approximate the pricing of nuclear boilers
at a plant where the pricing of the boilers is not publicly known. We
have used our extensive knowledge of nuclear boiler models at specific
plants to complete the pricing shown in enclosures 1 and 2.
Nuclear boilers are critical pieces of equipment in nuclear power
plants and are designed and manufactured to exacting standards.
Facilities that manufacture nuclear boilers are required to possess an
N-stamp qualification. N-stamps are issued by the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers and conform to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
criteria. Qualification for an N-stamp includes a rigorous quality
assurance program and a very high level of expertise and quality.
Nuclear boilers are very large pieces of highly engineered
equipment (a single boiler can weigh up to 500 tons, approach 70 feet
in length and exceed 20 feet in diameter) that are designed and
manufactured to extremely tight tolerances (measured in thousandths of
an inch).
Babcock & Wilcox maintains the capability to manufacture steam or
other vapor generating boilers for use in nuclear facilities at our
plants in Cambridge, Ontario, Canada, Mount Vernon, Indiana and
Barberton, Ohio. We have performed significant nuclear boiler
manufacturing work in our U.S. facilities (component fabrication,
component installation, heavy assembly, final inspection and testing).
There are a number of nuclear plants requiring replacement boilers,
which will necessitate manufacturing in our U.S. facilities. We conduct
virtually all of our research and development in the United States. Our
North American manufacturing requires significant procurement of U.S.
sourced materials and engineering equipment. We also undertake
extensive manufacturing of boilers for non-nuclear use in the United
States. Our ability to manufacture boilers for nuclear use in the
United States will depend on how future orders develop and the duty of
HTSUS Subheading 8402.11 remaining at 5.2 %.
Temporary or permanent duty suspension would have an adverse
economic impact on US suppliers to Babcock & Wilcox. In 1998, Babcock &
Wilcox operations in Cambridge, Ontario issued a minimum of US$3.49
million in purchase orders to US suppliers or their Canadian
distributors (US$194,000). These purchase orders were issued strictly
against Babcock & Wilcox's nuclear boiler contracts. The corresponding
amounts in 1999 were US$ 4.62 million with $1.25 million of this to
Canadian distributors. The principal suppliers are located in
California, Connecticut, Maine, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia. To the best of our
knowledge, these US suppliers only supply to Babcock & Wilcox in
respect of our nuclear boiler products. As the duty suspension
contemplated in HR 3875 would make Babcock & Wilcox's nuclear boilers
less competitive, then this could have a direct adverse impact on our
US suppliers.
While HR 3875 and'S 2158 propose to eliminate the U.S. duty on
certain products classified under HTSUS Subheading 8402.11, U.S.
competitors such as the European Union and Korea (a significant
supplier) both maintain duties on this product--2.7 percent and 8.0
percent, respectively. The continued existence of duties in the EU and
Korea coupled with the concomitant elimination of duties on U.S.
imports would undermine the intent of NAFTA and encourage the migration
of production from North America to countries outside the region.
In conclusion, the elimination of the 5.2 percent duty on certain
boilers classified under HTSUS Subheading 8402.11 would adversely
affect McDermott International and its subsidiary Babcock & Wilcox and
preclude it from producing such boilers in the United States. For the
reasons stated above, McDermott International and Babcock & Wilcox
oppose HR 3875 (and'S 2158) and request that these comments be given
formal consideration.
Sincerely,
Bruce N. Hatton
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Grant Aldonas, Chief International Trade Counsel, Senate
Finance Committee
Mr. Dennis Fravel, U.S. International Trade Commission
Ms. Jan Summers, U.S. International Trade Commission
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.010
PricewaterhouseCoopers
Washington, DC 20005-3333
May 19, 2000
The Honorable Phil Crane
Chairman
Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Re: H.R. 3875--Legislation to temporarily suspend the duty on steam
generators imported for use in nuclear power facilities.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
We are writing in response to your April 20th press advisory in
which you request written comments for the record on technical
corrections to U.S. trade law and miscellaneous duty suspension
proposals. The comments contained in this letter are submitted on
behalf of the following parties and are in lieu of individual comments
from each of these organizations.
Nuclear Energy Institute
Alliant Energy Corporation
Northern States Power Company
Pinnacle West Energy Corporation
The Southern Companies
Westinghouse Electric Company
WPS Resources Corporation
In addition, the seven above-named entities filed the attached
comments urging repeal of the tariff on steam generators used in
nuclear power facilities with the International Trade Commission.
Each of the aforementioned parties strongly support H.R. 3875 and
urges the House of Representatives to repeal or suspend the tariff on
steam generators imported for use in nuclear power plants.
As proponents of H.R. 3875, our comments will highlight the
following facts.
(1) No public policy is served by the imposition of the duty on
nuclear steam generators and there is no apparent public benefit from
the tariff.
(2) There is no current domestic production of these specialized
steam generators and it is highly unlikely that domestic production
capability will be developed in the foreseeable future.
(3) The 5.2% duty imposed on these specialized steam generators is
an unnecessary burden on domestic residential, industrial, and
commercial users of electricity.
(4) Repeal or suspension of the duty will have an insignificant
effect on the federal government's receipts.
(5) H.R. 3875 has strong bipartisan and bicameral congressional
support.
No Public Policy Goals are Furthered by the Tariff
There is no apparent public benefit for the imposition and
collection of a duty on steam generators imported for use in
nuclear facilities. Because there is currently no domestic
production and there is no likelihood of future domestic
production of nuclear steam generators, there is no policy
rationale justifying the continued imposition of this duty.
In fact, the tariff on nuclear steam generators is an
inefficient tax on domestic electricity consumers. The tariff
is a hidden ``BTU tax'' on residential, commercial, and
industrial users of electricity. Because this hidden BTU tax is
collected as a tariff and passed on to consumers through
ratemaking proceedings, the tax is masked to the end-users.
Further, this hidden BTU tax is imposed only on nuclear
power generation at a time when over 26 States, including
Illinois, have deregulated the electric industry. The tariff
imposes a competitive disadvantage on nuclear power. The tariff
penalizes nuclear power generation, which is the only large-
scale power generation source that produces no smokestack
emissions.
As the federal and state governments work to bring
competition to the electric utility industry and reduce
greenhouse gases, it is time to remove the tariff on steam
generators imported for use in nuclear power facilities.
No Current U.S. Production
Nuclear steam generators are no longer manufactured in the
United States. When nuclear power plants were being constructed
in the United States, the reactor suppliers manufactured the
original steam generators. Combustion Engineering manufactured
generators in Chattanooga, Tennessee; Babcock & Wilcox in
Barberton, Ohio; and Westinghouse, in Pensacola, Florida.
Combustion Engineering no longer uses its Chattanooga facility
for that purpose and has disposed of the manufacturing
equipment. Babcock & Wilcox, owned by McDermott International,
moved its manufacturing operation to Canada.
Westinghouse was the last company to manufacture this
product in the United States. Its plant in Pensacola, Florida
was closed after shipping its last order in November 1999.
Westinghouse found the nuclear steam generator business
insufficient to sustain the plant and transferred its
production overseas. The plant equipment has already been sold
and the plant structure is for sale and will be converted to
another use.
Today, only six companies produce nuclear steam generators
in the world, and all of them are outside the United States:
Ensa (Spain), Ansaldo (Italy), Babcock & Wilcox (Canada),
Framatome (France), HANJUNG (Korea) and Mitsubishi (Japan).
Future U.S. Production Unlikely
The prospect of a nuclear steam generator production
facility being located in the United States is extremely
remote. We cannot stress this point strongly enough. Indeed,
several significant factors suggest that it is highly unlikely
that such a production capability will be created in the next
five years or for the foreseeable future:
The market for nuclear steam generators--The
universe of nuclear power plants in the United States is
limited and is not expected to grow. Indeed, the last time a
nuclear power facility was ordered in the United States was in
January 1978.
The expense and time required to select, design,
and construct a manufacturing facility--The estimated cost of a
new manufacturing facility is $60 million to $80 million.
Preferred sites are large (a facility of about 200,000 square
feet is needed to house production and output prior to
shipping) and close to water (steam generators, at 500 to 900
tons, are too large to transport by rail and are transported by
water).
The time required for regulatory authorizations--
For example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires
manufacturers of nuclear power plant components to be certified
(the N-Certificate of Authorization) by the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers before a plant may operate in the United
States. To acquire a new certification takes about one year.
The time required to produce a nuclear steam
generator--Even after a manufacturing facility is ready to
produce, the construction of all component subassemblies and
final fabrication takes 32 to 48 months in the typical case.
U.S. competitiveness--By their actions, it is
clear that the assessment of former U.S. suppliers is that
production of nuclear steam generators in the United States is
not competitive with foreign production.
In addition to these factors, recent decisions by U.S.
manufacturers provide compelling evidence that there will be no
future U.S. production of nuclear steam generators. If the
nuclear steam generator market were viable, an interested party
could have purchased a licensed, operating facility at the time
the Westinghouse plant closed. No buyers expressed any interest
in purchasing the Westinghouse facility for its nuclear steam
generator production capacity. Westinghouse has dismantled the
facility and is offering to sell the property for other
industrial uses.
The Tariff is an Unnecessary Burden on the Consumer
U.S. production capability has evaporated despite the
imposition of the duty. The cost of the duty incurred by the
utility owning a nuclear power facility is simply passed
directly on to the ratepayer. The ratepayer derives no benefit
through the payment of this duty. Simply put, the 5.2% duty
imposed on these steam generators is an unnecessary burden on
domestic residential, industrial, and commercial users.
H.R. 3875 has Strong Congressional Support
Representative Mac Collins (GA) introduced H.R. 3875 in the
House of Representatives to suspend for five years the tariff
imposed by Section 8402.11 of the 2000 U.S. Harmonized Tariff
Schedule (USHTS) on the importation of steam generators used in
nuclear power facilities. The legislation was introduced with
five original cosponsors: Representatives Tanner (TN), J.D.
Hayworth (AZ), J. Lewis (GA), N. Johnson (CT), and Thurman
(FL). Following introduction of the legislation,
Representatives Matsui (CA), Watkins (OK) and Barr (GA)
cosponsored the bill.
In the Senate, Senator Frank Murkowski (AK) introduced S.
2158 to eliminate the duty on the importation of steam
generators for use in nuclear power facilities. Senator
Murkowski introduced his legislation with two original
cosponsors, Senators Grams (MN) and Thompson (TN). Senators
Coverdell (GA), Kyl (AZ), Mack (FL) and Nickles (OK) have also
cosponsored the bill.
The proponents support both H.R. 3875 and S. 2158. While
the proponents prefer outright repeal of the duty, they will
support a five-year suspension effective January 1, 2000. A
lengthy suspension is in order considering how unlikely it is
that U.S. production might spring up for all the reasons
stated.
In short, legislation to suspend or eliminate the duty on
nuclear steam generators has strong bipartisan and bicameral
support, particularly from key members of the House Ways and
Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee.
Revenue Effect
We estimate that the revenue loss to the federal Treasury
will be less than $9 million over five years. We arrive at this
figure by applying the tariff rate of 5.2% to the average price
of a nuclear steam generator ($12.6 million) and multiplying
the result by the number of nuclear steam generators (18)
ordered and expected to be imported between 2000 and 2005.
Duties paid by U.S. taxpayers are deductible expenses for
purposes of computing income tax liability. Therefore,
increased federal revenue derived from duties paid by U.S.
taxpayers is partially offset by lower income tax payments to
the federal government. It is our understanding the
Congressional Budget Office's scoring conventions assume that
the income tax offset lowers the revenue loss of a duty
suspension or repeal by 25%. The enclosed letter to ITC
explains in further detail how we arrived at our revenue
estimate and includes discussion of the difference between
replacement cost versus dutiable cost.
While the $9,000,000.00 ($9 million) revenue loss may be
more than the revenue loss of the typical duty suspension
measure your Subcommittee considers, it is insignificant in an
annual federal budget of $1,800,000,000,000.00 ($1.8 trillion).
Conclusion
Because there are no domestic manufacturing facilities, the
tariff neither protects a domestic industry nor promotes the
development of new domestic capacity. Indeed, despite the
artificial competitive advantage of the tariff, the last two
remaining domestic manufacturers abandoned the market.
McDermott International moved its Babcock & Wilcox steam
generator production facility to a foreign country.
Westinghouse, unable to find a purchaser for it steam generator
production facility, simply surrendered its ASME certification
required by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, shut down
its plant, and is converting the facilities to other uses.
Other than an insignificant amount of revenue derived from
this hidden tax, the tariff on nuclear steam generators
provides no apparent public benefit. Because of the limited
market for these specialized generators and the many difficult
barriers to entry into production, it is highly unlikely that
there will be any domestic production capability in the future.
H.R. 3875 represents sound trade policy. On behalf of the
organizations for which we are writing, we strongly urge you to
include this proposal in the duty suspension legislation that
the Committee will consider this year.
If we can provide any additional information, please do not
hesitate to call us at 202.414.1533.
Sincerely,
Kirt C. Johnson, and
Patrick J. Raffaniello
Attachment 1--Proponents
The Nuclear Energy Institute is a trade association organized
to shape public policy in a manner that ensures the
beneficial use of nuclear energy and related technologies
in the United States and around the world. Formed in 1953,
the Institute today has nearly 300 members engaged in the
peaceful use of nuclear technologies.
Alliant Energy is a major energy-services corporation
headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin. It is a utility
holding company employing more than 6000 employees,
providing electric, natural gas, water and steam energy to
more than 1.3 million customers in service territories in
Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois and Minnesota. Alliant Energy is
putting its energy services expertise to use in developing
markets internationally. Roughly 12% of the energy is
generates as a utility comes from nuclear sources, and it
purchases additional nuclear-generated electricity for its
customers on the wholesale market.
Northern States Power Company is an investor-owned utility
serving the Upper Mid-West. Headquartered in Minneapolis,
Minnesota, NSP serves electricity consumers in Minnesota,
Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.
Pinnacle West Energy Corporation (PWEC) is an affiliate of
Arizona Public Service Company (APS) which is an investor-
owned utility serving the Southwest. Headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona, APS is the majority owner and operator of
the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station that provides
electricity to consumers in Arizona, California, Nevada,
New Mexico, and Texas. As a result of deregulation in the
State of Arizona, APS' ownership interest and operating
authority for Palo Verde will be transferred to PWEC.
The Southern Companies is an investor-owned utility serving the
Southeast. Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, The Southern
Companies serves electricity consumers in Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, and Mississippi.
Westinghouse Electric Company is engineering and technology
company headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
WPS Resources Corporation is a holding company headquartered in
Green Bay, Wisconsin providing products and services in
both regulated and non-regulated energy markets. Through
its subsidiaries, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation and
Upper Peninsula Power Company, WPS serves electric
consumers in Michigan and Wisconsin.
Mr. Dennis Fravel
International Trade Analyst
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW
Washington, DC 20002
Re: H.R. 3875: Legislation to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
steam and other vapor-generating boiler used in nuclear facilities.
S. 2158: Legislation to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States to eliminate the duty on certain steam or other vapor-
generating boilers used in nuclear facilities.
Dear Mr. Fravel:
Please accept these comments in support of H.R. 3875 and S. 2158.
These comments and the enclosed report on the U.S. Market for Nuclear
Steam Generators are submitted on behalf of several domestic proponents
of H.R. 3875 and S. 2158. These comments are filed on behalf the
following organizations and are in lieu of individual comments from
each organization.
Nuclear Energy Institute
Alliant Energy Corporation
Northern States Power Company
Pinnacle West Energy Corporation
The Southern Companies
Westinghouse Electric Company
WPS Resources Corporation
A description of each organization is provided as Attachment 1 to
this letter.
The proponents strongly urge the Administration to work with
Congress to repeal the tariff on steam generators imported for use in
nuclear power facilities. The 5.2% duty imposed by 8402.11 of the 2000
U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (USHTS) is a burden on domestic
residential, industrial, and commercial users of electricity. There is
no current domestic production of these specialized steam generators.
Further, there is no domestic capability to initiate production of
nuclear steam generators and no feasible likelihood that domestic
production capability will be developed.
H.R. 3875
Representative Collins (GA) introduced H.R. 3875 in the House of
Representatives to suspend for five years the tariff imposed by 2000
USHTS 8402.11 on the importation of steam generators for use in nuclear
power facilities.
The legislation was introduced with five original cosponsors:
Representatives Tanner (TN), J.D. Hayworth (AZ), J. Lewis (GA), N.
Johnson (CT), and Thurman (FL). Following introduction of the bill,
Representatives Matsui (CA) and Barr (GA) cosponsored the bill.
S. 2158
Senator Murkowski (AK) introduced S. 2158 to eliminate the duty on
the importation steam generators for use in nuclear power facilities.
Senator Murkowski introduced his legislation with two original
cosponsors, Senators Grams (MN) and Thompson (TN). Senators Coverdell
(GA), Kyl (AZ), Mack (FL) and Nickles (OK) have also cosponsored the
bill.
Proponents Prefer Repeal (S. 2158)
The proponents support both S. 2168 and H.R. 3875. We urge Congress
and the Administration to repeal the duty. Other than a limited amount
of revenue derived from this hidden tax, the tariff on nuclear steam
generators provides no apparent public benefit. Because of the limited
market for these specialized generators and the many difficult barriers
to entry into production, it is highly unlikely that there will be any
domestic production capability in the future.
Locations Where Proponents Will Use the Product
Of the 104 operational nuclear power plants in the United States in
1998, 70 have pressurized water reactors. These plants are owned by 34
different utilities and are located in 27 different States. There are
committed orders for 30 nuclear steam generators. The following table
identifies the country of origin, estimated year of delivery, and power
plant where these steam generators will be installed.
Committed Orders For Steam Generators by U.S. Power Plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country of Power Plant Number of Units
Power Plant Name Manufacture Year of Delivery State Purchased
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ano 2............................... Spain 2000 Arkansas 2
Farley 1............................ Spain 2000 Alabama 3
Kewaunee............................ Italy 2000 Wisconsin 2
Shearon Harris...................... 2000 North 2
Carolina
South Texas Project 1............... USA 2000 Texas 4
Cook 1.............................. Canada 2001 Michigan 4
Farley 2............................ Spain 2001 Alabama 3
Calvert Cliffs 1.................... Canada 2002 Maryland 2
Calvert Cliffs 2.................... Canada 2003 Maryland 2
Palo Verde 2........................ Italy 2002 Arizona 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment 2 lists the U.S. plants with pressurized water
reactors in 1998 and their owners. Attachment 3 depicts their
locations.
Description of the Product and Its Uses
Nuclear steam generators are essential components in the
process of turning nuclear energy into electricity in a
pressurized water reactor. Water is pumped through the
reactor's core and is heated by the fission process. This water
is maintained under pressure to prevent it from boiling and
turning into steam. The pressurized water is passed through the
tubing within the nuclear steam generator, a large heat
exchanger that transfers heat from a primary coolant system
(tube side) to a secondary coolant system (shell side). The
primary coolant system contains pressurized water; the
secondary coolant system contains water that is turned into
steam by the heat exchanged. The steam drives the power plant
turbines, creating electricity.
Attachment 4 shows how nuclear steam generators fit into
the generation of electricity. Attachment 5 diagrams the
reactor coolant system arrangement.
Specialized use: Nuclear steam generators are specialized
pieces of equipment that weigh 500 to 900 tons each. They are
used only in pressurized water reactors. They are not used in
boiling water reactors, non-nuclear power plants, or other
industrial facilities.
The design of a nuclear steam generator is unlike the
design of a fossil fuel steam generator. The equipment required
to operate the two types of generators is different. The
material for the tubing in the nuclear steam generator is
different from the tubing material in a non-nuclear plant. The
nuclear steam generator tubing must be compatible with the
unique primary and secondary side water chemistry conditions to
minimize corrosion degradation. Historically the transfer tubes
in nuclear steam generators used in the United States were made
of alloy 600, a nickel/chrome/iron alloy. Newer steam
generators primarily use alloy 690, which is more resistant to
corrosion.
Countries of Origin of the Product
Only six companies produce nuclear steam generators. All of
them are outside the United States. The companies are listed
below.
Ensa (Spain)
Ansaldo (Italy)
Babcock & Wilcox (Canada)
Framatome (France)
HANJUNG (Korea)
Mitsubishi (Japan).
Revenue Effect
We estimate the revenue loss to federal Treasury will be
less than $9 million over five years. We arrive at this figure
by applying the tariff rate of 5.2% to the average price of a
nuclear steam generator ($12.6 million) and multiplying the
result by the number of committed nuclear steam generators (18)
ordered and expected to be imported between 2000 and 2005.
Duties paid by U.S. taxpayers are deductible expenses for
purposes of computing income tax liability. Therefore,
increased federal revenue derived from duties paid by U.S.
taxpayers is partially offset by lower income tax payments to
the federal government. It is our understanding the
Congressional Budget Office's scoring conventions assume that
the income tax offset lowers the revenue loss of a duty
suspension or repeal by 25%.
Replacement cost and price: The average replacement cost of
a nuclear steam generator during 1994-1997 (the latest
available year of full price data) was $38.4 million.
Replacement cost includes many costs in addition to the price
or fabrication cost of the steam generator itself. Replacement
cost may include licensing, engineering, installation, storage,
and transport, as well as the price of the steam generator.
Recently, the price of a nuclear steam generator has been
approximately 33% of total replacement cost, with some
variation.
Tariff to the United States: A buyer may be required to pay
an import duty to the United States on nuclear steam generators
that are manufactured abroad. In general, the tariff rate for
2000 is 5.2%, although imports from certain countries are
exempt by treaties (including Canada, by virtue of the North
American Free Trade Agreement).
Duty is computed by reference to the price of the steam
generator and not to the replacement cost discussed above
(which includes substantial, domestically incurred costs such
as transportation, installation, and engineering). A 5.2% duty
on the price or fabrication cost of a nuclear steam generator
($12.67 million, or 33% of average total replacement cost) is
about $660,000. Of the 30 steam generators under committed
orders and listed in Attachment 6, all will be imported and,
excepting eight Canadian-made steam generators, 18 apparently
will be subject to the 5.2% duty.
No Current U.S. Production of the Product
Nuclear steam generators are no longer manufactured in the
United States. When nuclear plants were being constructed in
the United States, the original steam generators were being
manufactured by the reactor suppliers. Combustion Engineering
manufactured in Chattanooga, Tennessee; Westinghouse, in
Pensacola, Florida; and Babcock & Wilcox in Barberton, Ohio.
Combustion Engineering no longer uses its Chattanooga facility
for that purpose and has disposed of the manufacturing
equipment. Babcock & Wilcox moved its manufacturing operation
to Canada.
Westinghouse was the last company to manufacture this
product in the United States. Its plant in Pensacola, Florida
was closed after shipping its last order in November 1999 to
the South Texas Project. The plant equipment has already been
sold and moved, including highly specialized equipment
purchased by competitors. The plant structure is for sale and
could be converted to many uses other than its former use.
The Pensacola plant had been used to make power generation
and electric generation systems in addition to nuclear steam
generators. Westinghouse had planned to close the plant when it
sold its power generation division to Siemens AG and its
nuclear division to BNFL LTD. Siemens transferred activities
relating to power generation out of the plant. Westinghouse/
BNFL found the nuclear steam generator business insufficient to
sustain the plant and transferred its production overseas to
Ensa.
Future U.S. Production is Unlikely
U.S. market entry--the delivery of a new nuclear steam
generator that has been produced in the United States--seems
highly unlikely during the next five years. There are several
factors:
The time required to select, design, and construct
a manufacturing facility. Preferred sites are large (a facility
of about 200,000 square feet is needed to house production and
output prior to shipping) and close to water (steam generators,
at 500 to 900 tons, are too large to transport by rail and are
transported by water). The estimated cost of a new
manufacturing facility is $60 million to $80 million.
The time required for regulatory authorizations.
For example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires
manufacturers of nuclear power plant components to be certified
(the N-Certificate of Authorization) by the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers before a plant may operate in the United
States. To acquire a new certification takes about one year.
The time required to produce a nuclear steam
generator. Even after a manufacturing facility is ready to
produce, the construction of all component subassemblies and
final fabrication would take 32 to 48 months in the typical
case.
The evident assessment of former U.S. suppliers
that production of nuclear steam generators in the United
States is not competitive with production elsewhere.
Attachment 6 illustrates the timetable for the 6-year
nuclear steam generator replacement project at Unit 2 of the
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station located 60 miles west of
Phoenix, Arizona.
Conclusion
The proponents conclude by again urging the Administration
to recommend that Congress repeal the tariff on nuclear steam
generators. If we can provide any additional information,
please do not hesitate to call us.
Sincerely,
Patrick J. Raffaniello and
Kirt C. Johnson
Attachment 1--Proponents
Alliant Energy is a major energy-services corporation headquartered
in Madison, Wisconsin. It is a utility holding company employing more
than 6000 employees, providing electric, natural gas, water and steam
energy to more than 1.3 million customers in service territories in
Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois and Minnesota. Alliant Energy is putting its
energy services expertise to use in developing markets internationally.
Roughly 12% of the energy is generates as a utility comes from nuclear
sources, and it purchases additional nuclear-generated electricity for
its customers on the wholesale market.
Northern States Power Company is an investor-owned utility serving
the Upper Mid-West. Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, NSP serves
electricity consumers in Minnesota, Michigan, North Dakota, South
Dakota, and Wisconsin.
Pinnacle West Energy Corporation (PWEC) is an affiliate of Arizona
Public Service Company (APS) which is an investor-owned utility serving
the Southwest. Headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, APS is the majority
owner and operator of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station that
provides electricity to consumers in Arizona, California, Nevada, New
Mexico, and Texas. As a result of deregulation in the State of Arizona,
APS' ownership interest and operating authority for Palo Verde will be
transferred to PWEC.
The Southern Companies is an investor-owned utility serving the
Southeast. Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, The Southern Companies
serve electricity consumers in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and
Mississippi.
Westinghouse Electric Company is engineering and technology company
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
WPS Resources Corporation is a holding company headquartered in
Green Bay, Wisconsin providing products and services in both regulated
and non-regulated energy markets. Through its subsidiaries, Wisconsin
Public Service Corporation and Upper Peninsula Power Company, WPS
serves electric consumers in Michigan and Wisconsin.
Attachment 2--U.S. Pressurized Water Reactor Power Plants
In 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utility Owner Power Plant Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama Power....................... Farley 1 Alabama
Farley 2 Alabama
Arizona PSC......................... Palo Verde 1 Arizona
Palo Verde 2 Arizona
Palo Verde 3 Arizona
Baltimore G&E....................... Calvert Cliffs 1 Maryland
Calvert Cliffs 2 Maryland
Carolina Power...................... Robinson S. Carolina
Shearon Harris N. Carolina
Commonwealth Edison................. Braidwood 1 Illinois
Braidwood 2 Illinois
Byron 1 Illinois
Byron 2 Illinois
Consolidated Edison................. Indian Point 2 New York
Consumers Energy.................... Palisades Michigan
Duke Power.......................... Catawba 1 Piedmont
Catawba 2 Carolinas
McGuire 1 Piedmont
McGuire 2 Carolinas
Oconee 1 Piedmont
Oconee 2 Carolinas
Oconee 3 Piedmont
Carolinas
S. Carolina
S. Carolina
S. Carolina
Duquense............................ Beaver Valley 1 Pennsylvania
Beaver Valley 2 Pennsylvania
Entergy............................. Ano 2 Arkansas
Ano 1 Arkansas
Waterford 3 Louisiana
Florida P&L......................... St Lucie 1 Florida
St Lucie 2 Florida
Turkey Point 3 Florida
Turkey Point 4 Florida
Florida Power Corp.................. Crystal River 3 Florida
General Public Utilities............ TMI 1 Pennsylvania
Georgia Power Co.................... Vogtle 1 Georgia
Vogtle 2 Georgia
Houston Light and Power............. South Texas Proj Texas
1 Texas
South Texas Proj
2
Indiana Michigan Power Company...... Cook 1 Michigan
Cook 2 Michigan
Maine Yankee AP..................... Maine Yankee Maine
New York Power Authority............ Indian Point 3 New York
Northeast Utilities................. Millstone 2 Connecticut
Millstone 3 Connecticut
Northern States..................... Prairie Island 1 Minnesota
Prairie Island 2 Minnesota
Omaha PPD........................... Fort Calhoun Nebraska
PG&E................................ Diablo Canyon 1 California
Diablo Canyon 2 California
Public Service Electric............. Salem 1 New Jersey
Salem 2 New Jersey
Public Service of New Hampshire..... Seabrook New Hampshire
Rochester G&E....................... Ginna New York
South Carolina E&G.................. Summer S. Carolina
Southern California Edison.......... San Onofre 2 California
San Onofre 3 California
Texas Utilities Electric............ Comanche Peak 1 Texas
Comanche Peak 2 Texas
Toledo Edison....................... Davis Besse Ohio
Tennessee Valley Authority.......... Sequoyah 1 Tennessee
Sequoyah 2 Tennessee
Watts Bar 1 Tennessee
Union Electric...................... Callaway Missouri
Virginia Power...................... North Anna 1 Virginia
North Anna 2 Virginia
Surry 1 Virginia
Surry 2 Virginia
Wisconsin Electric Power............ Point Beach 1 Wisconsin
Point Beach 2 Wisconsin
Wisconsin Public Service............ Kewaunee Wisconsin
Wolf Creek NOC...................... Wolf Creek Kansas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.011
The U.S. Market for Nuclear Steam Generators:
Summary
Product
Nuclear steam generators are essential components in the
process of turning nuclear energy into electricity in a
pressurized water reactor. They enable the transfer of heat
from pressurized water that has been in the nuclear core to
water that has not, thus isolating the steam supply to the
power plant turbines from radioactivity.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPRI Steam Generator Reference Book, pages 2.2-2.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The generators are used only in pressurized water reactors.
They are not used in boiling water reactors or non-nuclear
power plants because those other types of plants require steam
generators that differ in design and materials. Of the 104
operational nuclear power plants in the United States in 1998,
70 are pressurized water reactors. These plants are located in
27 different States.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPRI Steam Generator Reference Book, Appendix B--Plant Design
Characteristics
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market Demand
Replacement demand.--The market for new nuclear steam
generators in the United States is circumscribed and static.
There have been no new orders for nuclear power plants in the
United States since the late 1970s, and no additions are
expected in the foreseable future. Therefore, the demand for
nuclear steam generators is, and will be, confined to replacing
degraded nuclear steam generators at existing plants. The
average age of a nuclear steam generator in the United States
at the time of replacement has been about 15 years.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EPRI Steam Generator Progress Report, Revision 14, Table 2-1;
PwC calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 70 U.S. nuclear facilities with pressurized water
reactors in 1998, 48 facilities (69 percent) still operate with
their original steam generators and 22 facilities (31 percent)
have already replaced the generators.\4\ However, 11 of the
plants that use original nuclear steam generators have
scheduled replacement of 30 generators during 2000-2003 (each
plant uses two to four steam generators). These plants are
located in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Maryland, Michigan,
North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPRI Steam Generator Progress Report, Revision 14, Table 9-1
\5\ EPRI Steam Generator Progress Report, Revision 14, Table 9-2,
and supplemental information
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement cost and price.--The average replacement cost
of a nuclear steam generator from 1994 through 1997 was $38.4
million. Replacement cost includes many costs in addition to
the price (fabrication cost) of the steam generator itself. As
reported to EPRI, replacement cost may include licensing,
engineering, installation, storage, and transport. Recently,
the price of the steam generator has been approximately 33
percent of total replacement cost, with some variation above
and below.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In conversations with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When nuclear steam generators are replaced at a plant, the
utility usually purchases between two and four steam
generators, one for each steam generation loop. Thus, the total
cost of replacing nuclear steam generators averaged between $76
million and $152 million per plant during 1994-97.\7\
Replacement cost has increased very little in nominal dollars
through the years, with some ups and downs in between.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ EPRI Steam Generator Progress Report, Revision 14, Table 9-1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The buyer may be required to pay an import duty to the
United States on generators that are manufactured abroad. The
applicable year 2000 Harmonized Tariff Organization schedule
subheading for nuclear replacement steam generators is
8402.11.00, with an associated duty rate of 5.2 percent.
Imports from Canada are exempt from this tariff under the North
American Free Trade Agreement.\8\ It appears that 18 of the 30
nuclear steam generators that are scheduled for replacement
during 2000-2003 will be dutiable and that the other eight will
come from Canada.\9\ Duty is computed by reference to the price
of the steam generator and not to the replacement cost
discussed above (which includes substantial, domestically
incurred costs such as installation and engineering). A 5.2-
percent duty on the price of a nuclear steam generator ($12.67
million, or 33 percent of average total replacement cost) is
about $660,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Harmonized Tariff Code Schedule, Chapter 84, Year 2000
revision
\9\ EPRI Steam Generator Progress Report, Revision 14, Table 9-2;
In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market Supply
No current U.S. production--Six companies are currently
producing nuclear steam generators outside the United States.
They are Ensa (Spain), Ansaldo (Italy), Babcock and Wilcox
(Canada), Framatome (France), Korea Heavy Industries &
Construction Company (HANJUNG) (Korea), and Mitsubishi
(Japan).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear steam generators are no longer manufactured in the
United States. Westinghouse was the last company to manufacture
this product in the United States. Upon closing its plant in
Pensacola, Florida after shipping its last order in November
1999, Westinghouse surrendered its American Society of
Mechanical Engineers certification which the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission requires of manufacturers of nuclear steam
generators. The plant equipment has already been sold and the
plant structure is for sale.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. market entry highly unlikely in next five years--
Production and delivery of nuclear steam generators made in the
United States is highly unlikely for at least the next five
years.\12\ In addition to the evident conclusion of former U.S.
suppliers that production overseas is more competitive and the
limited economic incentives for expanding production in a
country where domestic demand is confined to replacing the
existing stock of generators, there are time factors to
consider as well. They include time to--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Select, design, and construct a manufacturing
facility. Preferred sites are large, close to water, and cost
between $60 million and $80 million to construct.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ In conversation with government experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obtain necessary authorizations. For example, the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires manufacturers of nuclear
power plant components to be certified by the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Produce a generator. If a new nuclear steam
generator were ordered today, it would take, in the typical
case, about 32 to 48 months to complete.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ EPRI Steam Generator Reference Book, pages 2.1-2.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
About This Report
This report was prepared by the National Economic
Consulting group of PricewaterhouseCoopers. Information for the
report was obtained from publications of the Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI), discussions with government and
industry experts, and other sources, as recorded in footnotes.
Exhibits that elaborate or depict certain points made in the
report are collected at the back, beginning at page 12.
The U.S. Market for Nuclear Steam Generators:
Product
Function
Nuclear steam generators are essential components in the
process of turning nuclear energy into electricity in a
pressurized water reactor. Water is pumped through the
reactor's core and is heated by the fission process. This water
is maintained under pressure to prevent it from boiling and
turning into steam. The pressurized water is passed through the
tubing within the nuclear steam generator, a large heat
exchanger that transfers heat from a primary coolant system
(tube side) to a secondary coolant system (shell side). The
primary coolant system contains pressurized water; the
secondary coolant system contains water that is turned into
steam by the heat exchanged. The steam powers the power plant
turbines, creating electricity.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 1 shows how nuclear steam generators fit into the
generation of electricity.
Exhibit 2 diagrams the reactor coolant system arrangement.
Used Only in Pressurized Water Reactors
Specialized use.--Nuclear steam generators are specialized
pieces of equipment that weigh 500 to 900 tons each.\17\ They
are used only in pressurized water reactors. They are not used
in boiling water reactors, non-nuclear power plants, or other
industrial facilities.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ In conversation with industry experts
\18\ In conversation with industry experts; EPRI Steam Generator
Reference Book, pages 2.3-2.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The design of a nuclear steam generator is unlike the
design of a fossil fuel steam generator. The equipment required
to operate the two types of generators is different. The
material for the tubing in the nuclear steam generator is
different from the tubing material in a non-nuclear plant. The
nuclear steam generator tubing must be compatible with the
unique primary and secondary side water chemistry conditions to
minimize corrosion degradation. Historically the transfer tubes
in nuclear steam generators used in the United States were made
of alloy 600, a nickel/chrome/iron alloy. Newer steam
generators primarily use alloy 690, which is more resistant to
corrosion.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ EPRI Steam Generator Reference Book, pages 2.4-2.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number in use--Of the 104 operational nuclear power plants
in the United States in 1998, 70 have pressurized water
reactors. These plants are owned by 34 different utilities and
are located in 27 different States.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ EPRI Steam Generator Reference Book, Appendix B--Plant Design
Characteristics
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 3 lists the U.S. plants with pressurized water
reactors in 1998 and their owners.
Exhibit 4 depicts their locations.
The U.S. Market for Nuclear Steam Generators:
Market Demand
Replacement Demand
No demand from new power plant construction--No new nuclear
power plants are currently planned for construction in the
United States.\21\ However, existing plants will eventually
replace their deteriorating nuclear steam generators.\22\ Thus,
the market for nuclear steam generators in the United States is
limited to replacements at existing plants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ EIA, 1996 Nuclear Capacity Status and Projections, DOE
Document
\22\ EPRI Steam Generator Reference Book, pages 1.6-1.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repairs--The tubes in a nuclear steam generator
(approximately 4,000 to 12,000, depending on size \23\) are
susceptible to denting, fatigue, wall thinning, corrosion, and
other degradation mechanisms requiring repair. A sleeve can be
inserted into the tube and welded to bridge the problem area,
allowing continued use of the tube.\24\ Alternatively, the tube
can be plugged with a corrosion resistant alloy, effectively
removing it from service.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ In conversation with industry experts
\24\ Lockyer Elizabeth M., ``Laser Welding Technology to Put
Kewaunee River Plant Back on Line,'' Technology News, December 1996.
\25\ NEI, Long Term Nuclear Power Maintenance, September 1999
Revision
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement--As more tubes are plugged or sleeved
performance is diminished and it may become necessary to
replace the steam generator with a new, more corrosion
resistant one. The average age of a nuclear steam generator in
the United States at the time of replacement has been 14.6
years.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ EPRI Steam Generator Progress Report, Revision 14, Table 2-1,
PwC
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 70 operational nuclear facilities in the United
States in 1998 with pressurized water reactors, 22 (or 31
percent) have replaced their original generators. The
replacements are concentrated in the older plants. Nearly half
of the plants that are now 21 years or older have replaced
their nuclear steam generators, while none that are now 10
years or younger have replaced them.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ EPRI Steam Generator Progress Report, Revision 14, Table 9-1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The majority of pressurized water reactors (69 percent)
still operate with their original nuclear steam generators.\28\
However, 11 of that group have scheduled replacement of 30
generators during 2000-2003.\29\ Each plant uses two to four
steam generators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ EPRI Steam Generator Progress Report, Revision 14, Table 9-1
\29\ EPRI Steam Generator Progress Report, Revision 14, Table 9-2,
and conversations with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 5 gives a frequency distribution of replacements of
nuclear steam generators, keyed to the age of the nuclear
facility.
Exhibit 6 lists the committed orders for steam generators
by U.S. power plants and includes the country of manufacture,
year of delivery, power plant site, and number of steam
generators.
Price
Replacement cost and price.--The average replacement cost
of a nuclear steam generator during 1994-1997 (the latest year
of full price data, as collected by Electric Power Research
Institute) was $38.4 million. Replacement cost includes many
costs in addition to the price or fabrication cost of the steam
generator itself. As reported to EPRI, replacement cost may
include licensing, engineering, installation, storage, and
transport, as well as the price of the steam generator.
Recently, the price of a nuclear steam generator has been
approximately 33 percent of total replacement cost, with some
variation.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average replacement cost of a nuclear steam generator
has increased only slightly in nominal value between 1980
($31.3 million) and 1997 ($35.5 million), with some larger ups
and downs in between. Data for part of 1998 suggest that the
1998 average nominal replacement cost might be above the trend
line.\31\ As prices for capital equipment have generally
increased by more than 60 percent since 1980, the replacement
cost of nuclear steam generators in 1980 dollars has declined
greatly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ EPRI Steam Generator Progress Report, Revision 14, Table 9-1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 7 charts average replacement cost of one nuclear
steam generator, in current dollars, from 1980 through 1997.
Tariff to United States--A buyer may be required to pay an
import duty to the United States on nuclear steam generators
that are manufactured abroad. In general, the tariff rate for
2000 is 5.2 percent, although imports from certain countries
are exempt by treaties (including Canada, by virtue of the
North American Free Trade Agreement).\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ U.S. Harmonized Tariff Code Schedule, Chapter 84, Year 2000
revision
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duty is computed by reference to the price of the steam
generator and not to the replacement cost discussed above
(which includes substantial, domestically incurred costs such
as installation and engineering). A 5.2-percent duty on the
price or fabrication cost of a nuclear steam generator ($12.67
million, or 33 percent of average total replacement cost) is
about $660,000. Of the 30 steam generators under committed
orders and listed in Exhibit 6, all but 4 will be imported and,
excepting eight Canadian-made steam generators, 18 apparently
will be subject to the 5.2-percent duty.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ In conversation with industry experts; EPRI Steam Generator
Progress Report, Revision 14 Table 9-2; U.S. Harmonized Tariff Code
Schedule, Chapter 84, Year 2000 revision
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fee to designer--Each pressurized water reactor power plant
has steam generators that were designed specifically for it.
When a utility decides to replace the nuclear steam generators,
the replacements must match the original design
specifications.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The designs used at the 70 pressurized water reactor power
plants in the United States belong to three companies:
Westinghouse, ABB Combustion Engineering, and Babcock &
Wilcox.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ EPRI Steam Generator Progress Report, Revision 14, Table 2-1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because a manufacturer has licenses only for certain
designs, a customer may have to pay a design royalty fee. For
example, the Ansaldo plant in Italy is licensed to build ABB CE
System 80 model steam generators but not Babcock & Wilcox
models.\36\ A utility buying a Babcock & Wilcox model may have
to pay a design royalty to Babcock & Wilcox for construction to
occur at Ansaldo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Market for Nuclear Steam Generators:
Market Supply
Overview of Production
A nuclear steam generator has over 18 subassemblies that
need to be planned, specified, and built according to
certification standards of the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME). Paperwork documenting that the material
usage, design plans, and construction facilities meet AMSE
certification must be filed before construction begins.\37\ The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission also requires specific quality
assurance standards that are unique to the nuclear industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assembly at a nuclear steam generator production plant can
occur at the rate of four to six items per year. However, the
actual rate of output can be as low as two items per year due
to backlogs in acquiring components. For example, alloy 690
tubing, a key component in a nuclear steam generator, is
produced in only three locations worldwide--Sumitomo (Japan),
Valinox (France), and Sandvik (Sweden)--and lead times may be
as much as eighteen months. Or again, integrally forged primary
channel head lead times may be in excess of 12 months.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accounting for all factors, the typical turnaround time
from ordering a nuclear steam generator to delivering it is
about 32 to 48 months.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign Suppliers
Six companies produce nuclear steam generators outside the
United States. They are \40\--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensa (Spain)
Ansaldo (Italy)
Babcock & Wilcox (Canada)
Framatome (France)
HANJUNG (Korea)
Mitsubishi (Japan).
In some cases, international consortia own these companies.
For example, Ensa is jointly owned by Westinghouse/BNFL and
Equipe Nucleares S.A.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Westinghouse Electric Company, ``Steam Generators Shipped to
Quinshan II Nuclear Station,'' Press Release of 3/24/99
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Current U.S. Production
Nuclear steam generators are no longer manufactured in the
United States.\42\ When nuclear plants were being constructed
in the United States, the original steam generators were being
manufactured by the reactor suppliers. Combustion Engineering
manufactured in Chattanooga, Tennessee; Westinghouse, in
Pensacola, Florida; and Babcock & Wilcox in Barberton, Ohio.
Combustion Engineering no longer uses its Chattanooga facility
for that purpose and has disposed of the manufacturing
equipment. Babcock & Wilcox moved its manufacturing operation
to Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse was the last company to manufacture this
product in the United States.\43\ Its plant in Pensacola,
Florida was closed after shipping its last order in November
1999 to the South Texas Project. The plant equipment has
already been sold and moved, including highly specialized
equipment purchased by competitors. The plant structure is for
sale and could be converted to many uses other than its former
use.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ In conversation with industry experts
\44\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Pensacola plant had been used to make power generation
and electric generation systems in addition to nuclear steam
generators. Westinghouse had planned to close the plant when it
sold its power generation division to Siemens AG and its
nuclear division to BNFL LTD. Siemens transferred activities
relating to power generation out of the plant. Westinghouse/
BNFL found the nuclear steam generator business insufficient to
sustain the plant and transferred its production overseas to
Ensa.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Market Entry Highly Unlikely
U.S. market entry--the delivery of a new nuclear steam
generator that has been produced in the United States--seems
highly unlikely during the next five years. There are several
factors:
The time required to select, design, and construct
a manufacturing facility. Preferred sites are large (a facility
of about 200,000 square feet is needed to house production and
output prior to shipping) and close to water (steam generators,
at 500 to 900 tons, are too large to transport by rail and are
transported by water). The estimated cost of a new
manufacturing facility is $60 million to $80 million.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The time required for regulatory authorizations.
For example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires
manufacturers of nuclear power plant components to be certified
(the N-Certificate of Authorization) by the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers before a plant may operate in the United
States.\47\ To acquire a new certification takes about one
year.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ In conversation with government experts
\48\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The time required to produce a nuclear steam
generator. Even after a manufacturing facility is ready to
produce, the construction of all component subassemblies and
final fabrication would take 32 to 48 months in the typical
case.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evident assessment of former U.S. suppliers
that production of nuclear steam generators in the United
States is not competitive with production elsewhere.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 8 illustrates the timetable for the 6-year nuclear
steam generator replacement project at Unit 2 of the Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station located 60 miles west of Phoenix,
Arizona.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.013
Exhibit 3--U.S. Pressurized Water Reactor Power Plants
In 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utility Owner Power Plant Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama Power....................... Farley 1 Alabama
Farley 2 Alabama
Arizona PSC......................... Palo Verde 1 Arizona
Palo Verde 2 Arizona
Palo Verde 3 Arizona
Baltimore G&E....................... Calvert Cliffs 1 Maryland
Calvert Cliffs 2 Maryland
Carolina Power...................... Robinson S. Carolina
Shearon Harris N. Carolina
Commonwealth Edison................. Braidwood 1 Illinois
Braidwood 2 Illinois
Byron 1 Illinois
Byron 2 Illinois
Consolidated Edison................. Indian Point 2 New York
Consumers Energy.................... Palisades Michigan
Duke Power.......................... Catawba 1 Piedmont
Catawba 2 Carolinas
McGuire 1 Piedmont
McGuire 2 Carolinas
Pconee 1 Piedmont
Oconee 2 Carolinas
Oconee 3 Piedmont
Carolinas
S. Carolina
S. Carolina
S. Carolina
Duquense............................ Beaver Valley 1 Pennsylvania
Beaver Valley 2 Pennsylvania
Entergy............................. Ano 2 Arkansas
Ano 1 Arkansas
Waterford 3 Louisiana
Florida P&L......................... St Lucie 1 Florida
St Lucie 2 Florida
Turkey Point 3 Florida
Turkey Point 4 Florida
Florida Power Corp Crystal River 3 Florida
General Public Utilities............ TMI 1 Pennsylvania
Georgia Power Co.................... Vogtle 1 Georgia
Vogtle 2 Georgia
Houston Light and Power............. South Texas Proj Texas
1 Texas
South Texas Proj
2
Indiana Michigan Power Company...... Cook 1 Michigan
Cook 2 Michigan
Maine Yankee AP..................... Maine Yankee Maine
New York Power Authority............ Indian Point 3 New York
Northeast Utilities................. Millstone 2 Connecticut
Millstone 3 Connecticut
Northern States..................... Prairie Island 1 Minnesota
Prairie Island 2 Minnesota
Omaha PPD........................... Fort Calhoun Nebraska
PG&E................................ Diablo Canyon 1 California
Diablo Canyon 2 California
Public Service Electric............. Salem 1 New Jersey
Salem 2 New Jersey
Public Service of New Hampshire..... Seabrook New Hampshire
Rochester G&E....................... Ginna New York
South Carolina E&G.................. Summer S. Carolina
Southern California Edison.......... San Onofre 2 California
San Onofre 3 California
Texas Utilities Electric............ Comanche Peak 1 Texas
Comanche Peak 2 Texas
Toledo Edison....................... Davis Besse Ohio
Tennessee Valley Authority.......... Sequoyah 1 Tennessee
Sequoyah 2 Tennessee
Watts Bar 1 Tennessee
Union Electric...................... Callaway Missouri
Virginia Power...................... North Anna 1 Virginia
North Anna 2 Virginia
Surry 1 Virginia
Surry 2 Virginia
Wisconsin Electric Power............ Point Beach 1 Wisconsin
Point Beach 2 Wisconsin
Wisconsin Public Service............ Kewaunee Wisconsin
Wolf Creek NOC...................... Wolf Creek Kansas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAAAAAAAAASource: EPRI Steam Generator Progress Report Table 2-1; EPRI
Steam Generator Reference Book, Appendix B--Plant Design
Characteristics
Note: Maine Yankee has since shut down.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.014
Exhibit 5--Replacement of Nuclear Steam Generators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Plants with Replaced Percentage with
Age Category Number of Power Plants Steam Generators Replacements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5- 1 0 0.0
6 to 10 3 0 0.0
11 to 15 21 3 14.3
16-20 12 4 33.3
21-25 13 6 46.2
26+ 20 9 45.0
Total 70 22 31.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAAASource: EPRI Steam Generator Progress Report, Tables 2-1 and 9-1
Exhibit 6--Committed Orders For Steam Generators by U.S. Power Plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Power Plant Name Country of Manufacture Year of Delivery Power Plant State Generators
Purchased
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ano 2 Spain 2000 Arkansas 2
Farley 1 Spain 2000 Alabama 3
Kewaunee Italy 2000 Wisconsin
Shearon Harris 2000 North Carolina 2
South Texas Project USA 2000 Texas 4
Cook 1 Canada 2001 Michigan 4
Farley 2 Spain 2001 Alabama 3
Sequoyah 1 South Korea 2002 Tennessee 4
Palo Verde 2 Italy 2002 Arizona 2
Calvert Cliffs 1 Canada 2002 Maryland 2
Calvert Cliffs 2 Canada 2002 Maryland 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAAASource: EPRI, Steam Generator Progress Report, Revision 14, and conversations with industry experts
Exhibit 7--Average Replacement Cost of a Nuclear Steam Generator
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.015
Note: Replacement cost includes the price of a steam
generator (about 33 percent of replacement cost) plus
installation costs, engineering, licensing, and other costs
related to replacement.
Source: EPRI Steam Generator Progress Report, Table 9-1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.016
H.R. 3876
To suspend temporarily the duty on Baytron P.
Bayer Corporation, U.S.A.
Pittsburgh, PA 15205-9741
May 1, 2000
Mr. A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
House Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Subject: H.R. 3876 A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Baytron P
Dear Mr. Singleton:
Bayer Corporation is a research-based company with major businesses
in health care and life sciences and chemicals. The company had 1999
sales of $8.9 billion and employs more than 22,200 people throughout
the United States and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Bayer Corporation is a member of the worldwide Bayer Group, a $29
billion international life sciences, polymers and specialty chemicals
group based in Leverkusen with 120,400 employees worldwide.
Bayer Corporation is a regular importer of Baytron P. Bayer's
Logistics Division, with major import operations at Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania and Bayer warehousing in Calumet City, IL as well as
Bayer's customers in Janesville, WI, Corpus Christi, TX, Chicago, IL,
and Tampa, FL would benefit from tariff suspension on Baytron P.
Baytron P is a very specialized aqueous dispersion of an
environmentally friendly, conductive polymeric material occupying less
than 1% of the electronics industry.
United States compounders seeking to reach new performance levels
economically will reap economic benefits from duty reduction of this
product. Baytron P has an advantage for the U.S. industry because of
its unique electrostatic and anti-static properties. This product is
not produced in the United States, and is extremely helpful to the U.S.
industry in competing with imported goods from the Asian market. There
are a wide variety of applications of Baytron P from coating glass to
organic light emitting diodes.
We hope this supplemental information is useful in the House Ways
and Means Committee deliberations regarding the tariff suspension for
Baytron P, proposed in H.R. 3876. Please do not hesitate to contact me
at Tel: 412-777-5616 with any questions. In the event that I am
unavailable, Julie Van Egmond in our Washington office (Tel.: 202-756-
3773) or Karen L. Niedermeyer at our Pittsburgh location (Tel: 412-777-
2058) could be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Stephen R. Johnsen
H.R. 3877
To suspend temporarily the duty on dimethyl dicarbonate.
Bayer Corporation, U.S.A.
Pittsburgh, PA 15205-9741
May 1, 2000
Mr. A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
House Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Subject: H.R. 3877 A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Dimethyl
Dicarbonate (DMDC)
Dear Mr. Singleton:
Bayer Corporation is a research-based company with major businesses
in healthcare, life sciences and chemicals. The company had 1999 sales
of $8.9 billion and employs more than 22,200 people throughout the
United States and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Bayer
Corporation is a member of the worldwide Bayer Group, a $29 billion
international life sciences, polymers and specialty chemicals group
based in Leverkusen with 120,400 employees worldwide.
Bayer Corporation is a regular importer of Dimethyl Dicarbonate
(DMDC). Bayer's Industrial Chemicals Division, with major import
operations in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Bayer customers in Petaluma,
California would benefit from tariff suspension on DMDC. After
sufficient market growth, construction of a manufacturing unit in the
United States is anticipated and depends on sufficient U.S. market
growth. Duty reduction in the U.S. will also greatly assist U.S.
manufacturers in becoming more innovative and more competitive in
certain parts of the beverage industry.
Dimethyl Dicarbonate (DMDC) is an FDA regulated secondary food
additive used as a cold beverage sterilant highly effective in low
dosages against a variety of yeast, some mold fungi and bacteria in
alcoholic wine, low alcohol and dealcoholized wines, ready-to-drink
tea, sport drinks and juice sparklers. A food additive petition is
underway with the FDA for registration of non-carbonated juice
beverages containing up to and including 100% juice. This will enable
the industry to address spoilage of juices due to yeast contamination
and is also effective against E. coli that has had known occurrences
within the market segment. This product is not produced in the United
States, and is extremely helpful to the beverage industry because it is
non-persistent. It does not affect the taste, bouquet or color of the
beverage. DMDC even provides the user with the option to reduce or in
some cases, even eliminate the need for chemical preservatives. It has
been shown to control human pathogens like E.coli H0157, a common food
spoiling bacteria. Bayer AG is the only producer of this type of DMDC
(Velcorin) with this unique balance of properties. It is highly
desirable in the U.S. to avoid excessive filtration in the
manufacturing process that negatively impacts the taste of wine. The
fact that DMDC even provides the user with the option to reduce or in
some cases, even eliminate the need for chemical preservatives and also
eliminate important human pathogens will, in the future, allow for use
in other beverages like fruit juices and soft drinks to prevent
spoilage.
We hope this supplemental information is useful in the House Ways
and Means Committee deliberations regarding the tariff suspension for
Dimethyl Dicarbonate, proposed in H.R. 3877. Please do not hesitate to
contact me at 412/777-2058 with any questions. In the event that I am
unavailable, Julie Van Egmond in our Washington office (Ph. 202-756-
3773) or Stephen Johnsen at our Pittsburgh location (Ph. 412/777-5616)
could be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Karen L. Niedermeyer
H.R. 3930
To suspend temporarily the duty on KN001 (a hydrochloride).
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3931
To suspend temporarily the duty on Methyl thioglycolate.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3932
To suspend temporarily the duty on KL540.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3933
To suspend temporarily the duty on DPC 083.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3934
To suspend temporarily the duty on DPC 961.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3935
To suspend temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Magenta 364
Stage.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3936
To suspend temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Black 263 Stage.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3937
To supend temporarily the duty on Pigment Yellow 184.
see SunChemical Corporation under H.R. 3739
H.R. 3938
To suspend temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Yellow 1 Stage.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3939
To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Orange 73.
see SunChemical Corporation under H.R. 3739
H.R. 3940
To suspend temporarily the duty on Direct Black 19 Press
Paste.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3941
To suspend temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Black HSAQ
Stage.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3942
To suspend temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Fast Black 286
Paste.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3943
To suspend temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Yellow 1G Stage.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3944
To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Red 255.
see SunChemical Corporation under H.R. 3739
H.R. 3945
To suspend temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Cyan 1 Press
Paste.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3946
To suspend temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Black Alc
Powder.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3947
To suspend temporarily the duty on Solvent Yellow 163.
Hogan & Hartson
Washington, DC 200004-1109
May 22, 2000
A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
House Ways and Means Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 205155-6354
Re: Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty
Suspension Bill -Opposition to the Adoption of H.R. 3947
Dear Mr. Singleton:
On behalf of ColorChem International Corp. (``ColorChem''), we
hereby request that the Committee decline to adopt H.R. 3947. For the
reasons articulated below, adopting H.R. 3947 would severely and
adversely impact ColorChem, the only remaining U.S. producer of Solvent
Yellow 163.
As illustrated in the Colour Index International, a listing of
chemical producers published by the Society of Dyers and Colourists in
conjunction with the American Association of Textile Chemists and
Colorists (``AATCC''), ColorChem is the sole remaining U.S. producer of
Solvent Yellow 163.\1\ Solvent yellow 163 is a dyestuff that is used to
color engineering plastics, such as ABS, polycarbonate and acrylic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See also the Modern Plastics Encyclopedia, published by McGraw
Hill as a supplement to Modern Plastics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 1997 ColorChem has become increasingly concerned that import
surges soon would overwhelm one of the few remaining U.S. producers of
chemical dyes. In each of the past three years, the U.S. market price
for Solvent Yellow 163 has declined by ten percent. This severe price
deflation threatens ColorChem's workforce, comprised primarily of
highly trained U.S. chemical engineers/ technicians/ operators. The
immediate tariff elimination proposed in H.R. 3947 necessarily would
lead to further--perhaps devastating--price declines. This, in turn,
would undoubtedly lead to the loss of U.S. value-added jobs and have a
detrimental impact on one of the few remaining U.S. producers of
solvent dyes.
A key factor that makes ColorChem--which represents the entirety of
the U.S. domestic Solvent Yellow 163 industry--so vulnerable to import
surges and price declines is ColorChem's cost of complying with U.S.
environmental regulation, including the increased costs associated with
the Clean Water Act. Without the current duties on Solvent Yellow 163,
ColorChem could not profitably produce and sell this product at the
resulting market price. Thus, if H.R. 3947 were adopted and the duties
on Solvent Yellow 163 were eliminated, ColorChem would have to consider
discontinuing production of this product. Because Solvent Yellow 163 is
one of ColorChem's most important products, the elimination of tariffs
on this product would have severe consequences on the company as a
whole.
Significantly, the primary beneficiaries of the proposed tariff
reduction would be solvent dyes producers in India and the People's
Republic of China (the ``PRC''). In both countries, production of
solvent dyes, including Solvent Yellow 163, requires compliance with
only minimal worker safety and environmental standards. Moreover, the
PRC subsidizes the production of solvent dyes through export credits.
The current tariffs on Solvent Yellow 163 mitigate these unfair trade
advantages and allow ColorChem to compete on a level playing field.
Without these tariffs, ColorChem would be forced to try to compete in
an unfair trade environment.
The loss of Solvent Yellow 163 production in the U.S. would also
have a detrimental impact of U.S. exports. Currently, ColorChem is
exporting Solvent Yellow 163 to the EC. This business has grown
significantly within the last twelve months due to Color Chem's
superior product and supply. ColorChem expects this export market to
grow in the EC and even in the Far East However, the economics of dye
production are such that the price per unit declines with larger
volumes. Should Color Chem lose a significant portion of its domestic
business because the duty was suspended, the cost per unit would
increase, making Color Chem uncompetitive in foreign markets.
In light of the foregoing, ColorChem respectfully requests that the
Committee decline to adopt H.R. 3947. Please contact the undersigned if
there are questions regarding this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
T. Clark Weymouth
1Daniel J. Cannistra
Counsel for ColorChem International Corp.
ccs: The Honorable Philip M. Crane (U.S. House of Representatives)
The Honorable Johnny Isakson (U.S. House of Representatives)
Vincent Kamenicky (U.S. Department of Commerce)
John Gersick (U.S. International trade Commission)
Steven Printz (ColorChem International Corp.)
H.R. 3948
To suspend temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Fast Yellow 2 RO
Feed.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3949
To suspend temporarily the duty on Solvent Yellow 145.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3950
To suspend temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Fast Magenta 2
RO Feed.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3951
To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Red 264.
see SunChemical Corporation under H.R. 3739
H.R. 3952
To suspend temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Fast Cyan 2
Stage.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3953
To suspend temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Cyan 485 Stage.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3954
To suspend temporarily the duty on triflusulfuron methyl
formulated product.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3955
To suspend temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Fast Cyan 3
Stage.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3956
To reduce temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Cyan 1 RO Feed.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3957
To reduce temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Fast Black 287 NA
Paste/Liquid Feed.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3958
To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Yellow 168.
see SunChemical Corporation under H.R. 3739
H.R. 3959
To suspend temporarily the duty on 4-(Cyclopropyl- - hy-
droxy-methylene)-3,5-dioxo-cyclohexanecarboxylic acid ethyl
ester.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3960
To suspend temporarily the duty on 8- -oxo-emamectin
benzoate desmethylemamectin benzoate emamectin benzoate
methanol adduct 2-epl-emamectin benzoate emamectin benzoate
isomer, 4-epl- -2,3-emamectin benzoate dihydroemamectin
benzoate.
No comments submitted.
H.R. 3961
To suspend temporarily the duty on propanoic acid, 2-[4-
[(5-chloro-3-fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy]-phenoxy]-2- propynyl
ester.
No comments submitted.