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
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. 

ADDRESSES: 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 OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov. 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. 

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 

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: 

Form No. Estimated number 

of respondents 

Total responses 

per year 

Estimated annual 

burden hours 

per form 

LC–72 .................................................................................................................. 6 78 54 

LC–72A ................................................................................................................ 8 20 30 

LC–72B ................................................................................................................ 15 51 78 

Custom Forms ..................................................................................................... 25 181 128 

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. 

A Federal Register notice with a 60- 

day 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 

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) 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES