Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning; Standard and Rolled-Edge Ball Seals, 8339-8341 [E8-2631]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2008 / Notices
CBP reexamine the matter anew and
issue a new final determination.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 177.30, any partyat-interest may, within 30 days after
publication of the Federal Register
notice referenced above, seek judicial
review of this final determination before
the Court of International Trade.
Sincerely,
Sandra L. Bell,
Executive Director, Office of Regulations and
Rulings, Office of International Trade.
[FR Doc. E8–2636 Filed 2–12–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–14–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Customs and Border Protection
Notice of Issuance of Final
Determination Concerning; Standard
and Rolled-Edge Ball Seals
U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice of final determination.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document provides
notice that the Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) has issued a
final determination concerning the
country of origin of two types of ball
seals to be offered to the United States
Government under an undesignated
government procurement contract.
Based on the facts presented, CBP has
concluded that the operations
performed in China do not result in a
substantial transformation of the U.S.
components. Therefore, the assembled
ball seals will not be considered to be
products of China.
DATES: The final determination was
issued on February 6, 2008. A copy of
the final determination is attached. Any
party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR
177.22(d), may seek judicial review of
this final determination within 30 days
of February 13, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Holly Files, Valuation and Special
Programs Branch, Regulations and
Rulings, Office of International Trade
(202–572–8740).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given that on February 6, 2008,
pursuant to subpart B of part 177,
Customs Regulations (19 CFR part 177,
subpart B), CBP issued a final
determination concerning the country of
origin of two types of ball seals to be
offered to the United States Government
under an undesignated government
procurement contract. The CBP ruling
number is H021398. This final
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:45 Feb 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
determination was issued at the request
of Brammall, Inc. d/b/a/
TydenBrammall (‘‘TydenBrammall’’)
under procedures set forth at 19 CFR
part 177, subpart B, which implements
Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of
1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511–18).
The final determination concluded
that, based upon the facts presented, the
simple assembly in China of three major
U.S.-origin components with two minor
Chinese-origin components does not
result in a substantial transformation of
the U.S.-origin components. Therefore,
the assembled ball seals will not be
considered to be products of China for
purposes of U.S. Government
procurement.
Section 177.29, Customs Regulations
(19 CFR 177.29), provides that notice of
final determinations shall be published
in the Federal Register within 60 days
of the date the final determination is
issued. Section 177.30, CBP Regulations
(19 CFR 177.30), states that any partyat-interest, as defined in 19 CFR
177.22(d), may seek judicial review of a
final determination within 30 days of
publication of such determination in the
Federal Register.
Dated: February 6, 2008.
Myles B. Harmon,
Acting Executive Director, Office of
Regulations and Rulings, Office of
International Trade.
Attachment: HQ H021398
February 6, 2008
MAR–2–05 OT:RR:CTF:VS H021398 HEF
CATEGORY: Marking.
Ms. Linda M. Weinberg,
Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Suite 900, 750 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006.
RE: U.S. Government Procurement; Final
Determination; country of origin of ball
seals; substantial transformation; 19 CFR
Part 177.
Dear Ms. Weinberg: This is in response to
your letter dated December 21, 2007,
requesting a final determination on behalf of
Brammall, Inc. d/b/a TydenBrammall
(‘‘TydenBrammall’’), pursuant to subpart B of
Part 177, Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) Regulations (19 CFR 177.21 et seq.).
Under these regulations, which implement
Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979,
as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.), CBP
issues country of origin advisory rulings and
final determinations on whether an article is
or would be a product of a designated
country or instrumentality for the purpose of
granting waivers of certain ‘‘Buy American’’
restrictions in U.S. law or practice for
products offered for sale to the U.S.
Government.
This final determination concerns the
country of origin of certain ball seals. We
note that TydenBrammall is a party-atinterest within the meaning of 19 CFR
177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this
final determination. Samples of the ball seals,
at various stages of the manufacturing
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8339
process, were also submitted with your
request. In preparing this final determination,
consideration was given to your
supplemental submission dated January 9,
2008.
Facts
The products subject to this final
determination are two types of ball seals
known as the ‘‘Tyden Standard Ball Seal’’
and the ‘‘Tyden Rolled-Edge Ball Seal.’’ The
ball seals are used to secure rail, container,
and truck cargo shipments. The ‘‘ball’’ of a
seal is comprised of metal top and bottom
caps. A metal strap runs through the center
of the ball and extends at length from the
bottom cap. The metal strap may have a
custom seal number embossed on it and/or
a printed bar code. A die cut notch at the end
of the metal strap is used to engage with two
interlocking D-shaped rings, located inside
the ball, to form a functional security lock.
The ball itself is slotted to provide visible
proof to the user that the seal is locked.
You advise that TydenBrammall uses
identical materials and components in the
manufacture of both the Tyden Standard Ball
Seal and the Tyden Rolled-Edge Ball Seal.
The manufacturing processes for the two
products are also identical, with the
exception that the Rolled-Edge Ball Seal
requires the additional step of having its
edges rolled under at the end of the U.S.
processing. The ball seals are assembled from
five components. You advise that the seals’
three major components are produced in the
United States from U.S. materials. The other
two components are sourced in China.
To produce the U.S.-origin components,
TydenBrammall purchases rolls of coiled
steel from a U.S. steel producer. You note
that highly trained operators and
maintenance die technicians load the steel
coils onto two computer-controlled presses
and dies at TydenBrammall’s U.S. facility.
The presses and dies are used to stamp the
strap, ball seal top cap, and ball seal bottom
cap from the coiled steel into specific sizes
and subject to precise tolerances. You assert
that the U.S.-origin components have no
other use other than as components of the
finished ball seals due to their specific
shapes, sizes, and tolerances.
Next, the three U.S.-origin components are
shipped to China for a simple assembly
process. You state that in China, unskilled
laborers manually assemble two Chineseorigin ‘‘D’’ shaped locking rings with the
U.S.-origin strap. After the rings are attached
to the strap, the top and bottom caps are
manually attached using a small hand press
that seals the caps together by slightly
bending the top cap around the bottom cap.
The assembled ball seals are then returned
to TydenBrammall’s U.S. facility where they
are stored until ordered by specific endcustomers. When a customer places an order,
assembled seals are removed from storage
and placed on a machine that die cuts a
notch into the ‘‘male’’ end of the strap. You
explain that the notch, like the teeth on a
key, makes the seal a functional security
lock. You also advise that prior to the die
cutting of the notch, the seal is not
functional. The same machine used to die cut
the notch also embosses and/or inkjet prints
E:\FR\FM\13FEN1.SGM
13FEN1
8340
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2008 / Notices
a unique serial number and/or bar code onto
the strap of the seal. The operator of the
machine then bundles the ball seals in
sequential numbered order in groups of 100
seals.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Issue
What is the country of origin of the
assembled ball seals for purposes of U.S.
Government procurement?
Law and Analysis
Pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, 19 CFR
177.21 et seq., which implements Title III of
the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as
amended (‘‘TAA’’; 19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.),
CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings
and final determinations on whether an
article is or would be a product of a
designated country or instrumentality for the
purposes of granting waivers of certain ‘‘Buy
American’’ restrictions in U.S. law or
practice for products offered for sale to the
U.S. Government.
Under the rule of origin set forth at 19
U.S.C. 2518(4)(B):
An article is a product of a country or
instrumentality only if (i) it is wholly the
growth, product, or manufacture of that
country or instrumentality, or (ii) in the case
of an article which consists in whole or in
part of materials from another country or
instrumentality, it has been substantially
transformed into a new and different article
of commerce with a name, character, or use
distinct from that of the article or articles
from which it was so transformed.
See also, 19 CFR 177.22(a).
In rendering advisory rulings and final
determinations for purposes of U.S.
Government procurement, CBP applies the
provisions of subpart B of Part 177 consistent
with the Federal Procurement Regulations.
See 19 CFR 177.21. In this regard, CBP
recognizes that the Federal Procurement
Regulations restrict the U.S. Government’s
purchase of products to U.S.-made or
designated country end products for
acquisitions subject to the TAA. See 48 CFR
25.403(c)(1). The Federal Procurement
Regulations define ‘‘U.S.-made end product’’
as:
* * * an article that is mined, produced,
or manufactured in the United States or that
is substantially transformed in the United
States into a new and different article of
commerce with a name, character, or use
distinct from that of the article or articles
from which it was transformed.
48 CFR 25.003
In determining whether the combining of
parts or materials constitutes a substantial
transformation, the determinative issue is the
extent of operations performed and whether
the parts lose their identity and become an
integral part of the new article. Belcrest
Linens v. United States, 6 Ct. Int’l Trade 204,
573 F. Supp. 1149 (1983), aff’d, 741 F.2d
1368 (Fed. Cir. 1984). If the manufacturing or
combining process is a minor one which
leaves the identity of the imported article
intact, a substantial transformation has not
occurred. Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3
Ct. Int’l Trade 220, 542 F. Supp. 1026 (1982).
In Uniroyal, the court determined that a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:45 Feb 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
substantial transformation did not occur
when an imported footwear upper, the
essence of the finished article, was combined
with a domestically produced outsole to form
a shoe. See id. Assembly operations that are
minimal or simple, as opposed to complex or
meaningful, will generally not result in a
substantial transformation. See C.S.D. 80–
111, C.S.D. 85–25, and C.S.D. 90–97.
In order to determine whether a substantial
transformation occurs when components of
various origins are assembled to form
completed articles, CBP considers the totality
of the circumstances and makes such
decisions on a case-by-case basis. The
country of origin of the article’s components,
the extent of the processing that occurs
within a given country, and whether such
processing renders a product with a new
name, character, and use are primary
considerations in such cases. Additionally,
facts such as resources expended on product
design and development, extent and nature
of post-assembly inspection procedures, and
worker skill required during the actual
manufacturing process will be considered
when analyzing whether a substantial
transformation has occurred; however, no
one such factor is determinative.
CBP has considered a number of different
scenarios involving the assembly of locking
apparatus. In Headquarters Ruling Letter
(‘‘HRL’’) 734440, dated March 30, 1992, CBP
found that a lock apparatus was substantially
transformed in the United States as a result
of combining it with pieces manufactured in
the United States. In rendering the country of
origin marking decision, CBP noted that the
predominant expense of the assembled lock
was from the parts produced in the United
States, which required extensive
manufacturing and development. By contrast,
the imported piece was a generic mechanism
that was inserted into the U.S. piece.
In another country of origin marking case,
HRL 734923, dated May 14, 1993, CBP
determined that imported components of a
door lockset, the rosettes and parts of the
latch, were substantially transformed when
they were assembled together with
significant U.S. components in the United
States to make the finished door lockset. CBP
found the manufacture of the rosettes in
China to be relatively simple and that it did
not require a great deal of precision as
compared to the manufacture of the other
components in the United States, which
required significant precision and substantial
machinery and tooling.
In HRL 735133, dated May 5, 1994, CBP
held that imported lock parts and assemblies
were not substantially transformed when
assembled in the United States with a U.S.origin coverplate screw. CBP noted that most
of the cost in making the finished lock was
attributable to operations performed in
Taiwan and that the production in the United
States was a simple manual assembly
operation of basically finished parts.
Most recently, in HRL W563587, dated
February 8, 2007, CBP issued another
government procurement final determination
to TydenBrammall concerning bolt container
seals and cable seals. In HRL W563587, CBP
considered two different manufacturing
scenarios for each of the two products: one
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
where the seals were assembled in the United
States from imported components and
another where the seals were assembled in
the United States from imported components
and a U.S.-origin lock body. In each instance,
the U.S. operations involved the simple
assembly of only four or five parts. The
production of the bolt container seal
involved the assembly of four parts to form
a lock body assembly and the packaging of
the assembly with a finished bolt shank of
Chinese-origin. CBP found that packaging the
bolt shank with the assembly did not
substantially transform the bolt shank. Thus,
the bolt shank retained its Chinese origin
under both manufacturing scenarios, and the
country of origin of the lock body assembly
was determined separately. Where the
products were produced entirely from foreign
components, CBP found the U.S. assembly
operations insufficient to substantially
transform the foreign components into
products of the United States. After finding
that the Chinese-origin lock bodies imparted
the essential character of both the cable seal
and the lock body assembly, CBP determined
that their country of origin was China. Where
U.S. lock bodies were used, CBP determined
that the country of origin of the cable seal
and the lock body assembly was the United
States. In reaching this determination, CBP
noted that the U.S.-origin parts and the U.S.
labor accounted for most of the cost of
making the seals.
In the instant case, the major components
of the ball seals are stamped in the United
States from U.S.-origin steel to precise sizes
and tolerances by skilled technicians using
relatively sophisticated machinery. Next, the
three U.S.-origin components are shipped to
China where unskilled workers perform a
simple manual assembly of the three
components with two minor Chinese-origin
components. The seals are then returned to
the United States where notches are die cut
into the straps to make the products
functional locking mechanisms. We find that
the U.S.-origin components impart the
essential character to the assembled seals.
Based on our previous rulings and the facts
presented in the instant case, we also find
that the operations performed in China are
not complex or meaningful. The Chinese
operations are simple assembly operations
that involve a small number of components
and do not appear to require a considerable
amount of time, skill, or attention to detail.
As such, the assembled ball seals, upon
importation to the United States, will not be
considered to be products of China.
Holding
Based on the facts provided, the U.S.-origin
components impart the essential character to
the assembled ball seals. The operations
performed in China do not result in a
substantial transformation of the U.S.-origin
components. As such, the assembled ball
seals, upon importation to the United States,
will not be considered to be products of
China.
Notice of this final determination will be
given in the Federal Register as required by
19 CFR 177.29. Any party-at-interest other
than the party which requested this final
determination may request, pursuant to 19
E:\FR\FM\13FEN1.SGM
13FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2008 / Notices
CFR 177.31, that CBP reexamine the matter
anew and issue a new final determination.
Any party-at-interest may, within 30 days
after publication of the Federal Register
notice referenced above, seek judicial review
of this final determination before the Court
of International Trade.
Sincerely,
Myles B. Harmon,
Acting Executive Director, Office of
Regulations and Rulings, Office of
International Trade.
[FR Doc. E8–2631 Filed 2–12–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–14–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR–5194–N–05]
Notice of Proposed Information
Collection for Public Comment; HOPE
VI Public Housing Programs: Funding
and Program Data Collection
Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Public and Indian
Housing, HUD.
ACTION: Notice.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The proposed information
collection requirement described below
will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act. The Department is
soliciting public comments on the
subject proposal.
DATES: Comments Due Date: April 14,
2008.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit comments regarding
this proposal. Comments should refer to
the proposal by name/or OMB Control
number and should be sent to: Lillian L.
Deitzer, Departmental Reports
Management Officer, QDAM,
Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 7th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20410–5000; telephone
202–708–2374 (this is not a toll-free
number) or e-mail Ms. Deitzer at
Lillian_L._Deitzer@HUD.gov for a copy
of the proposed form and other available
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Schulhof, Office of Policy,
Programs and Legislative Initiatives,
PIH, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 7th Street, SW.,
Washington DC 20410, telephone 202–
402–4112, (this is not a toll-free
number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Department will submit the proposed
information collection to OMB for
review, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:45 Feb 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
This Notice is soliciting comments
from members of the public and affected
agencies concerning the proposed
collection of information to: (1) Evaluate
whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information; (3) enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (4)
minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology; e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
This Notice also lists the following
information:
Title of Proposal: HOPE VI program.
OMB Control Number: 2577–0208.
Description of the need for the
information and proposed use: Section
24 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, as
added by section 535 of the Quality
Housing and Work Responsibility Act of
1998 (Pub. L. 105–276, 112 Stat. 2461,
approved October 21, 1998) and revised
by the HOPE VI Program
Reauthorization and Small Community
Main Street Rejuvenation and Housing
Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108–186, 117 Stat.
2685, approved December 16, 2003),
establishes the HOPE VI program for the
purpose of making assistance available
on a competitive basis to public housing
agencies (PHAs) in improving the living
environment for public housing
residents of severely distressed public
housing projects through the
demolition, rehabilitation,
reconfiguration, or replacement of
severely distressed public housing
projects (or portions thereof); in
revitalizing areas in which public
housing sites are located, and
contributing to the improvement of the
surrounding community; in providing
housing that avoids or decreases the
concentration of very low-income
families; and in building sustainable
communities. In addition, the HOPE VI
Program Reauthorization and Small
Community Main Street Rejuvenation
and Housing Act of 2003 added to the
HOPE VI program the purpose of
making assistance available on a
competitive basis to small units of local
government to develop affordable
housing as part of Main Street
rejuvenation projects. The program
authorization was renewed by the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008
(Pub. L. 110–161, approved December
26, 2007), which extends the program
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8341
until September 30, 2008. Under this
requirement, the Department only has a
few months to award and obligate the
2008 funds or they will be returned to
the Treasury.
These information collections are
required in connection with the annual
publication in the Federal Register of
Notices of Funding Availability
(NOFAs), contingent upon available
funding and authorization, which
announce the availability of funds
provided in annual appropriations for
HOPE VI Revitalization, Demolition
grants, and HOPE VI Main Street grants.
Eligible public housing agencies
(PHAs) (for HOPE VI Revitalization and
Demolition) and eligible local units of
government (for HOPE VI Main Street)
interested in obtaining HOPE VI grants
are required to submit applications to
HUD, as explained in each program
NOFA. The information collection
conducted in the applications enables
HUD to conduct a comprehensive,
merit-based selection process in order to
identify and select the applications to
receive funding. With the use of HUDprescribed forms, the information
collection provides HUD with sufficient
information to approve or disapprove
applications.
Applicants that are awarded HOPE VI
grants are required to report on a
quarterly basis on the sources and uses
of all amounts expended for
revitalization, demolition, or Main
Street activities. HOPE VI Revitalization
grantees use a fully-automated, Internetbased process for the submission of
quarterly reporting information. HUD
reviews and evaluates the collected
information and uses it as a primary tool
with which to monitor the status of
HOPE VI Revitalization projects and the
HOPE VI Revitalization program.
Agency form numbers: HUD–52774,
HUD–52780, HUD 52785, HUD–52787,
HUD–52798, HUD–52790, HUD–52797,
HUD–52799, HUD–52800, HUD–52825–
A, HUD–52860–A, HUD–52861, HUD–
53001–A, SF–424, SF–LLL, HUD–
27061, HUD 27300, HUD 2880, HUD
96010, and HUD 96011.
Members of affected public: Public
Housing Agencies.
Estimation of the total number of
hours needed to prepare the information
collection including number of
respondents, frequency of response, and
hours of response:
For HOPE VI Revitalization
Application: 30 respondents, once
annually, 192 hours average per
response results in a total annual
reporting burden of 5,795.10 hours.
For HOPE VI Demolition
Applications: 34 respondents, once
annually, 40.25 hours average per
E:\FR\FM\13FEN1.SGM
13FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 13, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8339-8341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2631]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Customs and Border Protection
Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning; Standard
and Rolled-Edge Ball Seals
AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice of final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document provides notice that the Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) has issued a final determination concerning the
country of origin of two types of ball seals to be offered to the
United States Government under an undesignated government procurement
contract. Based on the facts presented, CBP has concluded that the
operations performed in China do not result in a substantial
transformation of the U.S. components. Therefore, the assembled ball
seals will not be considered to be products of China.
DATES: The final determination was issued on February 6, 2008. A copy
of the final determination is attached. Any party-at-interest, as
defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of this final
determination within 30 days of February 13, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Files, Valuation and Special
Programs Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade
(202-572-8740).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that on February 6,
2008, pursuant to subpart B of part 177, Customs Regulations (19 CFR
part 177, subpart B), CBP issued a final determination concerning the
country of origin of two types of ball seals to be offered to the
United States Government under an undesignated government procurement
contract. The CBP ruling number is H021398. This final determination
was issued at the request of Brammall, Inc. d/b/a/ TydenBrammall
(``TydenBrammall'') under procedures set forth at 19 CFR part 177,
subpart B, which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of
1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511-18).
The final determination concluded that, based upon the facts
presented, the simple assembly in China of three major U.S.-origin
components with two minor Chinese-origin components does not result in
a substantial transformation of the U.S.-origin components. Therefore,
the assembled ball seals will not be considered to be products of China
for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
Section 177.29, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 177.29), provides that
notice of final determinations shall be published in the Federal
Register within 60 days of the date the final determination is issued.
Section 177.30, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.30), states that any party-
at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review
of a final determination within 30 days of publication of such
determination in the Federal Register.
Dated: February 6, 2008.
Myles B. Harmon,
Acting Executive Director, Office of Regulations and Rulings, Office of
International Trade.
Attachment: HQ H021398
February 6, 2008
MAR-2-05 OT:RR:CTF:VS H021398 HEF
CATEGORY: Marking.
Ms. Linda M. Weinberg,
Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Suite 900, 750 17th Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20006.
RE: U.S. Government Procurement; Final Determination; country of
origin of ball seals; substantial transformation; 19 CFR Part 177.
Dear Ms. Weinberg: This is in response to your letter dated
December 21, 2007, requesting a final determination on behalf of
Brammall, Inc. d/b/a TydenBrammall (``TydenBrammall''), pursuant to
subpart B of Part 177, Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'')
Regulations (19 CFR 177.21 et seq.). Under these regulations, which
implement Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended
(19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.), CBP issues country of origin advisory
rulings and final determinations on whether an article is or would
be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the
purpose of granting waivers of certain ``Buy American'' restrictions
in U.S. law or practice for products offered for sale to the U.S.
Government.
This final determination concerns the country of origin of
certain ball seals. We note that TydenBrammall is a party-at-
interest within the meaning of 19 CFR 177.22(d)(1) and is entitled
to request this final determination. Samples of the ball seals, at
various stages of the manufacturing process, were also submitted
with your request. In preparing this final determination,
consideration was given to your supplemental submission dated
January 9, 2008.
Facts
The products subject to this final determination are two types
of ball seals known as the ``Tyden Standard Ball Seal'' and the
``Tyden Rolled-Edge Ball Seal.'' The ball seals are used to secure
rail, container, and truck cargo shipments. The ``ball'' of a seal
is comprised of metal top and bottom caps. A metal strap runs
through the center of the ball and extends at length from the bottom
cap. The metal strap may have a custom seal number embossed on it
and/or a printed bar code. A die cut notch at the end of the metal
strap is used to engage with two interlocking D-shaped rings,
located inside the ball, to form a functional security lock. The
ball itself is slotted to provide visible proof to the user that the
seal is locked.
You advise that TydenBrammall uses identical materials and
components in the manufacture of both the Tyden Standard Ball Seal
and the Tyden Rolled-Edge Ball Seal. The manufacturing processes for
the two products are also identical, with the exception that the
Rolled-Edge Ball Seal requires the additional step of having its
edges rolled under at the end of the U.S. processing. The ball seals
are assembled from five components. You advise that the seals' three
major components are produced in the United States from U.S.
materials. The other two components are sourced in China.
To produce the U.S.-origin components, TydenBrammall purchases
rolls of coiled steel from a U.S. steel producer. You note that
highly trained operators and maintenance die technicians load the
steel coils onto two computer-controlled presses and dies at
TydenBrammall's U.S. facility. The presses and dies are used to
stamp the strap, ball seal top cap, and ball seal bottom cap from
the coiled steel into specific sizes and subject to precise
tolerances. You assert that the U.S.-origin components have no other
use other than as components of the finished ball seals due to their
specific shapes, sizes, and tolerances.
Next, the three U.S.-origin components are shipped to China for
a simple assembly process. You state that in China, unskilled
laborers manually assemble two Chinese-origin ``D'' shaped locking
rings with the U.S.-origin strap. After the rings are attached to
the strap, the top and bottom caps are manually attached using a
small hand press that seals the caps together by slightly bending
the top cap around the bottom cap.
The assembled ball seals are then returned to TydenBrammall's
U.S. facility where they are stored until ordered by specific end-
customers. When a customer places an order, assembled seals are
removed from storage and placed on a machine that die cuts a notch
into the ``male'' end of the strap. You explain that the notch, like
the teeth on a key, makes the seal a functional security lock. You
also advise that prior to the die cutting of the notch, the seal is
not functional. The same machine used to die cut the notch also
embosses and/or inkjet prints
[[Page 8340]]
a unique serial number and/or bar code onto the strap of the seal.
The operator of the machine then bundles the ball seals in
sequential numbered order in groups of 100 seals.
Issue
What is the country of origin of the assembled ball seals for
purposes of U.S. Government procurement?
Law and Analysis
Pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, 19 CFR 177.21 et seq., which
implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended
(``TAA''; 19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.), CBP issues country of origin
advisory rulings and final determinations on whether an article is
or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for
the purposes of granting waivers of certain ``Buy American''
restrictions in U.S. law or practice for products offered for sale
to the U.S. Government.
Under the rule of origin set forth at 19 U.S.C. 2518(4)(B):
An article is a product of a country or instrumentality only if
(i) it is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of that country
or instrumentality, or (ii) in the case of an article which consists
in whole or in part of materials from another country or
instrumentality, it has been substantially transformed into a new
and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use
distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was so
transformed.
See also, 19 CFR 177.22(a).
In rendering advisory rulings and final determinations for
purposes of U.S. Government procurement, CBP applies the provisions
of subpart B of Part 177 consistent with the Federal Procurement
Regulations. See 19 CFR 177.21. In this regard, CBP recognizes that
the Federal Procurement Regulations restrict the U.S. Government's
purchase of products to U.S.-made or designated country end products
for acquisitions subject to the TAA. See 48 CFR 25.403(c)(1). The
Federal Procurement Regulations define ``U.S.-made end product'' as:
* * * an article that is mined, produced, or manufactured in the
United States or that is substantially transformed in the United
States into a new and different article of commerce with a name,
character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from
which it was transformed.
48 CFR 25.003
In determining whether the combining of parts or materials
constitutes a substantial transformation, the determinative issue is
the extent of operations performed and whether the parts lose their
identity and become an integral part of the new article. Belcrest
Linens v. United States, 6 Ct. Int'l Trade 204, 573 F. Supp. 1149
(1983), aff'd, 741 F.2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1984). If the manufacturing
or combining process is a minor one which leaves the identity of the
imported article intact, a substantial transformation has not
occurred. Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3 Ct. Int'l Trade 220,
542 F. Supp. 1026 (1982). In Uniroyal, the court determined that a
substantial transformation did not occur when an imported footwear
upper, the essence of the finished article, was combined with a
domestically produced outsole to form a shoe. See id. Assembly
operations that are minimal or simple, as opposed to complex or
meaningful, will generally not result in a substantial
transformation. See C.S.D. 80-111, C.S.D. 85-25, and C.S.D. 90-97.
In order to determine whether a substantial transformation
occurs when components of various origins are assembled to form
completed articles, CBP considers the totality of the circumstances
and makes such decisions on a case-by-case basis. The country of
origin of the article's components, the extent of the processing
that occurs within a given country, and whether such processing
renders a product with a new name, character, and use are primary
considerations in such cases. Additionally, facts such as resources
expended on product design and development, extent and nature of
post-assembly inspection procedures, and worker skill required
during the actual manufacturing process will be considered when
analyzing whether a substantial transformation has occurred;
however, no one such factor is determinative.
CBP has considered a number of different scenarios involving the
assembly of locking apparatus. In Headquarters Ruling Letter
(``HRL'') 734440, dated March 30, 1992, CBP found that a lock
apparatus was substantially transformed in the United States as a
result of combining it with pieces manufactured in the United
States. In rendering the country of origin marking decision, CBP
noted that the predominant expense of the assembled lock was from
the parts produced in the United States, which required extensive
manufacturing and development. By contrast, the imported piece was a
generic mechanism that was inserted into the U.S. piece.
In another country of origin marking case, HRL 734923, dated May
14, 1993, CBP determined that imported components of a door lockset,
the rosettes and parts of the latch, were substantially transformed
when they were assembled together with significant U.S. components
in the United States to make the finished door lockset. CBP found
the manufacture of the rosettes in China to be relatively simple and
that it did not require a great deal of precision as compared to the
manufacture of the other components in the United States, which
required significant precision and substantial machinery and
tooling.
In HRL 735133, dated May 5, 1994, CBP held that imported lock
parts and assemblies were not substantially transformed when
assembled in the United States with a U.S.-origin coverplate screw.
CBP noted that most of the cost in making the finished lock was
attributable to operations performed in Taiwan and that the
production in the United States was a simple manual assembly
operation of basically finished parts.
Most recently, in HRL W563587, dated February 8, 2007, CBP
issued another government procurement final determination to
TydenBrammall concerning bolt container seals and cable seals. In
HRL W563587, CBP considered two different manufacturing scenarios
for each of the two products: one where the seals were assembled in
the United States from imported components and another where the
seals were assembled in the United States from imported components
and a U.S.-origin lock body. In each instance, the U.S. operations
involved the simple assembly of only four or five parts. The
production of the bolt container seal involved the assembly of four
parts to form a lock body assembly and the packaging of the assembly
with a finished bolt shank of Chinese-origin. CBP found that
packaging the bolt shank with the assembly did not substantially
transform the bolt shank. Thus, the bolt shank retained its Chinese
origin under both manufacturing scenarios, and the country of origin
of the lock body assembly was determined separately. Where the
products were produced entirely from foreign components, CBP found
the U.S. assembly operations insufficient to substantially transform
the foreign components into products of the United States. After
finding that the Chinese-origin lock bodies imparted the essential
character of both the cable seal and the lock body assembly, CBP
determined that their country of origin was China. Where U.S. lock
bodies were used, CBP determined that the country of origin of the
cable seal and the lock body assembly was the United States. In
reaching this determination, CBP noted that the U.S.-origin parts
and the U.S. labor accounted for most of the cost of making the
seals.
In the instant case, the major components of the ball seals are
stamped in the United States from U.S.-origin steel to precise sizes
and tolerances by skilled technicians using relatively sophisticated
machinery. Next, the three U.S.-origin components are shipped to
China where unskilled workers perform a simple manual assembly of
the three components with two minor Chinese-origin components. The
seals are then returned to the United States where notches are die
cut into the straps to make the products functional locking
mechanisms. We find that the U.S.-origin components impart the
essential character to the assembled seals. Based on our previous
rulings and the facts presented in the instant case, we also find
that the operations performed in China are not complex or
meaningful. The Chinese operations are simple assembly operations
that involve a small number of components and do not appear to
require a considerable amount of time, skill, or attention to
detail. As such, the assembled ball seals, upon importation to the
United States, will not be considered to be products of China.
Holding
Based on the facts provided, the U.S.-origin components impart
the essential character to the assembled ball seals. The operations
performed in China do not result in a substantial transformation of
the U.S.-origin components. As such, the assembled ball seals, upon
importation to the United States, will not be considered to be
products of China.
Notice of this final determination will be given in the Federal
Register as required by 19 CFR 177.29. Any party-at-interest other
than the party which requested this final determination may request,
pursuant to 19
[[Page 8341]]
CFR 177.31, that CBP reexamine the matter anew and issue a new final
determination. Any party-at-interest may, within 30 days after
publication of the Federal Register notice referenced above, seek
judicial review of this final determination before the Court of
International Trade.
Sincerely,
Myles B. Harmon,
Acting Executive Director, Office of Regulations and Rulings, Office
of International Trade.
[FR Doc. E8-2631 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P