Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning Solar Modules, 57198-57200 [2015-24082]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
57198
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 183 / Tuesday, September 22, 2015 / Notices
services for substance abuse and mental
illness. To support this mission, the
Agency’s overarching goals are:
• Accountability—Establish systems to
ensure program performance
measurement and accountability
• Capacity—Build, maintain, and
enhance mental health and substance
abuse infrastructure and capacity
• Effectiveness—Enable all
communities and providers to deliver
effective services
Each of these key goals complements
SAMHSA’s legislative mandate. All of
SAMHSA’s programs and activities are
geared toward the achievement of these
goals and performance monitoring is a
collaborative and cooperative aspect of
this process. SAMHSA will strive to
coordinate the development of these
goals with other ongoing performance
measurement development activities.
The total annual burden estimate is
shown below:
ESTIMATES OF ANNUALIZED HOUR BURDEN
[CMHS client outcome measures for discretionary programs]
Number of
respondents
Type of response
Responses per
respondent
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Total
responses
Client-level baseline interview .........................................
Client-level 6-month reassessment interview 1 ................
Client-level discharge interview 2 .....................................
PBHCI- Section H Form Only Baseline ...........................
PBHCI- Section H Form Only Follow-Up 3 ......................
PBHCI—Section H Form Only Discharge 4 .....................
HIV Continuum of Care Specific Form Baseline .............
HIV Continuum of Care Follow-Up 5 ................................
HIV Continuum of Care Discharge 6 ................................
Infrastructure development, prevention, and mental
health promotion quarterly record abstraction 7 ...........
35,845
23,658
10,753
14,000
9,240
4,200
200
148
104
982
4.0
3928
Total ..........................................................................
36,827
..........................
102,139
Hours per
response
35,854
23,658
10,753
14,000
9,240
4,200
200
148
104
Total hour
burden
0.45
0.45
0.45
.08
.08
.08
0.33
0.33
0.33
16,130
10,646
4,838
1,120
739
336
66
49
34
2.0
7,856
..........................
48,814
Note: Numbers may not add to the totals due to rounding and some individual participants completing more than one form.
1 It is estimated that 66% of baseline clients will complete this interview.
2 It is estimated that 30% of baseline clients will complete this interview.
3 It is estimated that 74% of baseline clients will complete this interview.
4 It is estimated that 52% of baseline clients will complete this interview.
5 It is estimated that 52% of baseline clients will complete this interview.
6 It is estimated that 30% of baseline clients will complete this interview.
7 Grantees are required to report this information as a condition of their grant. No attrition is estimated.
Send comments to Summer King,
SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer,
Room 2–1057, One Choke Cherry Road,
Rockville, MD 20857 or email a copy at
summer.king@samhsa.hhs.gov. Written
comments should be received by
November 23, 2015
Summer King,
Statistician.
The final determination was
issued on September 16, 2015. 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
October 22, 2015.
DATES:
[FR Doc. 2015–24023 Filed 9–21–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162–20–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Ross
Cunningham, Valuation and Special
Programs Branch, Regulations and
Rulings, Office of International Trade
(202) 325–0034.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Notice of Issuance of Final
Determination Concerning Solar
Modules
U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice of final determination.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
This document provides
notice that U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) has issued a final
determination concerning the country of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Sep 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
Notice is
hereby given that on September 16,
2015 pursuant to subpart B of part 177,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Regulations (19 CFR part 177, subpart
B), CBP issued a final determination
concerning the country of origin of
certain solar modules manufactured by
Hanwha USA, which may be offered to
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
SUMMARY:
origin of certain solar modules
manufactured by Hanwha USA. Based
upon the facts presented, CBP has
concluded that the country of origin of
the solar modules is Malaysia when
Malaysian solar cells are used or Korea
when Korean solar cells are used for
purposes of U.S. Government
procurement.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the U.S. Government under an
undesignated government procurement
contract. This final determination, HQ
H261693, was issued 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). In the final
determination, CBP concluded that the
processing in Poland or Korea does not
result in a substantial transformation.
Therefore, the country of origin of the
solar modules is Malaysia or Korea,
where the solar cells are produced, for
purposes of U.S. Government
procurement.
Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19
CFR 177.29), provides that a notice of
final determination 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), provides 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.
E:\FR\FM\22SEN1.SGM
22SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 183 / Tuesday, September 22, 2015 / Notices
Dated: September 16, 2015.
Harold Singer,
Acting Executive Director, Regulations and
Rulings, Office of International Trade.
Attachment
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
HQ H261693
September 16, 2015
OT:RR:CTF:VS H261693 RMC
CATEGORY: Country of Origin
Chip Purcell
Cooley LLP
1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20004–2400
Re: U.S. Government Procurement; Country
of Origin of Solar Modules; Substantial
Transformation
Dear Mr. Purcell:
This is in response to your letter dated
January 12, 2015, requesting a final
determination on behalf of Hanwha USA
pursuant to Subpart B of part 177 of the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
Regulations (19 CFR part 177). Under these
regulations, which implement Title III of the
Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (‘‘TAA’’), as
amended (19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.), CBP issues
country of origin advisory rulings and final
determinations as to 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 for products
offered for sale to the U.S. Government. This
final determination concerns the country of
origin of certain solar modules. As a U.S.
importer, Hanwha USA is a party-at-interest
within the meaning of 19 CFR 177.22(d)(1)
and is entitled to request this final
determination.
FACTS:
Hanwha USA acts as the U.S. wholesaler
and distributor of solar modules
manufactured by Hanwha GmbH in Korea
and Poland. The solar modules convert
sunlight into energy and are generally
incorporated into a system that includes
other components such as inverters, racking
systems, cable management systems, and
monitoring systems. The systems are
installed at facilities in order to generate
electricity.
Hanwha USA provided the following
information on each component that goes
into a finished product.
1. Solar Cells—Product of Malaysia or Korea
2. Glass—Product of China
3. Frames—Product of China or Belgium
4. Junction Box, Cable, and Connector—
Product of China or Czech Republic
5. Back Sheets—Product of China or
Germany
6. EVA—Product of Korea or Japan
7. Interconnect Ribbon—Product of Korea for
solar panels assembled in Korea; product
of Austria or Germany for solar panels
assembled in Poland.
The solar cells represent slightly more than
half of the cost of the finished solar modules.
Hanwha states that the components are
assembled into finished products either in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Sep 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
Korea or Poland in the following nine-step
process:
1. Incoming Inspection: Each component
undergoes an incoming quality
inspection and testing based on standard
operating procedures.
2. Cell and String Soldering: Individual solar
cells are soldered together using tincoated copper ribbons to form cell
strings.
3. Matrix Preparation and Bus Bar Soldering:
A robot places the cell strings on glass
panels and workers complete the matrix
layup.
4. Lamination: After inspection and
electroluminescence testing, the matrix
layups are transferred into vacuum
laminators.
5. Trimming and Framing: Excess material is
removed from the edge of the laminate
and the aluminum frame is press-fit
together.
6. Junction Box Installation: The junction box
is attached to the back of the solar
module using silicone glue.
7. Electrical Test: Each solar module
undergoes a high-potential test at 6,000
volts, and electroluminescence test to
inspect for micro-cracks and other
defects, a flash test to measure
performance, and a grounding test.
8. Final Inspection, Sorting, and Packaging:
The junction box lids are applied and the
solar modules are allowed to cure,
followed by a final visual inspection of
all solar modules.
9. Outgoing Quality Inspection: A sample of
solar modules is removed after packaging
for a final quality check.
Hanwha USA notes that this process takes
‘‘less than one day’’ to complete. Hanwha
USA also states that it conducts research and
development in Korea and Poland related to
the manufacturing process and the
development of methods and systems to
ensure stable production.
ISSUE:
Whether the manufacturing process
described above ‘‘substantially transforms’’
the solar-module components such that the
country of origin of the finished product is
either Korea or Poland for U.S. Government
procurement purposes.
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 (19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.), CBP issues
country-of-origin advisory rulings and final
determinations as to whether an article is a
product of a designated country for the
purpose of granting waivers of certain ‘‘Buy
American’’ restrictions on U.S. Government
procurement.
In rendering 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.
The rule of origin applicable in this context
states that ‘‘[a]n 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
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57199
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.’’ 19 U.S.C.
2518(4)(B); 19 CFR 177.22(a). Here, Hanwha
cannot satisfy paragraph (i) of CFR 177.22(a),
so the issue is whether the solar-module
components are ‘‘substantially transformed’’
in Hanwha’s manufacturing processes in the
Republic of Korea or Poland, as the case may
be.
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 its 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. CBP also considers resources
expended on product design and
development, the extent and nature of postassembly inspection procedures, and the
worker skill required during the actual
manufacturing process; however, no one
factor is determinative.
A substantial transformation will not result
from a minor manufacturing or combining
process that leaves the identity of the article
intact. See United States v. Gibson-Thomsen
Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 (1940); and National
Hand Tool Corp. v. United States, 989 F.2d
1201 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The Court of
International Trade has applied the ‘‘essence
test’’ to determine whether the identity of an
article is changed through assembly or
processing. For example in Uniroyal, Inc. v.
United States, 3 CIT 220, 225, 542 F. Supp.
1026, 1030 (1982), aff’d 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), the court held that imported shoe
uppers added to an outer sole in the United
States were the ‘‘very essence of the finished
shoe’’ and thus were not substantially
transformed into a product of the United
States. Similarly, in National Juice Prods.
Ass’n v. United States, 10 CIT 48, 61, 628 F.
Supp. 978, 991 (1986), the court held that
imported orange juice concentrate ‘‘imparts
the essential character’’ to the completed
orange juice and thus was not substantially
transformed into a product of the United
States.
In HQ H095409, dated Sept. 29, 2010, a
U.S. manufacturer produced finished panels
in California. Forty three percent of the cost
content of the parts originated from the
United States and all research and
development took place in California. Key to
our finding that a substantial transformation
had taken place was the manufacturing
process of the solar cells themselves. This
process—which involved depositing thin
films of chemicals on the inside of glass
tubes—took five of the six and a half days it
took to manufacture the finished solar
panels. We found that turning bare glass
tubes into functional solar cells in the United
States constituted making a product with a
new name, character, and use such that a
substantial transformation had occurred.
E:\FR\FM\22SEN1.SGM
22SEN1
57200
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 183 / Tuesday, September 22, 2015 / Notices
Here, Hanwha’s assembly processes fall
short of those described in H095409. For one,
Hanwha’s assembly processes take less than
a day, whereas those in H095409 took more
than six. Moreover, although Hanwha
conducts research and development in Korea
and Poland, it is focused on the
manufacturing process, not on product
design and development.
In the scenario where Malaysian solar cells
are used, almost none of the parts in the
finished panels come from either Korea or
Poland, the two countries where the panels
are assembled. Unlike H095409, which
involved a 43% cost content of the country
of assembly, here, where Malaysian solar
cells are used, the cost content is at most
8.6% Korean for the panels assembled in
Korea and 0% Polish for the panels
assembled in Poland. Most importantly,
however, the solar cells themselves are
produced in Malaysia. As noted above, the
complex manufacturing process of the solar
cells themselves was key to our finding that
a substantial transformation had occurred in
H095409. Turning glass tubes into
functioning solar cells resulted in a product
with a new name, character, and use. Here,
assembling solar cells into finished solar
panels does not. Rather, we find that the
solar cells impart the essential character of
the solar panels. Therefore, where Malaysian
solar cells are used, the country of origin for
government-procurement purposes is
Malaysia.
Similarly, in the scenario where Korean
solar cells are used, the country of origin for
government-procurement purposes is Korea.
HOLDING:
Based on the facts of this case, the solar
panels’ country of origin for U.S. Government
procurement is Malaysia when Malaysian
solar cells are used and Korea when Korean
solar cells are used.
Sincerely,
Harold Singer,
Acting Executive Director, Regulations &
Rulings Office of International Trade.
[FR Doc. 2015–24082 Filed 9–21–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
[Docket No. DHS–2014–0010]
Infrastructure Assessments and
Training
National Protection and
Programs Directorate, DHS.
ACTION: 60-day notice and request for
comments; Reinstatement, with change,
of a previously approved collection:
1670–0009.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), National Protection and
Programs Directorate (NPPD), Office of
Infrastructure Protection (IP),
Infrastructure Information Collection
Division (IICD), Infrastructure
Protection Gateway (IP Gateway)
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Sep 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
Program will submit the following
Information Collection Request to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and clearance in
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13,
44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
DATES: Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted until November 23,
2015. This process is conducted in
accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and
questions about this Information
Collection Request should be forwarded
to DHS/NPPD/IP/IICD, 245 Murray Lane
SW., Mail Stop 0602, Arlington, VA
20598–0602. Emailed requests should
go to Kimberly Sass, Kimberly.Sass@
hq.dhs.gov. Written comments should
reach the contact person listed no later
than November 23, 2015. Comments
must be identified by ‘‘DHS–2014–
0010’’and may be submitted by one of
the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov.
• Email: Include the docket number
in the subject line of the message.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the words ‘‘Department of
Homeland Security’’ and the docket
number for this action. Comments
received will be posted without
alteration at https://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the
direction of Homeland Security
Presidential Directive-7 (2003),
Presidential Policy Directive -21, and
the National Infrastructure Protection
Plan (NIPP 2013); NPPD/IP has
developed the IP Gateway, a centrally
managed repository of infrastructure
capabilities allowing the Critical
Infrastructure community to work in
conjunction with each other toward the
same goals. This collection encompasses
three IP Gateway functions: General
User Registration, Chemical Security
Awareness Training Registration, and a
User Satisfaction Survey. Upon
requesting access to the IP Gateway, the
multi-screen registration form requests
the user’s full name, work address,
contact information Protected Critical
Infrastructure (PCII) training status,
citizenship status, supervisor and
sponsor information, and additional
questions related to the user’s role in
using the information. Upon registering
for Chemical Security Awareness
Training, a collection form requests the
trainee’s desired username, password,
proposed secret question & response,
and company type, size, name, &
location. For the voluntary User
Satisfaction Survey, the collection form
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
requests information regarding the
user’s job duties, types of information
sought via the IP Gateway, access
patterns, and system usability ratings.
The survey information will be used to
evaluate program and training
performance as well as to gather any
additional requirements for future IP
Gateway system updates.
OMB is particularly interested in
comments that:
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,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
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,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submissions
of responses.
Analysis:
Agency: Department of Homeland
Security, National Protection and
Programs Directorate, Office of
Infrastructure Protection, Infrastructure
Information Collection Division,
Infrastructure Protection Gateway
Program.
Title: Infrastructure Assessments and
Training.
OMB Number: 1670–0009.
Frequency: Annually, quarterly,
monthly, and weekly.
Affected Public: Chief Information
Officers, Chief Information Security
Officers, Chief Technology Officers, and
federal and state, local, tribal and
territorial communities involved in the
protection of CI.
Number of Respondents: 9000
respondents (estimate).
Estimated Time per Respondent: .5
hours (estimate).
Total Burden Hours: 4,500 annual
burden hours (estimate).
Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):
$0.
Total Recordkeeping Burden: $0.
Total Burden Cost (operating/
maintaining): $106,515.50 (estimate).
E:\FR\FM\22SEN1.SGM
22SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 183 (Tuesday, September 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57198-57200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24082]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning Solar
Modules
AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice of final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document provides notice that U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') has issued a final determination concerning the
country of origin of certain solar modules manufactured by Hanwha USA.
Based upon the facts presented, CBP has concluded that the country of
origin of the solar modules is Malaysia when Malaysian solar cells are
used or Korea when Korean solar cells are used for purposes of U.S.
Government procurement.
DATES: The final determination was issued on September 16, 2015. 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 October 22, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ross Cunningham, Valuation and Special
Programs Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade
(202) 325-0034.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that on September 16,
2015 pursuant to subpart B of part 177, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection Regulations (19 CFR part 177, subpart B), CBP issued a final
determination concerning the country of origin of certain solar modules
manufactured by Hanwha USA, which may be offered to the U.S. Government
under an undesignated government procurement contract. This final
determination, HQ H261693, was issued 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). In the final
determination, CBP concluded that the processing in Poland or Korea
does not result in a substantial transformation. Therefore, the country
of origin of the solar modules is Malaysia or Korea, where the solar
cells are produced, for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.29), provides that a
notice of final determination 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), provides 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.
[[Page 57199]]
Dated: September 16, 2015.
Harold Singer,
Acting Executive Director, Regulations and Rulings, Office of
International Trade.
Attachment
HQ H261693
September 16, 2015
OT:RR:CTF:VS H261693 RMC
CATEGORY: Country of Origin
Chip Purcell
Cooley LLP
1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20004-2400
Re: U.S. Government Procurement; Country of Origin of Solar Modules;
Substantial Transformation
Dear Mr. Purcell:
This is in response to your letter dated January 12, 2015,
requesting a final determination on behalf of Hanwha USA pursuant to
Subpart B of part 177 of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(``CBP'') Regulations (19 CFR part 177). Under these regulations,
which implement Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979
(``TAA''), as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.), CBP issues country
of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to 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 for products offered
for sale to the U.S. Government. This final determination concerns
the country of origin of certain solar modules. As a U.S. importer,
Hanwha USA is a party-at-interest within the meaning of 19 CFR
177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this final determination.
FACTS:
Hanwha USA acts as the U.S. wholesaler and distributor of solar
modules manufactured by Hanwha GmbH in Korea and Poland. The solar
modules convert sunlight into energy and are generally incorporated
into a system that includes other components such as inverters,
racking systems, cable management systems, and monitoring systems.
The systems are installed at facilities in order to generate
electricity.
Hanwha USA provided the following information on each component
that goes into a finished product.
1. Solar Cells--Product of Malaysia or Korea
2. Glass--Product of China
3. Frames--Product of China or Belgium
4. Junction Box, Cable, and Connector--Product of China or Czech
Republic
5. Back Sheets--Product of China or Germany
6. EVA--Product of Korea or Japan
7. Interconnect Ribbon--Product of Korea for solar panels assembled
in Korea; product of Austria or Germany for solar panels assembled
in Poland.
The solar cells represent slightly more than half of the cost of
the finished solar modules. Hanwha states that the components are
assembled into finished products either in Korea or Poland in the
following nine-step process:
1. Incoming Inspection: Each component undergoes an incoming quality
inspection and testing based on standard operating procedures.
2. Cell and String Soldering: Individual solar cells are soldered
together using tin-coated copper ribbons to form cell strings.
3. Matrix Preparation and Bus Bar Soldering: A robot places the cell
strings on glass panels and workers complete the matrix layup.
4. Lamination: After inspection and electroluminescence testing, the
matrix layups are transferred into vacuum laminators.
5. Trimming and Framing: Excess material is removed from the edge of
the laminate and the aluminum frame is press-fit together.
6. Junction Box Installation: The junction box is attached to the
back of the solar module using silicone glue.
7. Electrical Test: Each solar module undergoes a high-potential
test at 6,000 volts, and electroluminescence test to inspect for
micro-cracks and other defects, a flash test to measure performance,
and a grounding test.
8. Final Inspection, Sorting, and Packaging: The junction box lids
are applied and the solar modules are allowed to cure, followed by a
final visual inspection of all solar modules.
9. Outgoing Quality Inspection: A sample of solar modules is removed
after packaging for a final quality check.
Hanwha USA notes that this process takes ``less than one day''
to complete. Hanwha USA also states that it conducts research and
development in Korea and Poland related to the manufacturing process
and the development of methods and systems to ensure stable
production.
ISSUE:
Whether the manufacturing process described above
``substantially transforms'' the solar-module components such that
the country of origin of the finished product is either Korea or
Poland for U.S. Government procurement purposes.
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
(19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.), CBP issues country-of-origin advisory
rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is a
product of a designated country for the purpose of granting waivers
of certain ``Buy American'' restrictions on U.S. Government
procurement.
In rendering 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. The rule of origin applicable in this context states
that ``[a]n 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.'' 19 U.S.C. 2518(4)(B); 19 CFR 177.22(a). Here, Hanwha
cannot satisfy paragraph (i) of CFR 177.22(a), so the issue is
whether the solar-module components are ``substantially
transformed'' in Hanwha's manufacturing processes in the Republic of
Korea or Poland, as the case may be.
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 its 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. CBP also considers resources expended
on product design and development, the extent and nature of post-
assembly inspection procedures, and the worker skill required during
the actual manufacturing process; however, no one factor is
determinative.
A substantial transformation will not result from a minor
manufacturing or combining process that leaves the identity of the
article intact. See United States v. Gibson-Thomsen Co., 27 C.C.P.A.
267 (1940); and National Hand Tool Corp. v. United States, 989 F.2d
1201 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The Court of International Trade has applied
the ``essence test'' to determine whether the identity of an article
is changed through assembly or processing. For example in Uniroyal,
Inc. v. United States, 3 CIT 220, 225, 542 F. Supp. 1026, 1030
(1982), aff'd 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court held that
imported shoe uppers added to an outer sole in the United States
were the ``very essence of the finished shoe'' and thus were not
substantially transformed into a product of the United States.
Similarly, in National Juice Prods. Ass'n v. United States, 10 CIT
48, 61, 628 F. Supp. 978, 991 (1986), the court held that imported
orange juice concentrate ``imparts the essential character'' to the
completed orange juice and thus was not substantially transformed
into a product of the United States.
In HQ H095409, dated Sept. 29, 2010, a U.S. manufacturer
produced finished panels in California. Forty three percent of the
cost content of the parts originated from the United States and all
research and development took place in California. Key to our
finding that a substantial transformation had taken place was the
manufacturing process of the solar cells themselves. This process--
which involved depositing thin films of chemicals on the inside of
glass tubes--took five of the six and a half days it took to
manufacture the finished solar panels. We found that turning bare
glass tubes into functional solar cells in the United States
constituted making a product with a new name, character, and use
such that a substantial transformation had occurred.
[[Page 57200]]
Here, Hanwha's assembly processes fall short of those described
in H095409. For one, Hanwha's assembly processes take less than a
day, whereas those in H095409 took more than six. Moreover, although
Hanwha conducts research and development in Korea and Poland, it is
focused on the manufacturing process, not on product design and
development.
In the scenario where Malaysian solar cells are used, almost
none of the parts in the finished panels come from either Korea or
Poland, the two countries where the panels are assembled. Unlike
H095409, which involved a 43% cost content of the country of
assembly, here, where Malaysian solar cells are used, the cost
content is at most 8.6% Korean for the panels assembled in Korea and
0% Polish for the panels assembled in Poland. Most importantly,
however, the solar cells themselves are produced in Malaysia. As
noted above, the complex manufacturing process of the solar cells
themselves was key to our finding that a substantial transformation
had occurred in H095409. Turning glass tubes into functioning solar
cells resulted in a product with a new name, character, and use.
Here, assembling solar cells into finished solar panels does not.
Rather, we find that the solar cells impart the essential character
of the solar panels. Therefore, where Malaysian solar cells are
used, the country of origin for government-procurement purposes is
Malaysia.
Similarly, in the scenario where Korean solar cells are used,
the country of origin for government-procurement purposes is Korea.
HOLDING:
Based on the facts of this case, the solar panels' country of
origin for U.S. Government procurement is Malaysia when Malaysian
solar cells are used and Korea when Korean solar cells are used.
Sincerely,
Harold Singer,
Acting Executive Director, Regulations & Rulings Office of
International Trade.
[FR Doc. 2015-24082 Filed 9-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
