Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 160 / Thursday, August 20, 2009 / Notices 42087 

plans to collect information from 

pipeline operators of all sizes in the 

course of conducting these PCSRs. 

Use of Results 

This program provides TSA with realtime information on current security 

practices within the pipeline mode of 

the surface transportation sector. This 

information allows TSA to adapt 

programs to the changing security 

threat, while incorporating an 

understanding of the improvements 

owners/operators make in their security 

measures. Without this information, the 

ability of TSA to perform its security 

mission would be severely hindered. 

Additionally, the relationships these 

face-to-face contacts foster are critical to 

the Federal government’s ability to 

reach out to the pipeline stakeholders 

affected by the PCSRs. The relationships 

foster a sense of trust and a willingness 

to share information with the Federal 

government. TSA assures respondents 

that the portion of their responses that 

is deemed Sensitive Security 

Information (SSI) will be protected in 

accordance with procedures meeting the 

transmission, handling, and storage 

requirements of SSI set forth in 49 CFR 

parts 15 and 1520. 

The annual hour burden for this 

information collection is estimated to be 

100 hours. While TSA estimates a total 

of 2,200 potential respondents, this 

estimate is based on TSA conducting 12 

visits per year and each visit lasting 8 

hours. There is no cost burden to 

respondents. 

Issued in Arlington, Virginia, on August 

14, 2009. 

Ginger LeMay, 

Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of 

Information Technology. 

[FR Doc. E9–19959 Filed 8–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

Notice of Cancellation of Customs 

Broker Licenses 

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security. 

ACTION: General notice. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 641 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (19 

U.S.C. 1641) and the Customs 

Regulations (19 CFR 111.51), the 

following Customs broker licenses and 

all associated permits are cancelled 

without prejudice. 

Name License No. Issuing port 

Rafael I. Morales ...................................................................................................................................................... 13682 Laredo. 

Deborah C. Martin .................................................................................................................................................... 11423 Los Angeles. 

Thomas Tello ............................................................................................................................................................ 06319 Los Angeles. 

Thomas Tello & Co., Inc .......................................................................................................................................... 09841 Los Angeles. 

World International Freight Forwarders, Inc ............................................................................................................ 04187 New Orleans. 

Kay Diamond, Ltd. dba Salviati & Santori ............................................................................................................... 15788 New York. 

Pronto Cargo Brokers, Inc ....................................................................................................................................... 06437 Miami. 

Dated: August 11, 2009. 

Daniel Baldwin, 

Assistant Commissioner, Office of 

International Trade. 

[FR Doc. E9–20036 Filed 8–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

Notice of Cancellation of Customs 

Broker Licenses Due to Death of the 

License Holder 

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security. 

ACTION: General notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, 

pursuant to Title 19 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations at section 111.51(a), 

the following individual Customs broker 

license and any and all permits have 

been cancelled due to the death of the 

broker: 

Name License # Port name 

Sandra P. Brown .. 06855 Charlotte. 

Dated: August 11, 2009. 

Daniel Baldwin, 

Assistant Commissioner, Office of 

International Trade. 

[FR Doc. E9–20035 Filed 8–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

Notice of Issuance of Final 

Determination Concerning 

Multifunctional Machines 

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 multifunctional 

machines which may be offered to the 

United States Government under a 

government procurement contract. 

Based upon the facts presented, in the 

final determination CBP concluded that 

Japan is the country of origin of the 

multifunctional machines for purposes 

of U.S. Government procurement. 

DATES: The final determination was 

issued on August 12, 2009. 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 

September 21, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen S. Greene, Valuation and Special 

Programs Branch, Regulations and 

Rulings, Office of International Trade 

(202–325–0041). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that onlllll, 

pursuant to subpart B of part 177, 

Customs Regulations (19 CFR part 177, 

subpart B), CBP issued a final 

determination concerning the country of 

origin of certain multifunctional 

machines which may be offered to the 

United States Government under a 

government procurement contract. This 

final determination, in HQ H039856, 

was issued at the request of Sharp 

Electronics Corporation 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, based upon the facts presented, 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
42088 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 160 / Thursday, August 20, 2009 / Notices 

certain articles will be substantially 

transformed in Japan. Therefore, CBP 

found that Japan is the country of origin 

of the finished articles for purposes of 

U.S. Government procurement. 

Section 177.29, Customs Regulations 

(19 CFR 177.29), provides that notice of 

final determinations shall be published 

in the Federal Register within 60 days 

of the date the final determination is 

issued. Section 177.30, CBP Regulations 

(19 CFR 177.30), 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. 

Dated: August 12, 2009. 

Sandra L. Bell, 

Executive Director, Office of Regulations and 

Rulings, Office of International Trade. 

Attachment 

HQ H039856 

August 12, 2009. 

OT:RR:CTF:VS H039856 KSG. 

Mr. Edmund Baumgartner, Esq., 

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 1540 

Broadway, New York, NY 10036. 

Re: U.S. Government Procurement; country 

of origin of multifunctional printer 

machines; substantial transformation 

Dear Mr. Baumgartner: This is in response 

to your letters, dated November 26, 2007, 

July 2, 2008, and November 10, 2008, 

requesting a final determination on behalf of 

Sharp Electronics Corporation (‘‘Sharp’’) 

pursuant to subpart B of 19 CFR Part 177. 

Under these regulations, which implement 

Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, 

as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.), CBP 

issues country of origin advisory rulings and 

final determinations 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 

practice for products offered for sale to the 

U.S. Government. 

This final determination concerns the 

country of origin of certain multifunctional 

machines that Sharp may sell to the U.S. 

Government. We note that Sharp is a partyat-interest within the meaning of 19 CFR 

177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this 

final determination. A conference was held 

on this matter at Headquarters on August 25, 

2008. 

FACTS 

This case involves the Sharp Jupiter II 

J-models that are sent to the U.S. for final 

assembly (Sharp model # MX–M350NJ, MX– 

M350UJ, MX–M450NJ, and MX–450OUJ)/ 

(‘‘J-models’’). These models have digital 

multifunctional systems (monochrome 

copying, printing, faxing and duplex 

scanning functions). The Jupiter II J-models 

designated with an ‘‘N’’ feature a hard disc 

drive and network interface card which 

allows them to function as networked 

printers and send scanned documents in the 

form of e-mail attachments in various 

formats. The Jupiter II J-models designated 

with a ‘‘U’’ are not equipped with a hard disk 

or network interface card and function with 

stand–alone capacity. 

Sharp Corporation, Sharp’s parent 

company (‘‘Sharp Japan’’) developed the 

Jupiter II J-models in Japan; all the 

engineering, development, design and 

artwork processes were developed in Japan. 

Each J-model is produced from a scanner unit 

and printer engine unit, which are assembled 

in Japan. 

The scanner units and printer engine units 

are imported into the U.S. where each is 

combined with a scanner rack and stand 

which can contain optional paper feed 

drawers. 

There are 16 main subassemblies that 

compose the Jupiter II J-models. 

Assembly in China 

Assembly in China includes assembly of 

the duplex single pass feeder (‘‘DSPF’’) 

subassembly; the laser scanning unit (‘‘LSU’’) 

subassembly; the transfer unit subassembly; 

the developer (‘‘DV’’) unit subassembly; the 

printer control unit (‘‘PCU’’); the fusing unit 

subassembly; the multifunctional printer 

(‘‘MFP’’) control unit and various other 

subassemblies. 

(1) The DSPF subassembly transports 

original documents to the scanning bed. 

(2) The LSU subassembly takes the image 

data of the documents or graphics and 

converts the data into laser beams which are 

exposed to the drum surface and create the 

electrostatic images necessary for printing. 

(3) The transfer belt unit transfers the 

image created on the drum onto the surface 

of the paper for printing. This unit is 

assembled in China. 

(4) The developer unit (‘‘DV’’) is used to 

transfer toner evenly over the latent image 

created on the drum unit. 

(5) The PCU controls the printing function 

of the J-models. It is comprised of a control 

printed wire board (‘‘PWB’’) and mother 

PWB that are stuffed in China. 

(6) The fusing unit is used to fix the 

transferred image onto paper. 

Processing and Assembly in Japan of the 

Scanner Unit and the Printer Engine Unit 

The following parts which are stated to be 

critical components are produced in Japan: 

the charge-coupled device (‘‘CCD’’), the 

contact image sensor (‘‘CIS’’), the laser 

scanning unit (‘‘LSU’’) housing, the LSU 

fixing base, the LSU synchronous lens, the 

LSU two cylinder lenses, the transfer roller, 

the drum, the DSD flange, the DSD flange 

spacer, the rollers, the lamps, the thermistors, 

the thermostat, the cleaning roller, two sets 

of pawls, and the flash memory chips. 

Eight of the 16 subassemblies involve 

processing in Japan; the upper cabinet rear 

unit; scanner base plate unit; the scanner 

control mounting unit; the process unit 

subassembly; the drum unit subassembly; the 

two rear frame units; the control box; and the 

high voltage holder unit. 

(1) The upper cabinet rear unit contains the 

detector luminescence arm and ORS 

emission printer wire board, which detect the 

size and placement of original documents on 

the scanning bed. 

(2) The scanner base plate unit contains a 

charge-coupled device (‘‘CCD’’) made in 

Japan, which is stated to be a critical 

component for scanning and copying 

documents. The scanning base plate unit 

contains lamps and mirror motors which 

illuminate and reflect the image for scanning 

by the CCD. 

(3) The scanner control mounting unit 

contains PWBs for operating the original 

document detector and guides and harnesses 

to hold the scanner’s optical components in 

place. 

(4) The process unit subassembly stores the 

drum used for creating images. 

(5) The drum unit contains the drum. The 

drum unit is assembled in Japan with parts 

made in China and Japan. 

(6) Rear frame 2 unit is assembled from the 

rear fixing plate unit, solenoid fixing plate 

unit, dust support plate unit and other 

frames, mounts, holder and plates. Rear 

frame 1 unit is assembled from the main 

duct, fusing drawer, fixing plate, paper 

powder remover case unit, box cooling duct 

unit and other parts. 

(7) The control box unit is assembled with 

the control box upper unit and other parts. 

(8) The high voltage holder unit is 

assembled from a Chinese holder and other 

parts. 

Additional units are installed in the printer 

engine in Japan including the developer 

guide unit, left door unit, cassette unit, PS 

roller (resist roller) unit, main drive unit, 

paper feed unit, lift-up unit, paper exit 

reverse unit, power supply unit, PCU PWB 

fixing sub unit and inlet fixing unit. 

Final assembly of the scanner unit and 

printer engine unit are then performed in 

Japan. All functions of the printer engine and 

scanner unit undergo adjustment and testing 

prior to being exported to the U.S. You state 

that the testing and adjustment process takes 

as much or more time than the physical 

assembly of the product and require skilled 

personnel. 

Final Assembly in the U.S. 

The scanner unit and the printer engine 

unit are imported into the U.S. where they 

are assembled onto a scanner rack and a 

scanner stand to create the finished multifunctional machine. Final testing of the 

machine is then performed. 

The basic scanner stand is made in the U.S. 

The scanner rack and stand with paper 

feed drawers (either 1,500 sheet or 2,500 

sheet) are made in China. 

ISSUE 

What is the country of origin of the subject 

multifunctional printer machines for the 

purpose of U.S. Government procurement? 

LAW AND ANALYSIS 

Pursuant to Subpart B of Part 177, 19 CFR 

177.21 et seq., which implements Title III of 

the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as 

amended (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 practice for 

products offered for sale to the U.S. 

Government. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 160 / Thursday, August 20, 2009 / Notices 42089 

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 postassembly 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 

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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES