30-Day FR Notice 1006-0015

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 160 / Thursday, August 20, 2009 / Notices
Under the rule of origin set forth under 19
U.S.C. 2518(4)(B):
An article is a product of a country or
instrumentality only if (i) it is wholly the
growth, product, or manufacture of that
country or instrumentality, or (ii) in the case
of an article which consists in whole or in
part of materials from another country or
instrumentality, it has been substantially
transformed into a new and different article
of commerce with a name, character, or use
distinct from that of the article or articles
from which it was so transformed.
See also 19 CFR 177.22(a).
In determining whether the combining of
parts or materials constitutes a substantial
transformation, the determinative issue is the
extent of operations performed and whether
the parts lose their identity and become an
integral part of the new article. Belcrest
Linens v. United States, 573 F. Supp. 1149
(Ct. Int’l Trade 1983), aff’d, 741 F.2d 1368
(Fed. Cir. 1984). Assembly operations that are
minimal or simple, as opposed to complex or
meaningful, will generally not result in a
substantial transformation. See C.S.D. 80–
111, C.S.D. 85–25, C.S.D. 89–110, C.S.D. 89–
118, C.S.D. 90–51, and C.S.D. 90–97. In
C.S.D. 85–25, 19 Cust. Bull. 844 (1985), CBP
held that for purposes of the Generalized
System of Preferences (‘‘GSP’’), the assembly
of a large number of fabricated components
onto a printed circuit board in a process
involving a considerable amount of time and
skill resulted in a substantial transformation.
In that case, in excess of 50 discrete
fabricated components (such as resistors,
capacitors, diodes, integrated circuits,
sockets, and connectors) were assembled.
Whether an operation is complex and
meaningful depends on the nature of the
operation, including the number of
components assembled, number of different
operations, time, skill level required,
attention to detail, quality control, the value
added to the article, and the overall
employment generated by the manufacturing
process.
The courts and CBP have also considered
the essential character of the imported article
in making these determinations. See
Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 542 F. Supp.
1026, 3 CIT 220, 224–225 (1982) (where it
was determined that imported uppers were
the essence of a completed shoe) and
National Juice Products Association, et al v.
United States, 628 F. Supp. 978, 10 CIT 48,
61 (1986) (where the court addressed each of
the factors (name, character, and use) in
finding that no substantial transformation
occurred in the production of retail juice
products from manufacturing concentrate).
In order to determine whether a substantial
transformation occurs when components of
various origins are assembled into completed
products, CBP considers the totality of the
circumstances and makes such
determinations on a case-by-case basis. The
country of origin of the item’s components,
extent of the processing that occurs within a
country, and whether such processing
renders a product with a new name,
character, and use are primary considerations
in such cases. Additionally, factors such as
the resources expended on product design
and development, extent and nature of post-

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:07 Aug 19, 2009

Jkt 217001

assembly inspection and testing procedures,
and worker skill required during the actual
manufacturing process will be considered
when determining whether a substantial
transformation has occurred. No one factor is
determinative.
In a number of cases, CBP has considered
similar merchandise. In Headquarters Ruling
Letter (‘‘HRL’’) 563491 (February 8, 2007),
CBP addressed the country of origin of
certain digital color multifunctional systems
manufactured by Sharp and assembled in
Japan of various Japanese—and Chinese—
origin parts. In that ruling, CBP determined
that color multifunctional systems were a
product of Japan based on the fact that
‘‘although several subassemblies are
assembled in China, enough of the Japanese
subassemblies and individual components
serve major functions and are high in value,
in particular, the transfer belt, control box
unit, application-specific integrated circuits,
charged couple device, and laser diodes.’’
Further CBP found that the testing and
adjustments performed in Japan were
technical and complex, and the assembly
operations that occurred in Japan were
sufficiently complex and meaningful. Thus,
through the product assembly and testing
and adjustment operations, the individual
components and subassemblies of Japanese
and foreign-origin were subsumed into a new
and distinct article of commerce that had a
new name, character, and use. See also HRL
562936, dated March 17, 2004.
In HRL 561734, dated March 22, 2001, CBP
held that certain multifunctional machines
(consisting of printer, copier, and fax
machines) assembled in Japan were a product
of that country for the purposes of U.S.
government procurement. The
multifunctional machines were assembled
from 227 parts (108 parts obtained from
Japan, 92 from Thailand, 3 from China, and
24 from other countries) and eight
subassemblies, each of which was assembled
in Japan. See also HRL 561568, dated March
22, 2001.
Finally, in HRL H020516, dated November
7, 2008, CBP considered Sharp Andromeda II
J models composed of eight main
subassemblies, two of which involved
processing in Japan. Similar to this case, all
the engineering, development, design, and
artwork were developed in Japan. The
multifunctional printer control unit was
described as the brain of the model. While
some of the components were installed on
the control printer board in China, the flash
read-only memory which included firmware
developed in Japan, was manufactured in
Japan. The other unit that involved
production in Japan was the process unit,
that housed a drum produced in Japan. The
process unit was assembled in China. The
other subassemblies were assembled in China
but certain key components of the
subassemblies originated in Japan. The final
assembly was performed in Japan.
Based on the totality of the circumstances
discussed in this ruling, we agree that the
Jupiter II J-models described in this ruling are
considered a product of Japan. As was
determined in HRL 563491 and HRL
H020516, substantial portions of the
components that are of key importance are of

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

42089

Japanese origin and all the engineering,
design and development of the
multifunctional machines occurs in Japan. As
in H020516, we find the final assembly of the
subassemblies into a finished product in
Japan to be sufficiently complex and
meaningful to result in a new and distinct
article of commerce that possesses a new
name, character and use. In this case, we also
note that 8 of the 16 subassemblies involve
processing in Japan. In addition, the testing
and adjustment of the multifunctional
machines in Japan is significant.
The processing that occurs in the U.S.,
which involves the assembly of the finished
printer engines and scanners to the stand and
rack, is a simple assembly operation that is
not demonstrated to be complex or
meaningful and does not involve a large
number of components. Based on these
factors, we find that there is no substantial
transformation in the U.S.
Accordingly, the country of origin of the
Jupiter II J-model multifunctional printer
machines is Japan for purposes of U.S.
Government procurement.
HOLDING
Based on the facts of this case, the country
of origin of the Jupiter II J-model
multifunctional printer machines is Japan for
purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
Notice of this final determination will be
given in the Federal Register, as required by
19 CFR 177.29. Any party-at-interest other
than the party which requested this final
determination may request, pursuant to 19
CFR 177.31 that CBP reexamine the matter
anew and issue a new final determination.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 177.30, any party-atinterest may, within 30 days after publication
of the Federal Register Notice referenced
above, seek judicial review of this final
determination before the Court of
International Trade.
Sincerely,
Sandra L. Bell,
Executive Director, Office of Regulations and
Rulings, Office of International Trade.
[FR Doc. E9–19953 Filed 8–19–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Agency Information Collection;
Activities Under OMB Review;
Comment Request
AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of renewal of a currently
approved collection (OMB No. 1006–
0015).
SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), the Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) has forwarded the
following Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of

E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM

20AUN1

42090

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 160 / Thursday, August 20, 2009 / Notices

Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval: Diversions, Return
Flows, and Consumptive Use of
Colorado River Water in the Lower
Colorado River Basin, OMB Control
Number: 1006–0015. The ICR describes
the nature of the information collection
and its expected cost and burden.
DATES: Comments on this notice must be
received by September 21, 2009.

You may send written
comments to the Desk Officer for the
Department of the Interior at the Office
of Management and Budget, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, via
facsimile at 202–395–5806 or by e-mail
to [email protected]. A
copy of your comments should also be
directed to the Bureau of Reclamation,
Attention: Nancy DiDonato (BCOO–
4445), Contract and Repayment
Specialist, Lower Colorado Regional
Office, P.O. Box 61470, Boulder City,
NV 89006–1470.
ADDRESSES:

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information or a copy of the
proposed collection of information,

contact Nancy DiDonato at 702–293–
8532.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Diversions, Return Flow, and
Consumptive Use of Colorado River
Water in the Lower Colorado River
Basin.
OMB No.: 1006–0015.
Form No.: LC–72, 72A, 72B.
Abstract: Reclamation delivers
Colorado River water to water users for
diversion and beneficial consumptive
use in the States of Arizona, California,
and Nevada. The Consolidated Decree of
the United States Supreme Court in the
case of Arizona v. California, et al.,
entered March 27, 2006, (547 U.S. 150
(2006)), requires the Secretary of the
Interior to prepare and maintain
complete, detailed, and accurate records
of diversions of water, return flow, and
consumptive use and make these
records available at least annually. This
information is needed to ensure that a
State or a water user within a State does
not exceed its authorized use of
Colorado River water. Water users are
obligated by provisions in their water
delivery contracts to provide

Estimated number
of respondents

Form No.

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

Reclamation information on diversions
and return flows. Reclamation
determines the consumptive use by
subtracting return flow from diversions
or by other engineering means. Without
the information collected, Reclamation
could not comply with the order of the
United States Supreme Court to prepare
and maintain detailed and accurate
records of diversions, return flow, and
consumptive use. Responses are
required to obtain a benefit.
Description of respondents: The
respondents will include the Lower
Basin States (Arizona, California, and
Nevada), local and tribal entities, water
districts, and individuals that use
Colorado River water.
Frequency: Monthly, annually, or
otherwise as determined by the
Secretary of the Interior.
Estimated Total Number of
Respondents: 54.
Estimated Total Number of Annual
Responses: 330.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 290.
Estimated Burden for Each Form:
Total responses
per year

Estimated annual
burden hours
per form

LC–72 ..................................................................................................................
LC–72A ................................................................................................................
LC–72B ................................................................................................................
Custom Forms .....................................................................................................

6
8
15
25

78
20
51
181

54
30
78
128

Total ..............................................................................................................

54

330

290

Comments:
Reclamation invites your comments
on:
(a) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of our functions, including
whether the information will have
practical use;
(b) The accuracy of our burden
estimate for the proposed collection of
information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality,
usefulness, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of
the information collection on
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. Reclamation will
display a valid OMB control number on
all forms covered under OMB Control
Number 1006–0015.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:07 Aug 19, 2009

Jkt 217001

A Federal Register notice with a 60day comment period soliciting
comments on this collection of
information was published in the
Federal Register (74 FR 17982, April 20,
2009). No public comments were
received.
OMB has up to 60 days to approve or
disapprove this information collection,
but may respond after 30 days;
therefore, public comment should be
submitted to OMB within 30 days in
order to assure maximum consideration.
Before including your address,
telephone number, e-mail address, or
other personal identifying information
in your comment, you should be aware
that your entire comment (including
your personal identifying information)
may be made publicly available at any
time. While you can ask us in your
comment to withhold your personal
identifying information from public

PO 00000

review, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so.
Steven C. Hvinden,
Area Manager, Boulder Canyon Operations
Office, Lower Colorado Region, Bureau of
Reclamation.
[FR Doc. E9–20051 Filed 8–19–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLWO270000–L63500000.PPN0000]

Extension of Approved Information
Collection, OMB Control Number 1004–
0058
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: 60-day notice and request for
comments.
SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

Frm 00044

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM

20AUN1