Rules of Origin for Imported Merchandise, 54691-54697 [2011-22588]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 171 / Friday, September 2, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Communications Privacy Act (ECPA),
and the U.S. SAFE WEB Act (‘‘SAFE
WEB’’). This procedure is intended to
make the process for seeking such
orders more administratively efficient.
DATES: This final rule is effective
September 2, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex
Tang, atang@ftc.gov, 202–326–2447; or
W. Ashley Gum, wgum@ftc.gov, 202–
326–3006; Federal Trade Commission,
Office of the General Counsel, 600
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20580.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The RFPA
and the ECPA require the FTC, in
certain cases, to notify customers when
seeking their records from financial
institutions or service providers subject
to those statutes in the Commission’s
law enforcement investigations and
proceedings. See 12 U.S.C. 3405 (RFPA);
18 U.S.C. 2703(b)(1)(B) (ECPA). These
statutes, and SAFE WEB, also authorize
the filing of an application seeking an
order to delay such notification and to
prohibit the recipient of the agency’s
compulsory process from disclosing that
the FTC has requested or received the
records, where such notice or disclosure
would jeopardize the FTC’s
investigation. See 12 U.S.C. 3409
(RFPA); 18 U.S.C. 2705 (ECPA); see also
15 U.S.C. 57b–2a(b) (SAFE WEB). In
cases where these statutes do not
require customer notification, SAFE
WEB separately authorizes the FTC to
seek an order prohibiting the recipient
of FTC compulsory process from
disclosing the existence of such process
to any person. See 15 U.S.C. 57b–2a(c).
Under this final rule, delegating the
Commission’s authority pursuant to
Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1961,
26 FR 6191, either an individual
Commissioner or the General Counsel
may authorize the staff to file actions
seeking delay of notification and
prohibition of disclosure under the
statutes cited above. This delegation
will facilitate the Commission’s exercise
of this authority and, as solely a matter
of internal agency administration, is not
intended to confer any enforceable right,
privilege, or benefit on behalf of any
person.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Procedural Requirements
A. Administrative Procedure Act
The FTC has determined that
publication of this rule without prior
notice and the opportunity for public
comment is warranted because this is a
rule of agency procedure and practice
and therefore is exempt from notice and
comment rulemaking requirements of
the Administrative Procedure Act,
5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Because it is a non-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:31 Sep 01, 2011
Jkt 223001
54691
substantive rule, the Commission shall
make the rule effective immediately
upon publication. See 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(2).
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Because the Commission has
determined that it may issue this rule
without public comment, the
Commission is also not required to
publish any initial or final regulatory
flexibility analysis under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act as part of such action.
See 5 U.S.C. 601(2), 604(a).
C. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The final rule is not subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.) because it does not contain
any new information collection
requirements.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 2
Administrative practice and
procedure.
For the reasons set forth above, the
Federal Trade Commission is amending
Subpart A of part 2 of title 16, Code of
Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 2—NONADJUDICATIVE
PROCEDURES
1. The authority citation for part 2
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 46, unless otherwise
noted.
Subpart A—Inquiries; Investigations;
Compulsory Processes
■
2. Add § 2.17 to read as follows:
§ 2.17 Statutory delays of notifications and
prohibitions of disclosure.
Upon authorization by the
Commissioner who issues compulsory
process pursuant to § 2.7(a) or,
alternatively, upon authorization by the
General Counsel, Commission attorneys
may seek to delay notifications or
prohibit disclosures pursuant to the
Right to Financial Privacy Act
(12 U.S.C. 3409), the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C.
2705), or section 7 of the U.S. SAFE
WEB Act (15 U.S.C. 57b–2a).
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011–22593 Filed 9–1–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
19 CFR Part 102
[USCBP–2007–0100; CBP Dec. 11–18]
RIN 1515–AD53 (Formerly RIN 1505–AB49)
Rules of Origin for Imported
Merchandise
Customs and Border
Protection, Department of Homeland
Security; Department of the Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCIES:
This document adopts as a
final rule that portion of a notice of
proposed rulemaking, published in the
Federal Register on July 25, 2008, that
proposed amendments to the country of
origin rules codified in part 102 of the
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
regulations applicable to pipe fittings
and flanges, greeting cards, glass optical
fiber, rice preparations, and certain
textile and apparel products. However,
this document is not adopting as a final
rule the portion of the notice that
proposed amendments to the CBP
regulations to establish uniform rules
governing CBP determinations of the
country of origin of imported
merchandise. CBP is not adopting the
uniform rules of origin proposal so as to
permit further consideration of relevant
issues involved in the proposal.
DATES: This rule is effective October 3,
2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Monika Brenner, Chief, Valuation and
Special Programs Branch, Regulations
and Rulings, Office of International
Trade, (202) 325–0038.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Background
Discussion of Proposals
On July 25, 2008, Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) published in the
Federal Register (73 FR 43385) a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that
proposed amendments to the CBP
regulations relating to the application of
the country of origin rules codified in
part 102 of the CBP regulations (19 CFR
part 102).
Uniform Rules of Origin
The notice of proposed rulemaking, in
part, proposed amendments to the CBP
regulations to extend application of the
rules of origin codified in part 102 to all
country of origin determinations made
E:\FR\FM\02SER1.SGM
02SER1
54692
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 171 / Friday, September 2, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
under the customs and related laws and
the navigation laws of the United States,
unless otherwise specified. CBP stated
in the NPRM that it believed that the
proposed extension of the part 102
country of origin rules to all trade
would result in determinations that are
more objective, transparent, and
predictable, and would facilitate the
exercise of reasonable care by U.S.
importers with respect to their
obligations regarding the identification
of the proper country of origin of
imported merchandise. Please refer to
the July 25, 2008 (73 FR 43385),
document for a more detailed
discussion of this proposal. As stated
later in this document, CBP is not
proceeding with this proposal.
Changes to Specific Rules of Origin
The July 25, 2008, document also
proposed amendments to the country of
origin rules codified in part 102 in
regard to five specific product areas:
Pipe fittings and flanges, greeting cards,
glass optical fiber, rice preparations, and
certain textile and apparel products. A
brief discussion of the proposed changes
for these five product areas is set forth
below. For a more detailed discussion of
these proposed changes, please see the
July 25, 2008, NPRM.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
1. Pipe Fittings and Flanges
CBP proposed to amend the tariff shift
rule in § 102.20(n), CBP regulations (19
CFR 102.20), for goods classified in
headings 7301 through 7307,
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS), to provide for a
change within heading 7307 from fitting
forgings or flange forgings to fittings or
flanges made ready for commercial use
by certain processing, including
beveling, bore threading, center or step
boring, face machining, heat treating,
recoining or resizing, taper boring,
machining ends or surfaces other than a
gasket face, drilling bolt holes, and
burring or shot blasting. CBP stated in
the NPRM that the proposed change is
consistent with the decision in
Midwood Industries, Inc. v. United
States, 64 Cust. Ct. 499, C.D. 4026, 313
F. Supp. 951 (1970), appeal dismissed,
57 CCP 141 (1970), and that the change
was being proposed following further
consideration of the judicial guidance in
Boltex Manufacturing Co. v. United
States, 24 CIT 972, 140 F. Supp. 2d 1339
(2000), and comments received in
response to a proposed modification/
revocation of rulings published in the
Customs Bulletin and Decisions on
November 21, 2001 (35 Cust. B. & Dec.
35 (2001)).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:31 Sep 01, 2011
Jkt 223001
2. Greeting Cards
CBP proposed to amend the tariff shift
rule in § 102.20(j) for goods classified in
headings 4901 through 4911, HTSUS,
which includes printed greeting cards,
by creating a specific rule for heading
4909, providing for a change to that
heading from any other heading except
from heading 4911 when the change is
a result of adding text. CBP explained in
the July 25, 2008, NPRM that the effect
of this proposed change is to enable the
country of origin of all printed greeting
cards to be determined according to the
country of initial printing of literary
text, photographs, graphic designs, or
illustrations. CBP further stated that this
proposed change is consistent with CBP
practice in applying the substantial
transformation standard to printed
materials, as reflected in CBP’s
administrative rulings.
3. Glass Optical Fiber
CBP proposed to amend the tariff shift
rule in § 102.20(q) for subheading
9001.10, HTSUS, which encompasses
optical fibers and optical fiber bundles
and cables, by providing for a change to
subheading 9001.10 from any other
subheading, except from subheading
8544.70, HTSUS, or glass preforms of
heading 7002, HTSUS. CBP stated in the
NPRM that this proposed change would
conform the tariff shift rule to the
determination in CBP Headquarters
Ruling Letter (HRL) 560660 dated April
9, 1999, that no substantial
transformation (and thus no change in
origin) results for purposes of the
country of marking statute (19 U.S.C.
1304) from the drawing of a glass
preform into optical fiber.
4. Rice Preparations
CBP proposed to amend the tariff shift
rule in § 102.20(d) for subheading
1904.90, HTSUS, which encompasses
certain rice preparations, by providing
for a change to subheading 1904.90 from
any other heading, except from heading
1006, HTSUS, or wild rice of
subheading 1008.90, HTSUS. CBP
explained in the NPRM that this
proposed change would eliminate the
inconsistency between the tariff shift
rule and HRL 967925 dated February 28,
2006, in which CBP held that no
substantial transformation results for
purposes of the country of origin
marking statute when rice is processed
with 2% water, 0.4% sunflower oil,
0.2% salt, and 0.4% soy lecithin, placed
into cups and sealed, and thermally
processed.
5. Certain Textile and Apparel Products
In regard to the rules of origin for
textile and apparel products set forth in
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 102.21, CBP regulations (19 CFR
102.21), CBP proposed two amendments
to § 102.21 to properly align the rules
with the language of the underlying
statute, 19 U.S.C. 3592. First, CBP
proposed to amend § 102.21(c)(3)(ii) by
adding the words ‘‘fabrics of chapter 59
and’’ so that the amended text would
read ‘‘Except for fabrics of chapter 59
and goods of heading * * *.’’ As
explained in the NPRM, this change
would have the effect of ensuring that
fabrics of chapter 59, HTSUS, derive
their country of origin from where the
fabric is formed, consistent with 19
U.S.C. 3592(b)(1)(C).
CBP also proposed to amend the tariff
shift rule in § 102.21(e) for goods
classified in headings 6210 through
6212, HTSUS, by creating a separate
rule for heading 6212, which
encompasses ‘‘brassieres, girdles,
corsets, braces, suspenders, garters and
similar articles and parts thereof,
whether or not knitted or crocheted.’’
CBP noted in the NPRM that the
existing tariff shift rule for headings
6210 through 6212 does not provide for
the possibility of knit-to-shape goods,
even though the body-supporting
garments of heading 6212 may be knit
to shape. CBP stated that this proposed
change would ensure that a knit-toshape good of heading 6212 is found to
derive its origin from where the good is
knit to shape in accordance with 19
U.S.C. 3592(b)(2)(A)(ii).
Comment Period
The July 25, 2008, NPRM provided for
a sixty-day period (until September 23,
2008) for the submission of public
comments on the proposed regulatory
changes. The comment period was
extended an additional 30 days by a
notice published in the Federal Register
on September 8, 2008 (73 FR 51962). A
subsequent notice published in the
Federal Register on October 30, 2008
(73 FR 64575), re-opened the comment
period until December 1, 2008, to afford
interested parties an opportunity to
provide meaningful comment in light of
a final rule document also published on
October 30, 2008 (73 FR 64518), which
set forth technical corrections to
§§ 102.20 and 102.21 to reflect
modifications to the HTSUS that
became effective in 2007.
Discussion of Comments
A total of 70 commenters responded
to the solicitation of public comments,
14 of which provided multiple
submissions. Forty-two of the
commenters expressed opposition to the
proposed uniform application of the
country of origin rules set forth in part
102, while 16 commenters raised
E:\FR\FM\02SER1.SGM
02SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 171 / Friday, September 2, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
specific concerns or questions regarding
the uniform rules proposal without
expressly supporting or opposing the
proposal. Nine of the commenters
generally expressed support for the
proposal, although certain of these
commenters recommended specific
modifications to those rules.
In regard to the proposed
amendments to the part 102 rules of
origin relating to the five specific
product areas, six comments were
received in regard to two of the product
areas. Four commenters discussed the
proposed change in the rules pertaining
to pipe fittings and flanges, while two
commenters addressed the proposed
change in the rules regarding glass
optical fiber.
Set forth below is a discussion of the
comments or portions of comments
received that addressed the NPRM’s
comment period, concerns of a general
nature regarding the technical
corrections to the part 102 tariff shift
rules to reflect the 2007 modifications to
the HTSUS, and the proposed
amendments to the part 102 rules of
origin relating to pipe fittings and
flanges and glass optical fiber.
It is noted that a number of comments
recommended specific changes to the
rules of origin in part 102 other than
those that had been proposed. Although
CBP considers these comments to be
outside the scope of the July 25, 2008,
NPRM, CBP nevertheless is reviewing
these comments and if, as a result of
that review, we determine that
additional amendments to the part 102
tariff shift rules are warranted, these
changes will be incorporated in a future
notice of proposed rulemaking.
Uniform Rules of Origin
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Comment
Forty-two commenters opposed
implementation of the proposal to
establish uniform rules governing CBP
determinations of the country of origin
of imported merchandise.
CBP’s Response
Based on the public comments
received in regard to the uniform rules
of origin proposal, CBP has determined
not to proceed with this proposal. As a
result, CBP believes that it is
unnecessary to discuss the comments or
portions of comments that addressed the
proposed amendments relating to the
uniform rules of origin proposal.
Extension of Comment Period
Comment
Two commenters requested a 90-day
extension of the public comment period
beyond the original due date of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:31 Sep 01, 2011
Jkt 223001
September 23, 2008, and two
commenters requested an additional 60
days within which to submit comments
beyond the extended due date of
December 1, 2008.
CBP’s Response
As noted previously, the notice of
proposed rulemaking was published on
July 25, 2008, with comments due on or
before September 23, 2008. The
comment period was extended by a
notice published in the Federal Register
on September 8, 2008 (73 FR 51962), to
October 23, 2008. Subsequently, a
notice published in the Federal Register
on October 30, 2008 (73 FR 64575), reopened the comment period and
established a new due date of December
1, 2008. CBP believes that the over fourmonth comment period afforded to
interested parties (with the two
extensions) provided all parties with
sufficient time to submit comments on
the proposed rulemaking.
2007 HTSUS Modifications
Comment
Fifteen commenters maintained that
the part 102 tariff shift rules are
outdated as they fail to reflect the
modifications to the HTSUS that
became effective on February 3, 2007
(see Presidential Proclamation 8097,
published in the Federal Register on
January 4, 2007 (72 FR 453)). These
commenters indicated that maintaining
the part 102 tariff shift rules to assure
consistency with the 2007 changes as
well as future changes to the HTSUS is
necessary to the proper evaluation and
possible future implementation of the
uniform rules of origin proposal.
One of these commenters noted that
the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) country of origin
rules in part 102 are static in that they
are the result of tripartite negotiations
with other sovereigns. As a result, the
commenter stated that CBP is without
authority to make changes to any of the
rules without obtaining agreement from
Canada and Mexico. The commenter
suggested that the uniform tariff shift
rules should be placed elsewhere in the
CBP regulations so as to more easily
facilitate future changes to the rules.
CBP’s Response
As previously noted, a final rule
document published in the Federal
Register on October 30, 2008 (73 FR
64518), set forth technical corrections to
the part 102 tariff-shift rules to reflect
modifications to the HTSUS that
became effective on February 3, 2007.
The comment period with respect to the
July 25, 2008, NPRM was re-opened on
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54693
October 30, 2008, specifically to enable
interested parties to evaluate the
proposed rule in light of the technical
corrections made to §§ 102.20 and
102.21 by the above-referenced final
rule document. CBP will continue to
update the part 102 rules as necessary
to assure consistency with future
modifications to the HTSUS.
CBP disagrees with the contention by
one commenter that the rules set forth
in §§ 102.1 through 102.20 (referred to
as the ‘‘NAFTA Marking Rules’’) are
‘‘static’’ as no changes may be made
without obtaining agreement with
Canada and Mexico. The NAFTA
Marking Rules set forth in part 102 are
used by the United States under Annex
311 of the NAFTA to determine the
country of origin of goods imported into
the United States from Canada and
Mexico. The United States has full
authority to amend those rules
whenever it deems it necessary to do so.
Of course, the United States engages in
consultations with the governments of
Canada and Mexico on a regular basis to
discuss a number of issues arising under
the NAFTA, which may include any
amendments being made by each
member Party to its NAFTA Marking
Rules.
Comment
With respect to the October 30, 2008,
technical corrections final rule
document, two commenters contended
that these updates appear to have been
prepared without proper vetting by the
trade as they contain numerous errors.
A third commenter stated that the
technical corrections ‘‘do not make
logical sense across the board’’, while
two additional commenters criticized
the corrections as interjecting a
‘‘description-oriented origin
determination process, rather than a
tariff shift basis.’’ Two of these
commenters maintained that the
inclusion of ‘‘description-shifts’’ or the
need to subjectively characterize
devices within a subheading negates
any supposed objective advantage
regarding tariff-shift rules and is
contrary to the spirit of the original
NAFTA agreement regarding origin
which was predicated on a clearlydefined shift from one tariff number to
another. In addition, it was asserted that
using descriptions rather than tariff
numbers to determine if a rule has been
met hinders or eliminates importers
from applying automation to the
process, resulting in increased costs to
determine if foreign components meet
the ‘‘description-shift’’.
E:\FR\FM\02SER1.SGM
02SER1
54694
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 171 / Friday, September 2, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
CBP’s Response
CBP acknowledges that the tariff shift
rules in § 102.20, as amended by the
October 30, 2008, final rule document,
contain more descriptions than the prior
version but disagrees with the
characterization that we are interjecting
a description-oriented origin
determination process into the tariffshift system. Our use of certain
descriptions is necessitated by the
substantial changes in 2007 to portions
of the HTSUS, which involved moving
a number of goods from various
headings or subheadings and
concentrating them into one heading or
subheading, or vice versa, as well as
deleting or adding headings and
subheadings. In order to reflect the
existing tariff shift rules for the affected
goods in their new locations, it was
necessary to name or describe goods so
that there would be no doubt as to
which rule applies to which good.
With regard to the ‘‘logical sense’’ of
the corrections, CBP notes that the rules
were merely updated to reflect the
HTSUS 2007 changes. The update
required changes in product coverage
and/or numbering of certain headings
and subheadings and was not intended
to have any other substantive effect.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Comment
A commenter contended that the
‘‘technical corrections’’ to §§ 102.20 and
102.21 failed to comply with the
requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) (19 U.S.C. 553)
which renders the technical corrections
invalid or subject to invalidation by the
courts. According to the commenter,
CBP should have adhered to the
standard notice and comment
procedures and delayed effective date
requirement of the APA. The
commenter stated that none of the
exceptions to the APA notice and
comment procedures apply in this case
as the amendments to the part 102 rules
are far more than ‘‘technical’’
amendments to rules previously
existing; they are, in many cases,
entirely new rules of origin which speak
to entirely new tariff subheadings that
did not previously exist. The
commenter maintained that these are
substantive rules which impose
obligations on broad classes of persons
in that they dictate the country of origin
which must be applied to certain classes
of imported merchandise.
CBP’s Response
CBP disagrees with the assertion by
one commenter that the October 30,
2008, ‘‘technical corrections’’ final rule
document that amended the part 102
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:31 Sep 01, 2011
Jkt 223001
tariff shift rules failed to comply with
the requirements of the APA because
the amendments were far more than
‘‘technical’’ but were substantive in
nature. As explained in the final rule
document, the 2007 modifications to the
HTSUS resulted in certain tariff
provisions being added or removed and
certain goods being transferred to
different or newly-created tariff
provisions. Therefore, to properly
conform the tariff shift rules in
§§ 102.20 and 102.21 to the current
version of the HTSUS, it was necessary,
depending on each particular HTSUS
change, to create an additional rule,
remove an existing rule or portion of a
rule, or otherwise modify a rule.
However, it is important to recognize
that these changes to §§ 102.20 and
102.21 were made to ensure that the
application of the rules would produce
precisely the same country of origin
result for every good as was the case
before the 2007 HTSUS modifications
were effected. For this reason, CBP
believes that these amendments were
not substantive in nature, but indeed
qualified as ‘‘technical corrections.’’
The October 30, 2008, ‘‘technical
corrections’’ are contrasted with the
amendments made by this final rule
document to the tariff shift rules in
§ 102.20 relating to pipe fittings and
flanges, greeting cards, glass optical
fiber, and rice preparations. The
changes promulgated in this final rule
are substantive in nature as they are
designed to produce different country of
origin results under the specific
circumstances set forth in this
document involving those product
areas.
Specifically in regard to the APA, CBP
stated in the final rule document that,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and
(d)(3), it had determined that it would
be impracticable and contrary to the
public interest to delay publication of
the rule in final form pending an
opportunity for public comment and
that there was good cause for the rule to
become effective immediately upon
publication. The document included as
the reasons for this determination that
the technical corrections merely
conformed the tariff shift rules to the
current HTSUS and that the
amendments facilitated trade by
ensuring that country of origin
determinations made using the
regulations were consistent with the
HTSUS. In this regard, CBP wishes to
emphasize that, prior to the technical
corrections made by the October 30,
2008, final rule document, §§ 102.20
and 102.21 failed to provide accurate
tariff shift rules for many of the goods
affected by the 2007 modifications to
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the HTSUS. It was necessary to make
these technical corrections at the
earliest possible time so that both the
public and CBP could properly rely on
these rules to accurately determine the
country of origin of all goods imported
from Canada and Mexico, as required by
Annex 311 of the NAFTA, as well as all
imported textile and apparel goods.
Thus, CBP believes that it appropriately
invoked the exceptions described above
to the notice, comment, and delayed
effective date requirements of the APA.
It is noted that CBP published in the
Federal Register on July 24, 2003 (68 FR
43630), a similar final rule document
that set forth technical corrections to
§ 102.20 to reflect modifications to the
HTSUS that were effective in 2002. CBP
determined in that document that the
notice and public procedure
requirements were inapplicable for the
same reasons cited in the October 30,
2008, final rulemaking.
Pipe Fittings and Flanges
Comment
Three commenters expressed support
for the proposed tariff shift change for
pipe fittings and flanges of heading
7307, HTSUS, set forth in the July 25,
2008, NPRM that would allow a change
within heading 7307 from fitting
forgings or flange forgings to fittings or
flanges made ready for commercial use
by certain processing. The commenters
stated that the proposed change, which
is consistent with the result in Midwood
Industries, Inc. v. United States, 64
Cust. Ct. 499 (1970), would provide
stability to the domestic fittings and
flanges industry and consistency with
longstanding country of origin marking
practices, and in addition would
encourage further investment in this
domestic industry.
CBP’s Response
CBP agrees with the commenters that
the tariff shift change for pipe fittings
and flanges of heading 7307, as
proposed in the July 25, 2008, NPRM, is
consistent with the court’s holding in
Midwood. We believe that performing
the operations set forth in the revised
rule results in a fundamental change in
the nature of the product. Thus, the
country of origin of pipe fittings and
flanges of heading 7307 is the country
where the referenced operations are
performed.
Comment
One commenter disagreed with the
proposed change in the tariff shift rule
for pipe fittings and flanges, arguing that
the change would permit U.S. finishers
of imported fittings and flanges to
E:\FR\FM\02SER1.SGM
02SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 171 / Friday, September 2, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
escape their responsibility to mark the
finished product with its foreign origin,
thus depriving end users of the ability
to make an informed choice between
U.S.-manufactured fittings and flanges
and foreign articles that are merely
subjected to finishing operations in the
U.S. According to this commenter, the
proposed change would benefit U.S.
finishers that purchase inexpensive
foreign fittings and flanges in an
unfinished form, perform minor, largely
superficial processing on the articles,
and sell them to U.S. consumers at
prices that undercut those for fittings
and flanges produced entirely in the
United States. The commenter
recognized that the proposed change
would actually only effect a change for
imports of fitting and flange forgings
from Mexico and Canada since imports
of such forgings from all other countries
are currently subject to CBP rulings
reflecting the decision in Midwood.
This commenter contended that the
proposed change is contrary to the
country of marking statute (19 U.S.C.
1304) as paragraph (c) of the statute
prohibits the establishment of marking
exemptions for certain imported pipes
and fittings. In addition, the commenter
stated that, if CBP truly wishes to codify
the substantial transformation standard
from Midwood, it must revise its
proposed rule for heading 7307 to
encompass the more complex
processing steps that formed the basis
for that decision. This would involve
requiring that the forging be subjected to
at least one of the following processes:
(1) Heat-treating; or (2) recoining or
resizing, and at least one of the
following processes: (1) Beveling,
machining the gasket face, or machining
ends or surfaces other than a gasket face;
(2) threading of the bore; or (3) center
boring, step boring, taper boring, or
drilling bolt holes. In the commenter’s
opinion, either (or both) (1) heat-treating
or (2) recoining or resizing are necessary
because these processes can affect the
physical character of the imported
forging.
CBP’s Response
CBP disagrees with the commenter.
As stated previously, the tariff shift rule
is being revised to follow the holding of
the court in Midwood. In Midwood, the
court considered various processes that
would change the country of origin of
the imported fittings and flanges
involved in that case. In one instance,
for example, the court considered
imported flange forgings, where excess
material was removed from the rim, the
forging was faced, bored, threaded or
beveled, and drilled and spotfaced. In
another instance, the forging was heated
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:31 Sep 01, 2011
Jkt 223001
54695
and one end was reduced in size and
diameter by compression. The
commenter contends that either (1) heat
treating or (2) recoining or resizing is
necessary, along with one other
machining process. Regarding the
second example above, a specific
machining process was not required by
the court to effect an origin change.
Therefore, while we acknowledge that
the other processing steps mentioned by
the commenter may be sufficiently
complex and significant to result in a
change in the country of origin of
forgings, we do not believe that they are
the only processing steps that would
result in a change in the country of
origin of these products. CBP believes
that the processing operations cited in
the proposed rule are also significant
enough to result in a change in the
country of origin of the forgings and
fairly represent the Midwood case.
Further, the revised tariff shift rule
will not change the statutory
requirement set forth in 19 U.S.C.
1304(c) that imported pipes and pipe
fittings of steel, stainless steel, chromemoly steel, or cast and malleable iron
must be marked with the English name
of the country of origin by means of die
stamping, cast-in mold lettering,
etching, engraving, or continuous paint
stenciling. The revised rule also will not
affect the statutory prohibition in
section 1304(c) against applying any of
the marking exceptions set forth in
1304(a)(3) to the above-described pipes
and pipe fittings. The described pipes
and pipe fittings will continue to be
subject to the special country of origin
marking requirements of 19 U.S.C.
1304(c).
precedent for the classification of fiber
preforms in heading 7002. In the view
of this commenter, the suggested change
to ‘‘glass preforms of chapter 70’’ is
unusually broad and inconsistent with
CBP’s goal of increasing certainty and
objectivity for all parties. The
commenter stated that tariff shift rules
should be crafted using the most precise
tariff classifications available as
reflected in CBP’s own existing
classification determinations.
Glass Optical Fiber
The portion of the notice of proposed
rulemaking that proposed amendments
to the country of origin rules codified in
part 102 that apply to pipe fittings and
flanges, greeting cards, glass optical
fiber, rice preparations, and certain
textile and apparel products is adopted
as a final rule without change.
Comment
A commenter concurred with the
proposed change to the part 102 tariff
shift rule for glass optical fiber, as set
forth in the July 25, 2008, NPRM.
However, the commenter suggested that
the reference in the proposed rule to
‘‘glass preforms of heading 7002’’
should be changed to ‘‘glass preforms of
chapter 70’’ to take into account any
possible change in the classification of
glass preforms in the future. The
commenter noted in this regard that
CBP’s decision to classify the preforms
in heading 7002 may be contested in
court. Thus, the commenter explained
that this suggested modification is made
solely in the interest of administrative
economy and prudence.
Another commenter urged that CBP
deny the requested modification to the
rule for optical fiber described above for
the reason that there is well-established
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
CBP’s Response
While it is always conceivable that
the tariff classification of an article may
change for a variety of reasons,
including decisions of the courts or
CBP, the second commenter above is
correct that the text of each tariff shift
rule is crafted using the most precise
classification available. If it becomes
necessary to make a change to the rules
as a result of a classification change, this
would be done by means of a new
rulemaking document.
Conclusions
After analysis of the comments and
further consideration, CBP has
determined to proceed as follows:
Uniform Rules of Origin Proposal
The portion of the notice of proposed
rulemaking published on July 25, 2008,
that proposed amendments to establish
uniform rules governing CBP
determinations of the country of origin
of imported merchandise is withdrawn.
Proposed Specific Changes to Rules of
Origin
Additional Specific Changes to Rules of
Origin Recommended During Comment
Period
Although CBP considers comments
received in response to the NPRM that
suggested additional specific changes to
the rules of origin codified in 19 CFR
part 102 to be outside the scope of the
NPRM, CBP is reviewing these
comments. If, as a result of that review,
it is determined that additional
amendments to the part 102 rules are
warranted, these changes will be
incorporated in a future notice of
proposed rulemaking.
E:\FR\FM\02SER1.SGM
02SER1
54696
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 171 / Friday, September 2, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Executive Order 12866
The amendments set forth in this
document do not meet the criteria for a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as
specified in Executive Order 12866
because they will not result in the
expenditure of over $100 million in any
one year. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this
rule under that Order.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.), it is certified that the
amendments in this document will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities
because the final rule more closely
aligns the country of origin rules
codified in 19 CFR part 102 relating to
five specific product areas with CBP
administrative rulings, judicial
decisions, or the underlying applicable
statute. Accordingly, the amendments
set forth in this document are not
subject to the regulatory analysis
requirements or other requirements of 5
U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Signing Authority
This document is being issued in
accordance with § 0.1(a)(1) of the CBP
regulations (19 CFR 0.1(a)(1)) pertaining
to the authority of the Secretary of the
Treasury (or his/her delegate) to
approve regulations related to certain
customs revenue functions.
List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 102
CBP duties and inspections, Imports,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Rules of origin, Trade
agreements.
Amendments to the CBP Regulations
Accordingly, for the reasons stated
above, part 102 of the CBP regulations
(19 CFR part 102) is amended as set
forth below.
PART 102—RULES OF ORIGIN
2. In the table in § 102.20:
a. Paragraph (d), titled ‘‘Section IV:
Chapters 16 through 24,’’ is amended by
revising the entry for 1904.90;
■ b. Paragraph (j), titled ‘‘Section X:
Chapters 47 through 49,’’ is amended by
removing the entry for 4901–4911, and
by adding three new entries for 4901–
4908, 4909, and 4910–4911;
■ c. Paragraph (n), titled ‘‘Section XV:
Chapters 72 through 83,’’ is amended by
revising the entry for 7301–7307; and
■ d. Paragraph (q), titled ‘‘Section XVIII:
Chapters 90 through 92,’’ is amended by
revising the entry for 9001.10.
The additions and revisions read as
follows:
■
■
§ 102.20 Specific rules by tariff
classification.
1. The authority citation for part 102
continues to read as follows:
■
HTSUS
Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General
Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States), 1624, 3314, 3592.
*
*
*
*
*
Tariff shift and/or other requirements
*
*
Section IV: Chapters 16 through 24.
*
1904.90 ......................
*
*
*
*
*
*
A change to subheading 1904.90 from any other heading, except from heading 1006 or wild rice of subheading
1008.90.
*
(j) ................................
*
*
Section X: Chapters 47 through 49.
*
4901–4908 .................
4909 ...........................
4910–4911 .................
*
*
*
*
*
*
A change to heading 4901 through 4908 from any other heading, including another heading within that group.
A change to heading 4909 from any other heading, except from heading 4911 when the change is a result of adding
text.
A change to heading 4910 through 4911 from any other heading, including another heading within that group.
*
(n) ..............................
*
*
Section XV: Chapters 72 through 83.
*
7301–7307 .................
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
*
(d) ..............................
*
*
*
*
*
*
A change to heading 7301 through 7307 from any other heading, including another heading within that group, or a
change within heading 7307 from fitting forgings or flange forgings to fittings or flanges made ready for commercial
use by:
(a) At least one of the following processes:
(1) Beveling;
(2) Threading of the bore;
(3) Center or step boring; and
(b) At least two of the following processes:
(1) Heat treating;
(2) Recoining or resizing;
(3) Taper boring;
(4) Machining ends or surfaces other than a gasket face;
(5) Drilling bolt holes; or
(6) Burring or shot blasting.
*
(q) ..............................
9001.10 ......................
*
*
*
*
*
*
Section XVIII: Chapters 90 through 92.
A change to subheading 9001.10 from any other subheading, except from subheading 8544.70 or glass performs of
heading 7002.
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
13:31 Sep 01, 2011
*
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
*
*
*
*
*
Fmt 4700
*
*
*
Frm 00008
*
*
*
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\02SER1.SGM
*
02SER1
*
*
*
*
54697
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 171 / Friday, September 2, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
3. Section 102.21 is amended by
revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii) and by
removing the entry for 6210–6212 and
adding new entries for 6210–6211 and
6212 in the table in paragraph (e)(1) to
read as follows:
■
§ 102.21
*
Textile and apparel products.
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Except for fabrics of chapter 59
and goods of heading 5609, 5807, 5811,
6213, 6214, 6301 through 6306, and
6308, and subheadings 6209.20.5040,
6307.10, 6307.90, and 9404.90, if the
good was not knit to shape and the good
was wholly assembled in a single
country, territory, or insular possession,
the country of origin of the good is the
country, territory, or insular possession
in which the good was wholly
assembled.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
HTSUS
Tariff shift and/or other requirements
*
6210–6211 .................
*
*
*
*
*
*
(1) If the good consists of two or more component parts, a change to an assembled good of heading 6210 through
6211 from unassembled components, provided that the change is the result of the good being wholly assembled in a
single country, territory, or insular possession.
(2) If the good does not consist of two or more component parts, a change to heading 6210 through 6211 from any
heading outside that group, except from heading 5007, 5111 through 5113, 5208 through 5212, 5309 through 5311,
5407 through 5408, 5512 through 5516, 5602 through 5603, 5801 through 5806, 5809 through 5811, 5903, 5906
through 5907, 6001 through 6006, and 6217, and subheading 6307.90, and provided that the change is the result of a
fabric-making process.
(1) If the good is not knit to shape and consists of two or more component parts, a change to an assembled good of
heading 6212 from unassembled components, provided that the change is the result of the good being wholly assembled in a single country, territory, or insular possession.
(2) If the good is not knit to shape and does not consist of two or more component parts, a change to heading 6212
from any other heading, except from heading 5007, 5111 through 5113, 5208 through 5212, 5309 through 5311, 5407
through 5408, 5512 through 5516, 5602 through 5603, 5801 through 5806, 5809 through 5811, 5903, 5906 through
5907, 6001 through 6006, and 6217, and subheading 6307.90, and provided that the change is the result of a fabricmaking process.
(3) If the good is knit to shape, a change to heading 6212 from any other heading, provided that the knit to shape components are knit in a single country, territory, or insular possession.
6212 ...........................
*
*
*
Alan D. Bersin,
Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection.
Approved: August 30, 2011.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 2011–22588 Filed 9–1–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–14–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
19 CFR Part 351
[Docket No. 0612243022–1484–02]
RIN 0625–AA66
Certification of Factual Information To
Import Administration During
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Supplemental Interim
Final Rule
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Supplemental interim final rule
and request for comments.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
AGENCY:
The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) is issuing this
interim final rule to supplement an
interim final rule published on February
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:31 Sep 01, 2011
Jkt 223001
*
*
10, 2011 (Interim Final Rule), which
governs the certification of factual
information submitted to the
Department by a person or his or her
representative during antidumping
(‘‘AD’’) and countervailing duty
(‘‘CVD’’) proceedings. This
supplemental interim final rule
concerns the certifications required of
foreign governments.
By this supplemental interim final
rule, foreign governments will be
allowed to submit certifications in
either the format that was in use prior
to the effective date of the Interim Final
Rule or in the format provided in the
Interim Final Rule. This supplemental
interim final rule will remain in effect
until such time as a final rule is
published. All other aspects of the
Interim Final Rule remain in effect and
fully apply to all parties and their
counsel. Companies should continue to
use the company certification provided
for in the Interim Final Rule.
Representatives of companies or
governments should continue to use the
representative certification provided for
in the Interim Final Rule. The
Department is also requesting comments
on the appropriateness of requiring
foreign governments to submit the
certification provided for in the Interim
Final Rule, as discussed in more detail
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
below. The Department is not soliciting
comments with respect to any other
issues concerning the Interim Final Rule
as the deadline for such comments has
expired.
DATES: Effective date: The effective date
of this supplemental interim final rule
is September 2, 2011.
Applicability date: This supplemental
interim final rule will apply to all
investigations initiated on the basis of
petitions filed on or after September 2,
2011, and other segments of AD/CVD
proceedings initiated on or after
September 2, 2011, as well as all
ongoing investigations and ongoing
segments of proceedings. Those foreign
governments that submitted
certifications between March 14, 2011,
the effective date of the Interim Final
Rule, and September 2, 2011 that did
not conform with the certification
formats required by the Interim Final
Rule will have 30 days to submit
certifications that conform with the
formats provided for in this
supplemental interim final rule.
Request for public comment: The
Department is requesting public
comment on this supplemental interim
final rule. To be assured of
consideration, comments must be
received no later than October 3, 2011.
The Department is not soliciting rebuttal
E:\FR\FM\02SER1.SGM
02SER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 171 (Friday, September 2, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54691-54697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22588]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
19 CFR Part 102
[USCBP-2007-0100; CBP Dec. 11-18]
RIN 1515-AD53 (Formerly RIN 1505-AB49)
Rules of Origin for Imported Merchandise
AGENCIES: Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland
Security; Department of the Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document adopts as a final rule that portion of a notice
of proposed rulemaking, published in the Federal Register on July 25,
2008, that proposed amendments to the country of origin rules codified
in part 102 of the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations
applicable to pipe fittings and flanges, greeting cards, glass optical
fiber, rice preparations, and certain textile and apparel products.
However, this document is not adopting as a final rule the portion of
the notice that proposed amendments to the CBP regulations to establish
uniform rules governing CBP determinations of the country of origin of
imported merchandise. CBP is not adopting the uniform rules of origin
proposal so as to permit further consideration of relevant issues
involved in the proposal.
DATES: This rule is effective October 3, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Monika Brenner, Chief, Valuation and
Special Programs Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of
International Trade, (202) 325-0038.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Discussion of Proposals
On July 25, 2008, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published in
the Federal Register (73 FR 43385) a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) that proposed amendments to the CBP regulations relating to the
application of the country of origin rules codified in part 102 of the
CBP regulations (19 CFR part 102).
Uniform Rules of Origin
The notice of proposed rulemaking, in part, proposed amendments to
the CBP regulations to extend application of the rules of origin
codified in part 102 to all country of origin determinations made
[[Page 54692]]
under the customs and related laws and the navigation laws of the
United States, unless otherwise specified. CBP stated in the NPRM that
it believed that the proposed extension of the part 102 country of
origin rules to all trade would result in determinations that are more
objective, transparent, and predictable, and would facilitate the
exercise of reasonable care by U.S. importers with respect to their
obligations regarding the identification of the proper country of
origin of imported merchandise. Please refer to the July 25, 2008 (73
FR 43385), document for a more detailed discussion of this proposal. As
stated later in this document, CBP is not proceeding with this
proposal.
Changes to Specific Rules of Origin
The July 25, 2008, document also proposed amendments to the country
of origin rules codified in part 102 in regard to five specific product
areas: Pipe fittings and flanges, greeting cards, glass optical fiber,
rice preparations, and certain textile and apparel products. A brief
discussion of the proposed changes for these five product areas is set
forth below. For a more detailed discussion of these proposed changes,
please see the July 25, 2008, NPRM.
1. Pipe Fittings and Flanges
CBP proposed to amend the tariff shift rule in Sec. 102.20(n), CBP
regulations (19 CFR 102.20), for goods classified in headings 7301
through 7307, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS),
to provide for a change within heading 7307 from fitting forgings or
flange forgings to fittings or flanges made ready for commercial use by
certain processing, including beveling, bore threading, center or step
boring, face machining, heat treating, recoining or resizing, taper
boring, machining ends or surfaces other than a gasket face, drilling
bolt holes, and burring or shot blasting. CBP stated in the NPRM that
the proposed change is consistent with the decision in Midwood
Industries, Inc. v. United States, 64 Cust. Ct. 499, C.D. 4026, 313 F.
Supp. 951 (1970), appeal dismissed, 57 CCP 141 (1970), and that the
change was being proposed following further consideration of the
judicial guidance in Boltex Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 24 CIT
972, 140 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (2000), and comments received in response to
a proposed modification/revocation of rulings published in the Customs
Bulletin and Decisions on November 21, 2001 (35 Cust. B. & Dec. 35
(2001)).
2. Greeting Cards
CBP proposed to amend the tariff shift rule in Sec. 102.20(j) for
goods classified in headings 4901 through 4911, HTSUS, which includes
printed greeting cards, by creating a specific rule for heading 4909,
providing for a change to that heading from any other heading except
from heading 4911 when the change is a result of adding text. CBP
explained in the July 25, 2008, NPRM that the effect of this proposed
change is to enable the country of origin of all printed greeting cards
to be determined according to the country of initial printing of
literary text, photographs, graphic designs, or illustrations. CBP
further stated that this proposed change is consistent with CBP
practice in applying the substantial transformation standard to printed
materials, as reflected in CBP's administrative rulings.
3. Glass Optical Fiber
CBP proposed to amend the tariff shift rule in Sec. 102.20(q) for
subheading 9001.10, HTSUS, which encompasses optical fibers and optical
fiber bundles and cables, by providing for a change to subheading
9001.10 from any other subheading, except from subheading 8544.70,
HTSUS, or glass preforms of heading 7002, HTSUS. CBP stated in the NPRM
that this proposed change would conform the tariff shift rule to the
determination in CBP Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 560660 dated
April 9, 1999, that no substantial transformation (and thus no change
in origin) results for purposes of the country of marking statute (19
U.S.C. 1304) from the drawing of a glass preform into optical fiber.
4. Rice Preparations
CBP proposed to amend the tariff shift rule in Sec. 102.20(d) for
subheading 1904.90, HTSUS, which encompasses certain rice preparations,
by providing for a change to subheading 1904.90 from any other heading,
except from heading 1006, HTSUS, or wild rice of subheading 1008.90,
HTSUS. CBP explained in the NPRM that this proposed change would
eliminate the inconsistency between the tariff shift rule and HRL
967925 dated February 28, 2006, in which CBP held that no substantial
transformation results for purposes of the country of origin marking
statute when rice is processed with 2% water, 0.4% sunflower oil, 0.2%
salt, and 0.4% soy lecithin, placed into cups and sealed, and thermally
processed.
5. Certain Textile and Apparel Products
In regard to the rules of origin for textile and apparel products
set forth in Sec. 102.21, CBP regulations (19 CFR 102.21), CBP
proposed two amendments to Sec. 102.21 to properly align the rules
with the language of the underlying statute, 19 U.S.C. 3592. First, CBP
proposed to amend Sec. 102.21(c)(3)(ii) by adding the words ``fabrics
of chapter 59 and'' so that the amended text would read ``Except for
fabrics of chapter 59 and goods of heading * * *.'' As explained in the
NPRM, this change would have the effect of ensuring that fabrics of
chapter 59, HTSUS, derive their country of origin from where the fabric
is formed, consistent with 19 U.S.C. 3592(b)(1)(C).
CBP also proposed to amend the tariff shift rule in Sec. 102.21(e)
for goods classified in headings 6210 through 6212, HTSUS, by creating
a separate rule for heading 6212, which encompasses ``brassieres,
girdles, corsets, braces, suspenders, garters and similar articles and
parts thereof, whether or not knitted or crocheted.'' CBP noted in the
NPRM that the existing tariff shift rule for headings 6210 through 6212
does not provide for the possibility of knit-to-shape goods, even
though the body-supporting garments of heading 6212 may be knit to
shape. CBP stated that this proposed change would ensure that a knit-
to-shape good of heading 6212 is found to derive its origin from where
the good is knit to shape in accordance with 19 U.S.C.
3592(b)(2)(A)(ii).
Comment Period
The July 25, 2008, NPRM provided for a sixty-day period (until
September 23, 2008) for the submission of public comments on the
proposed regulatory changes. The comment period was extended an
additional 30 days by a notice published in the Federal Register on
September 8, 2008 (73 FR 51962). A subsequent notice published in the
Federal Register on October 30, 2008 (73 FR 64575), re-opened the
comment period until December 1, 2008, to afford interested parties an
opportunity to provide meaningful comment in light of a final rule
document also published on October 30, 2008 (73 FR 64518), which set
forth technical corrections to Sec. Sec. 102.20 and 102.21 to reflect
modifications to the HTSUS that became effective in 2007.
Discussion of Comments
A total of 70 commenters responded to the solicitation of public
comments, 14 of which provided multiple submissions. Forty-two of the
commenters expressed opposition to the proposed uniform application of
the country of origin rules set forth in part 102, while 16 commenters
raised
[[Page 54693]]
specific concerns or questions regarding the uniform rules proposal
without expressly supporting or opposing the proposal. Nine of the
commenters generally expressed support for the proposal, although
certain of these commenters recommended specific modifications to those
rules.
In regard to the proposed amendments to the part 102 rules of
origin relating to the five specific product areas, six comments were
received in regard to two of the product areas. Four commenters
discussed the proposed change in the rules pertaining to pipe fittings
and flanges, while two commenters addressed the proposed change in the
rules regarding glass optical fiber.
Set forth below is a discussion of the comments or portions of
comments received that addressed the NPRM's comment period, concerns of
a general nature regarding the technical corrections to the part 102
tariff shift rules to reflect the 2007 modifications to the HTSUS, and
the proposed amendments to the part 102 rules of origin relating to
pipe fittings and flanges and glass optical fiber.
It is noted that a number of comments recommended specific changes
to the rules of origin in part 102 other than those that had been
proposed. Although CBP considers these comments to be outside the scope
of the July 25, 2008, NPRM, CBP nevertheless is reviewing these
comments and if, as a result of that review, we determine that
additional amendments to the part 102 tariff shift rules are warranted,
these changes will be incorporated in a future notice of proposed
rulemaking.
Uniform Rules of Origin
Comment
Forty-two commenters opposed implementation of the proposal to
establish uniform rules governing CBP determinations of the country of
origin of imported merchandise.
CBP's Response
Based on the public comments received in regard to the uniform
rules of origin proposal, CBP has determined not to proceed with this
proposal. As a result, CBP believes that it is unnecessary to discuss
the comments or portions of comments that addressed the proposed
amendments relating to the uniform rules of origin proposal.
Extension of Comment Period
Comment
Two commenters requested a 90-day extension of the public comment
period beyond the original due date of September 23, 2008, and two
commenters requested an additional 60 days within which to submit
comments beyond the extended due date of December 1, 2008.
CBP's Response
As noted previously, the notice of proposed rulemaking was
published on July 25, 2008, with comments due on or before September
23, 2008. The comment period was extended by a notice published in the
Federal Register on September 8, 2008 (73 FR 51962), to October 23,
2008. Subsequently, a notice published in the Federal Register on
October 30, 2008 (73 FR 64575), re-opened the comment period and
established a new due date of December 1, 2008. CBP believes that the
over four-month comment period afforded to interested parties (with the
two extensions) provided all parties with sufficient time to submit
comments on the proposed rulemaking.
2007 HTSUS Modifications
Comment
Fifteen commenters maintained that the part 102 tariff shift rules
are outdated as they fail to reflect the modifications to the HTSUS
that became effective on February 3, 2007 (see Presidential
Proclamation 8097, published in the Federal Register on January 4, 2007
(72 FR 453)). These commenters indicated that maintaining the part 102
tariff shift rules to assure consistency with the 2007 changes as well
as future changes to the HTSUS is necessary to the proper evaluation
and possible future implementation of the uniform rules of origin
proposal.
One of these commenters noted that the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) country of origin rules in part 102 are static in
that they are the result of tripartite negotiations with other
sovereigns. As a result, the commenter stated that CBP is without
authority to make changes to any of the rules without obtaining
agreement from Canada and Mexico. The commenter suggested that the
uniform tariff shift rules should be placed elsewhere in the CBP
regulations so as to more easily facilitate future changes to the
rules.
CBP's Response
As previously noted, a final rule document published in the Federal
Register on October 30, 2008 (73 FR 64518), set forth technical
corrections to the part 102 tariff-shift rules to reflect modifications
to the HTSUS that became effective on February 3, 2007. The comment
period with respect to the July 25, 2008, NPRM was re-opened on October
30, 2008, specifically to enable interested parties to evaluate the
proposed rule in light of the technical corrections made to Sec. Sec.
102.20 and 102.21 by the above-referenced final rule document. CBP will
continue to update the part 102 rules as necessary to assure
consistency with future modifications to the HTSUS.
CBP disagrees with the contention by one commenter that the rules
set forth in Sec. Sec. 102.1 through 102.20 (referred to as the
``NAFTA Marking Rules'') are ``static'' as no changes may be made
without obtaining agreement with Canada and Mexico. The NAFTA Marking
Rules set forth in part 102 are used by the United States under Annex
311 of the NAFTA to determine the country of origin of goods imported
into the United States from Canada and Mexico. The United States has
full authority to amend those rules whenever it deems it necessary to
do so. Of course, the United States engages in consultations with the
governments of Canada and Mexico on a regular basis to discuss a number
of issues arising under the NAFTA, which may include any amendments
being made by each member Party to its NAFTA Marking Rules.
Comment
With respect to the October 30, 2008, technical corrections final
rule document, two commenters contended that these updates appear to
have been prepared without proper vetting by the trade as they contain
numerous errors. A third commenter stated that the technical
corrections ``do not make logical sense across the board'', while two
additional commenters criticized the corrections as interjecting a
``description-oriented origin determination process, rather than a
tariff shift basis.'' Two of these commenters maintained that the
inclusion of ``description-shifts'' or the need to subjectively
characterize devices within a subheading negates any supposed objective
advantage regarding tariff-shift rules and is contrary to the spirit of
the original NAFTA agreement regarding origin which was predicated on a
clearly-defined shift from one tariff number to another. In addition,
it was asserted that using descriptions rather than tariff numbers to
determine if a rule has been met hinders or eliminates importers from
applying automation to the process, resulting in increased costs to
determine if foreign components meet the ``description-shift''.
[[Page 54694]]
CBP's Response
CBP acknowledges that the tariff shift rules in Sec. 102.20, as
amended by the October 30, 2008, final rule document, contain more
descriptions than the prior version but disagrees with the
characterization that we are interjecting a description-oriented origin
determination process into the tariff-shift system. Our use of certain
descriptions is necessitated by the substantial changes in 2007 to
portions of the HTSUS, which involved moving a number of goods from
various headings or subheadings and concentrating them into one heading
or subheading, or vice versa, as well as deleting or adding headings
and subheadings. In order to reflect the existing tariff shift rules
for the affected goods in their new locations, it was necessary to name
or describe goods so that there would be no doubt as to which rule
applies to which good.
With regard to the ``logical sense'' of the corrections, CBP notes
that the rules were merely updated to reflect the HTSUS 2007 changes.
The update required changes in product coverage and/or numbering of
certain headings and subheadings and was not intended to have any other
substantive effect.
Comment
A commenter contended that the ``technical corrections'' to
Sec. Sec. 102.20 and 102.21 failed to comply with the requirements of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (19 U.S.C. 553) which renders
the technical corrections invalid or subject to invalidation by the
courts. According to the commenter, CBP should have adhered to the
standard notice and comment procedures and delayed effective date
requirement of the APA. The commenter stated that none of the
exceptions to the APA notice and comment procedures apply in this case
as the amendments to the part 102 rules are far more than ``technical''
amendments to rules previously existing; they are, in many cases,
entirely new rules of origin which speak to entirely new tariff
subheadings that did not previously exist. The commenter maintained
that these are substantive rules which impose obligations on broad
classes of persons in that they dictate the country of origin which
must be applied to certain classes of imported merchandise.
CBP's Response
CBP disagrees with the assertion by one commenter that the October
30, 2008, ``technical corrections'' final rule document that amended
the part 102 tariff shift rules failed to comply with the requirements
of the APA because the amendments were far more than ``technical'' but
were substantive in nature. As explained in the final rule document,
the 2007 modifications to the HTSUS resulted in certain tariff
provisions being added or removed and certain goods being transferred
to different or newly-created tariff provisions. Therefore, to properly
conform the tariff shift rules in Sec. Sec. 102.20 and 102.21 to the
current version of the HTSUS, it was necessary, depending on each
particular HTSUS change, to create an additional rule, remove an
existing rule or portion of a rule, or otherwise modify a rule.
However, it is important to recognize that these changes to Sec. Sec.
102.20 and 102.21 were made to ensure that the application of the rules
would produce precisely the same country of origin result for every
good as was the case before the 2007 HTSUS modifications were effected.
For this reason, CBP believes that these amendments were not
substantive in nature, but indeed qualified as ``technical
corrections.''
The October 30, 2008, ``technical corrections'' are contrasted with
the amendments made by this final rule document to the tariff shift
rules in Sec. 102.20 relating to pipe fittings and flanges, greeting
cards, glass optical fiber, and rice preparations. The changes
promulgated in this final rule are substantive in nature as they are
designed to produce different country of origin results under the
specific circumstances set forth in this document involving those
product areas.
Specifically in regard to the APA, CBP stated in the final rule
document that, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3), it had
determined that it would be impracticable and contrary to the public
interest to delay publication of the rule in final form pending an
opportunity for public comment and that there was good cause for the
rule to become effective immediately upon publication. The document
included as the reasons for this determination that the technical
corrections merely conformed the tariff shift rules to the current
HTSUS and that the amendments facilitated trade by ensuring that
country of origin determinations made using the regulations were
consistent with the HTSUS. In this regard, CBP wishes to emphasize
that, prior to the technical corrections made by the October 30, 2008,
final rule document, Sec. Sec. 102.20 and 102.21 failed to provide
accurate tariff shift rules for many of the goods affected by the 2007
modifications to the HTSUS. It was necessary to make these technical
corrections at the earliest possible time so that both the public and
CBP could properly rely on these rules to accurately determine the
country of origin of all goods imported from Canada and Mexico, as
required by Annex 311 of the NAFTA, as well as all imported textile and
apparel goods. Thus, CBP believes that it appropriately invoked the
exceptions described above to the notice, comment, and delayed
effective date requirements of the APA.
It is noted that CBP published in the Federal Register on July 24,
2003 (68 FR 43630), a similar final rule document that set forth
technical corrections to Sec. 102.20 to reflect modifications to the
HTSUS that were effective in 2002. CBP determined in that document that
the notice and public procedure requirements were inapplicable for the
same reasons cited in the October 30, 2008, final rulemaking.
Pipe Fittings and Flanges
Comment
Three commenters expressed support for the proposed tariff shift
change for pipe fittings and flanges of heading 7307, HTSUS, set forth
in the July 25, 2008, NPRM that would allow a change within heading
7307 from fitting forgings or flange forgings to fittings or flanges
made ready for commercial use by certain processing. The commenters
stated that the proposed change, which is consistent with the result in
Midwood Industries, Inc. v. United States, 64 Cust. Ct. 499 (1970),
would provide stability to the domestic fittings and flanges industry
and consistency with longstanding country of origin marking practices,
and in addition would encourage further investment in this domestic
industry.
CBP's Response
CBP agrees with the commenters that the tariff shift change for
pipe fittings and flanges of heading 7307, as proposed in the July 25,
2008, NPRM, is consistent with the court's holding in Midwood. We
believe that performing the operations set forth in the revised rule
results in a fundamental change in the nature of the product. Thus, the
country of origin of pipe fittings and flanges of heading 7307 is the
country where the referenced operations are performed.
Comment
One commenter disagreed with the proposed change in the tariff
shift rule for pipe fittings and flanges, arguing that the change would
permit U.S. finishers of imported fittings and flanges to
[[Page 54695]]
escape their responsibility to mark the finished product with its
foreign origin, thus depriving end users of the ability to make an
informed choice between U.S.-manufactured fittings and flanges and
foreign articles that are merely subjected to finishing operations in
the U.S. According to this commenter, the proposed change would benefit
U.S. finishers that purchase inexpensive foreign fittings and flanges
in an unfinished form, perform minor, largely superficial processing on
the articles, and sell them to U.S. consumers at prices that undercut
those for fittings and flanges produced entirely in the United States.
The commenter recognized that the proposed change would actually only
effect a change for imports of fitting and flange forgings from Mexico
and Canada since imports of such forgings from all other countries are
currently subject to CBP rulings reflecting the decision in Midwood.
This commenter contended that the proposed change is contrary to
the country of marking statute (19 U.S.C. 1304) as paragraph (c) of the
statute prohibits the establishment of marking exemptions for certain
imported pipes and fittings. In addition, the commenter stated that, if
CBP truly wishes to codify the substantial transformation standard from
Midwood, it must revise its proposed rule for heading 7307 to encompass
the more complex processing steps that formed the basis for that
decision. This would involve requiring that the forging be subjected to
at least one of the following processes: (1) Heat-treating; or (2)
recoining or resizing, and at least one of the following processes: (1)
Beveling, machining the gasket face, or machining ends or surfaces
other than a gasket face; (2) threading of the bore; or (3) center
boring, step boring, taper boring, or drilling bolt holes. In the
commenter's opinion, either (or both) (1) heat-treating or (2)
recoining or resizing are necessary because these processes can affect
the physical character of the imported forging.
CBP's Response
CBP disagrees with the commenter. As stated previously, the tariff
shift rule is being revised to follow the holding of the court in
Midwood. In Midwood, the court considered various processes that would
change the country of origin of the imported fittings and flanges
involved in that case. In one instance, for example, the court
considered imported flange forgings, where excess material was removed
from the rim, the forging was faced, bored, threaded or beveled, and
drilled and spotfaced. In another instance, the forging was heated and
one end was reduced in size and diameter by compression. The commenter
contends that either (1) heat treating or (2) recoining or resizing is
necessary, along with one other machining process. Regarding the second
example above, a specific machining process was not required by the
court to effect an origin change. Therefore, while we acknowledge that
the other processing steps mentioned by the commenter may be
sufficiently complex and significant to result in a change in the
country of origin of forgings, we do not believe that they are the only
processing steps that would result in a change in the country of origin
of these products. CBP believes that the processing operations cited in
the proposed rule are also significant enough to result in a change in
the country of origin of the forgings and fairly represent the Midwood
case.
Further, the revised tariff shift rule will not change the
statutory requirement set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1304(c) that imported
pipes and pipe fittings of steel, stainless steel, chrome-moly steel,
or cast and malleable iron must be marked with the English name of the
country of origin by means of die stamping, cast-in mold lettering,
etching, engraving, or continuous paint stenciling. The revised rule
also will not affect the statutory prohibition in section 1304(c)
against applying any of the marking exceptions set forth in 1304(a)(3)
to the above-described pipes and pipe fittings. The described pipes and
pipe fittings will continue to be subject to the special country of
origin marking requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1304(c).
Glass Optical Fiber
Comment
A commenter concurred with the proposed change to the part 102
tariff shift rule for glass optical fiber, as set forth in the July 25,
2008, NPRM. However, the commenter suggested that the reference in the
proposed rule to ``glass preforms of heading 7002'' should be changed
to ``glass preforms of chapter 70'' to take into account any possible
change in the classification of glass preforms in the future. The
commenter noted in this regard that CBP's decision to classify the
preforms in heading 7002 may be contested in court. Thus, the commenter
explained that this suggested modification is made solely in the
interest of administrative economy and prudence.
Another commenter urged that CBP deny the requested modification to
the rule for optical fiber described above for the reason that there is
well-established precedent for the classification of fiber preforms in
heading 7002. In the view of this commenter, the suggested change to
``glass preforms of chapter 70'' is unusually broad and inconsistent
with CBP's goal of increasing certainty and objectivity for all
parties. The commenter stated that tariff shift rules should be crafted
using the most precise tariff classifications available as reflected in
CBP's own existing classification determinations.
CBP's Response
While it is always conceivable that the tariff classification of an
article may change for a variety of reasons, including decisions of the
courts or CBP, the second commenter above is correct that the text of
each tariff shift rule is crafted using the most precise classification
available. If it becomes necessary to make a change to the rules as a
result of a classification change, this would be done by means of a new
rulemaking document.
Conclusions
After analysis of the comments and further consideration, CBP has
determined to proceed as follows:
Uniform Rules of Origin Proposal
The portion of the notice of proposed rulemaking published on July
25, 2008, that proposed amendments to establish uniform rules governing
CBP determinations of the country of origin of imported merchandise is
withdrawn.
Proposed Specific Changes to Rules of Origin
The portion of the notice of proposed rulemaking that proposed
amendments to the country of origin rules codified in part 102 that
apply to pipe fittings and flanges, greeting cards, glass optical
fiber, rice preparations, and certain textile and apparel products is
adopted as a final rule without change.
Additional Specific Changes to Rules of Origin Recommended During
Comment Period
Although CBP considers comments received in response to the NPRM
that suggested additional specific changes to the rules of origin
codified in 19 CFR part 102 to be outside the scope of the NPRM, CBP is
reviewing these comments. If, as a result of that review, it is
determined that additional amendments to the part 102 rules are
warranted, these changes will be incorporated in a future notice of
proposed rulemaking.
[[Page 54696]]
Executive Order 12866
The amendments set forth in this document do not meet the criteria
for a ``significant regulatory action'' as specified in Executive Order
12866 because they will not result in the expenditure of over $100
million in any one year. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
not reviewed this rule under that Order.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), it is certified that the amendments in this
document will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities because the final rule more closely aligns the
country of origin rules codified in 19 CFR part 102 relating to five
specific product areas with CBP administrative rulings, judicial
decisions, or the underlying applicable statute. Accordingly, the
amendments set forth in this document are not subject to the regulatory
analysis requirements or other requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Signing Authority
This document is being issued in accordance with Sec. 0.1(a)(1) of
the CBP regulations (19 CFR 0.1(a)(1)) pertaining to the authority of
the Secretary of the Treasury (or his/her delegate) to approve
regulations related to certain customs revenue functions.
List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 102
CBP duties and inspections, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Rules of origin, Trade agreements.
Amendments to the CBP Regulations
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, part 102 of the CBP
regulations (19 CFR part 102) is amended as set forth below.
PART 102--RULES OF ORIGIN
0
1. The authority citation for part 102 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1624, 3314, 3592.
0
2. In the table in Sec. 102.20:
0
a. Paragraph (d), titled ``Section IV: Chapters 16 through 24,'' is
amended by revising the entry for 1904.90;
0
b. Paragraph (j), titled ``Section X: Chapters 47 through 49,'' is
amended by removing the entry for 4901-4911, and by adding three new
entries for 4901-4908, 4909, and 4910-4911;
0
c. Paragraph (n), titled ``Section XV: Chapters 72 through 83,'' is
amended by revising the entry for 7301-7307; and
0
d. Paragraph (q), titled ``Section XVIII: Chapters 90 through 92,'' is
amended by revising the entry for 9001.10.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 102.20 Specific rules by tariff classification.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tariff shift and/or other
HTSUS requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(d)................................... Section IV: Chapters 16 through
24.
* * * * * * *
1904.90............................... A change to subheading 1904.90
from any other heading, except
from heading 1006 or wild rice
of subheading 1008.90.
* * * * * * *
(j)................................... Section X: Chapters 47 through
49.
* * * * * * *
4901-4908............................. A change to heading 4901 through
4908 from any other heading,
including another heading
within that group.
4909.................................. A change to heading 4909 from
any other heading, except from
heading 4911 when the change is
a result of adding text.
4910-4911............................. A change to heading 4910 through
4911 from any other heading,
including another heading
within that group.
* * * * * * *
(n)................................... Section XV: Chapters 72 through
83.
* * * * * * *
7301-7307............................. A change to heading 7301 through
7307 from any other heading,
including another heading
within that group, or a change
within heading 7307 from
fitting forgings or flange
forgings to fittings or flanges
made ready for commercial use
by:
(a) At least one of the
following processes:
(1) Beveling;
(2) Threading of the bore;
(3) Center or step boring;
and
(b) At least two of the
following processes:
(1) Heat treating;
(2) Recoining or resizing;
(3) Taper boring;
(4) Machining ends or
surfaces other than a gasket
face;
(5) Drilling bolt holes; or
(6) Burring or shot blasting.
* * * * * * *
(q)................................... Section XVIII: Chapters 90
through 92.
9001.10............................... A change to subheading 9001.10
from any other subheading,
except from subheading 8544.70
or glass performs of heading
7002.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 54697]]
0
3. Section 102.21 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii) and by
removing the entry for 6210-6212 and adding new entries for 6210-6211
and 6212 in the table in paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 102.21 Textile and apparel products.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Except for fabrics of chapter 59 and goods of heading 5609,
5807, 5811, 6213, 6214, 6301 through 6306, and 6308, and subheadings
6209.20.5040, 6307.10, 6307.90, and 9404.90, if the good was not knit
to shape and the good was wholly assembled in a single country,
territory, or insular possession, the country of origin of the good is
the country, territory, or insular possession in which the good was
wholly assembled.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tariff shift and/or other
HTSUS requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
6210-6211............................. (1) If the good consists of two
or more component parts, a
change to an assembled good of
heading 6210 through 6211 from
unassembled components,
provided that the change is the
result of the good being wholly
assembled in a single country,
territory, or insular
possession.
(2) If the good does not consist
of two or more component parts,
a change to heading 6210
through 6211 from any heading
outside that group, except from
heading 5007, 5111 through
5113, 5208 through 5212, 5309
through 5311, 5407 through
5408, 5512 through 5516, 5602
through 5603, 5801 through
5806, 5809 through 5811, 5903,
5906 through 5907, 6001 through
6006, and 6217, and subheading
6307.90, and provided that the
change is the result of a
fabric-making process.
6212.................................. (1) If the good is not knit to
shape and consists of two or
more component parts, a change
to an assembled good of heading
6212 from unassembled
components, provided that the
change is the result of the
good being wholly assembled in
a single country, territory, or
insular possession.
(2) If the good is not knit to
shape and does not consist of
two or more component parts, a
change to heading 6212 from any
other heading, except from
heading 5007, 5111 through
5113, 5208 through 5212, 5309
through 5311, 5407 through
5408, 5512 through 5516, 5602
through 5603, 5801 through
5806, 5809 through 5811, 5903,
5906 through 5907, 6001 through
6006, and 6217, and subheading
6307.90, and provided that the
change is the result of a
fabric-making process.
(3) If the good is knit to
shape, a change to heading 6212
from any other heading,
provided that the knit to shape
components are knit in a single
country, territory, or insular
possession.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan D. Bersin,
Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Approved: August 30, 2011.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 2011-22588 Filed 9-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P