Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 33 / Tuesday, February 20, 2007 / Notices 7771 

should address: (a) Whether the 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimates of the burden of the 

collection of information; (c) ways to 

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 

of the information to be collected; (d) 

ways to minimize the burden including 

the use of automated collection 

techniques or the use of other forms of 

information technology; and (e) 

estimates of capital or start-up costs and 

costs of operations, maintenance, and 

purchase of services to provide 

information. The comments that are 

submitted will be summarized and 

included in the CBP request for Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval. All comments will become a 

matter of public record. In this 

document CBP is soliciting comments 

concerning the following information 

collection: 

Title: United States-Caribbean Basin 

Trade Partnership Act. 

OMB Number: 1651–0083. 

Form Number: CBP–450. 

Abstract: The collection of 

information is required to implement 

the duty preference provisions of the 

United States-Caribbean Basin Trade 

Partnership Act. 

Current Actions: There are no changes 

to the information collection. This 

submission is being submitted to extend 

the expiration date. 

Type of Review: Extension (without 

change). 

Affected Public: Businesses. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

440. 

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 42.5 

hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 18,720. 

Estimated Total Annualized Cost on 

the Public: N/A. 

Dated: February 12, 2007. 

Tracey Denning, 

Agency Clearance Officer, Information 

Services Group. 

[FR Doc. E7–2827 Filed 2–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Bureau of Customs and Border 

Protection 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request; African Growth and 

Opportunity Act Certificate of Origin 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort 

to reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, Bureau of Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

comment on an information collection 

requirement concerning the African 

Growth and Opportunity Act Certificate 

of Origin. This request for comment is 

being made pursuant to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–

13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before April 23, 2007, to 

be assured of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Bureau of Customs and Border 

Protection, Information Services Group, 

Room 3.2.C, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC 20229. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information 

should be directed to Bureau of Customs 

and Border Protection, Attn.: Tracey 

Denning, Room 3.2.C., 1300 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20229, Tel. (202) 344–

1429. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CBP 

invites the general public and other 

Federal agencies to comment on 

proposed and/or continuing information 

collections pursuant to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–

13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). The comments 

should address: (a) Whether the 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimates of the burden of the 

collection of information; (c) ways to 

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 

of the information to be collected; (d) 

ways to minimize the burden including 

the use of automated collection 

techniques or the use of other forms of 

information technology; and (e) 

estimates of capital or start-up costs and 

costs of operations, maintenance, and 

purchase of services to provide 

information. The comments that are 

submitted will be summarized and 

included in the CBP request for Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval. All comments will become a 

matter of public record. In this 

document CBP is soliciting comments 

concerning the following information 

collection: 

Title: African Growth and 

Opportunity Act Certificate of Origin. 

OMB Number: 1651–0082. 

Form Number: None. 

Abstract: The collection of 

information is required to implement 

the duty preference provisions of the 

African Growth and Opportunity Act 

(AGOA) to provide extension of dutyfree treatment under the Generalized 

System of Preferences (GSP) to sensitive 

articles normally excluded from GSP 

duty treatment. It also provides for the 

entry of specific textile and apparel 

articles free of duty and free of any 

quantitative limits to the countries of 

sub-Saharan Africa. 

Current Actions: There are no changes 

to the information collection. This 

submission is being submitted to extend 

the expiration date. 

Type of Review: Extension (without 

change). 

Affected Public: Businesses. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

440. 

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 23 

hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 10,400. 

Estimated Total Annualized Cost on 

the Public: N/A. 

Dated: February 12, 2007. 

Tracey Denning, 

Agency Clearance Officer, Information 

Services Group. 

[FR Doc. E7–2829 Filed 2–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Bureau of Customs and Border 

Protection 

Notice of Issuance of Final 

Determination Concerning Bolt 

Container Seals and Cable Seals 

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, Department of Homeland 

Security. 

ACTION: Notice of final determination. 

SUMMARY: This document provides 

notice that the Bureau of Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) has issued a 

final determination concerning the 

country of origin of certain bolt 

container seals and cable seals to be 

offered to the United States Government 

under an undesignated government 

procurement contract. For each of the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
7772 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 33 / Tuesday, February 20, 2007 / Notices 

two products, two different 

manufacturing scenarios were 

presented. Based upon the facts 

presented, the final determination found 

that China is the country of origin of the 

bolt container seal for purposes of U.S. 

Government procurement where the 

product is assembled in the United 

States from components of Chinese and 

Malaysian origin. Where a U.S.-origin 

lock body is used in the assembly of the 

bolt container seal in the United States, 

the final determination found that the 

country of origin of the lock body 

assembly is the United States and the 

country of origin of the imported bolt 

shank is China. With regard to the cable 

seal, the final determination found that 

the country of origin of the cable seal 

assembled in the United States from 

components of Chinese and Malaysian 

origin is China for purposes of U.S. 

Government procurement. The final 

determination also found that where a 

U.S.-origin lock body is used in the 

assembly of the cable seal in the United 

States, the country of origin of the cable 

seal is the United States for purposes of 

U.S. Government procurement. 

DATES: The final determination was 

issued on February 8, 2007. 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 30 days 

of February 20, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Holly Files, Valuation and Special 

Programs Branch, Regulations and 

Rulings, Office of International Trade 

(202–572–8817). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that on February 8, 2007, 

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 bolt container seals and 

cable seals to be offered to the United 

States Government under an 

undesignated government procurement 

contract. The CBP ruling number is HQ 

W563587. This final determination was 

issued at the request of TydenBrammall 

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). 

The final determination examined 

four different manufacturing scenarios. 

The first two scenarios involve the 

manufacture of the bolt container seal. 

The third and fourth scenarios involve 

the manufacture of the cable seal. The 

first scenario proposed the assembly of 

the bolt container seal in the United 

States solely from parts of foreign origin. 

In the second scenario, the bolt 

container seal was assembled in the 

United States from parts of U.S. and 

foreign origin. The final determination 

concluded that, based upon the facts 

presented in the first scenario, the 

assembly and packaging in the United 

States of five foreign-origin components 

to create the bolt container seal did not 

substantially transform the foreign 

components into a product of the 

United States. In the second scenario, 

the final determination found that the 

assembly of a U.S.-origin lock body with 

other foreign-origin components in the 

United States to form a lock body 

assembly substantially transformed the 

foreign components of the lock body 

assembly into a product of the United 

States. However, as one foreign-origin 

component, the bolt shank, was merely 

packaged with the lock body assembly, 

the final determination found that the 

bolt shank was not substantially 

transformed into a product of the United 

States. In the third scenario, the cable 

seal was assembled in the United States 

solely from parts of foreign origin. The 

fourth scenario involved the assembly of 

the cable seal in the United States from 

parts of U.S. and foreign origin. Based 

upon the facts presented in the third 

scenario, the final determination 

concluded that the assembly in the 

United States of four components of 

foreign origin to create the container 

seal did not substantially transform the 

foreign-origin components into a 

product of the United States. With 

regard to the facts presented in the 

fourth scenario, the final determination 

concluded that the assembly in the 

United States of a U.S.-origin lock body 

with foreign-origin components to 

create the container seal substantially 

transformed the foreign components 

into a product of the United States. 

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, Customs 

Regulations (19 CFR 177.30), states 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: February 13, 2007. 

Sandra L. Bell, 

Executive Director, Office of Regulations and 

Rulings, Office of International Trade. 

HQ W563587 

February 8, 2007. 

MAR–2–05 RR:CTF:VS W563587 HEF 

Category: Marking 

Mr. William L. Matthews 

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 

2300 N Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20037–1122 

RE: U.S. Government Procurement; Final 

Determination; country of origin of bolt 

container seals and cable seals; 

substantial transformation; 19 CFR Part 

177 

Dear Mr. Matthews: 

This is in response to your letter dated 

September 5, 2006, requesting a final 

determination on behalf of TydenBrammall, 

pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, Customs 

Regulations (19 CFR 177.21 et seq.). Under 

these regulations, which implement Title III 

of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as 

amended (19 USC 2511 et seq.), U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) issues country 

of origin advisory rulings and final 

determinations on whether an article is or 

would be a product of a designated foreign 

country or instrumentality for the purpose 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 bolt container 

seals and cable seals. We note that 

TydenBrammall is a party-at-interest within 

the meaning of 19 CFR 177.22(d)(1) and is 

entitled to request this final determination. 

Confidential treatment for certain business 

information identified in your request for a 

final determination will be extended in 

accordance with your request. Photographs of 

the bolt container seals and cable seals were 

submitted with your request. In preparing 

this final determination, consideration was 

given to your supplemental submission dated 

December 12, 2006. 

Facts: 

I. Vu Bolt Container Seal 

You advise us that TydenBrammall will 

manufacture Vu Bolt Container Seals at its 

production facility in Angola, Indiana. The 

container seals are used to secure rail, 

container, and truck cargo shipments. The 

container seal is composed of the following 

five components: bolt shank, lock body, 

locking ring, inner cover, and clear cover. 

The bolt shank, lock body, and locking ring 

are manufactured in China. The inner cover 

and clear cover are manufactured in 

Malaysia. 

At the Indiana facility, a machine operator 

uses a press to seat the locking ring within 

the grooves of the lock body, and the operator 

gauges the locking ring to ensure proper 

placement within the lock body. Next, the 

lock body is inserted into the inner cover to 

form the lock body subassembly. The lock 

body subassembly is placed into a linear 

inkjet marking machine where a custom 

serialization number is applied to the 

subassembly. Then, the serialized 

subassemblies are inspected to ensure the 

correct serialization and quality. The 

serialized subassemblies are moved to an 

ultrasonic welding station where they are 

aligned in rows of five by ten and covered 

by the clear cover. There, the subassembly 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 33 / Tuesday, February 20, 2007 / Notices 7773 

and clear cover are ultrasonically welded 

together and then inspected for quality. 

Finally, the completed subassemblies are 

packaged together with the bolt shanks in 

packages of 200 Vu Bolt Container Seals per 

box. 

You also request that CBP issue a final 

determination for an identical assembly 

process except that the lock body is of U.S. 

origin. 

II. XBorder Cable Seal 

You advise us that TydenBrammall will 

manufacture the XBorder Cable Seal at its 

production facility in Angola, Indiana. The 

XBorder Cable Seal is intended for one-time 

use on trucks, shipping containers, and 

freight rail cars. A TydenBrammall press 

release emphasizes that the seal has a secure 

and permanent locking mechanism that 

makes cargo tampering virtually impossible 

without detection. Press Release, 

TydenBrammall, XborderTM Seal Secures 

High Risk Cargo, http:// 

www.tydenbrammall.com/cargoguy/ 

pressreleases/xborder.pdf (last visited 

November 15, 2006). The XBorder Cable Seal 

is composed of the following four 

components: bolt shank, lock body, nonpreformed cable, and locking ring. The bolt 

shank, lock body, and locking ring are 

manufactured in China, and the nonpreformed cable is manufactured in 

Malaysia. 

To begin the U.S. assembly operation, a 

machine operator uses a press to seat the 

locking ring within the grooves of the lock 

body and gauges the locking ring to ensure 

its proper placement. Then, the operator uses 

a multi-headed electrical resistance cutting 

machine to cut the non-preformed cable to a 

specified length. Next, both ends of the cable 

are ground using an abrasive belt to taper the 

welded tips of the cable. Then, one end of 

the cable is positioned at the bolt shank to 

form the bolt shank subassembly. The bolt 

shank subassembly is inserted into a swaging 

press that applies an eight-axis crimp to the 

subassembly. The other end of the cable is 

positioned at the lock body to form the lock 

body subassembly. The lock body 

subassembly is inserted into a swaging press 

that applies an eight-axis crimp to the 

subassembly. Then, both crimps of the cable 

seal are inspected for quality by examining 

the depth and position of the crimps. Next, 

a custom serial number is applied to the 

cable seal using a laser. The finished XBorder 

Cable Seals are inspected for quality, 

bundled into groups of 10 and packaged 100 

per box. 

You also request that CBP issue a final 

determination for an identical assembly 

process except that the lock body is of U.S. 

origin. 

Issue: 

What are the countries of origin of the bolt 

container seal and the cable seal for purposes 

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 on 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. 

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, 6 Ct. Int’l Trade 204, 

573 F. Supp. 1149 (1983), aff’d, 741 F.2d 

1368 (Fed. Cir. 1984). If the manufacturing or 

combining process is a minor one which 

leaves the identity of the imported article 

intact, a substantial transformation has not 

occurred. Uniroyal Inc. v. United States, 3 Ct. 

Int’l Trade 220, 542 F. Supp. 1026 (1982). 

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, and C.S.D. 90–97. 

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 such 

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, or use are primary 

considerations in such cases. Additionally, 

facts such as resources expended on product 

design and development, extent and nature 

of post-assembly inspection procedures, and 

worker skill required during the actual 

manufacturing process will be considered 

when analyzing whether a substantial 

transformation has occurred; however, no 

one such factor is determinative. 

I. Vu Bolt Container Seal 

CBP has considered a number of different 

scenarios involving the assembly of locking 

apparatus. Each case presents a slightly 

different set of facts. In Headquarters Ruling 

Letter (‘‘HRL’’) 734440, dated March 30, 

1992, CBP found that a lock apparatus was 

substantially transformed in the United 

States as a result of combining it with pieces 

manufactured in the United States. CBP 

noted that the predominant expense of the 

assembled lock was in the parts produced in 

the United States, which required extensive 

manufacturing and development. By contrast, 

the imported piece was a generic mechanism 

that was inserted into the U.S. pieces. 

In HRL 734923, dated May 14, 1993, CBP 

determined that imported components of a 

door lockset, the rosettes and parts of the 

latch, were substantially transformed when 

they were assembled together with 

significant U.S. components in the United 

States to make the finished door lockset. CBP 

noted that the manufacture of the rosettes in 

China was relatively simple and did not 

require a great deal of precision as compared 

to the manufacture of the other components 

in the United States, which required 

significant precision and substantial 

machinery and tooling. 

Similarly, in HRL 735198, dated March 1, 

1995, CBP held that imported lock cases and 

cylinder retainer blocks were substantially 

transformed into industrial padlocks in the 

United States as a result of their assembly 

with a substantial number of U.S.-origin 

components. CBP found that the character of 

the lock case and cylinder retainer block was 

changed as a result of their incorporation into 

the finished padlock. 

By contrast, in HRL 734227, dated June 26, 

1992, CBP found that chrome plated levers 

did not lose their separate identity when they 

were combined with domestic locksets to 

form completed lever locksets. CBP reasoned 

that the levers were a significant component 

of the completed article, and their assembly 

in no way changed the character of the 

levers. The levers were clearly recognizable 

both before and after the assembly. Moreover, 

the lever was a separate component, which 

had to be disassembled from the rest of the 

lockset prior to its installation. 

In HRL 734629, dated October 1, 1992, CBP 

found that a lock cylinder was not 

substantially transformed where it was not 

attached to the remaining pieces of the lock 

until after it was received by the installer. 

Furthermore, CBP noted that the lock 

cylinder did not lose its separate identity 

when combined with the remaining pieces. 

The cylinder remained visible even after 

assembly by the installer and the attachment 

process was a simple screw mount, which 

meant that the cylinder easily could be 

replaced. 

In HRL 735133, dated May 5, 1994, CBP 

held that imported lock parts and assemblies 

were not substantially transformed when 

assembled in the United States with a U.S.- 

origin coverplate screw. CBP noted that most 

of the cost in making the finished lock was 

attributable to operations performed in 

Taiwan and that the production in the United 

States was a simple manual assembly 

operation of basically finished parts. 

In the first scenario, TydenBrammall 

proposes to assemble the Vu Bolt Container 

Seal entirely from imported parts. You 

contend that the various components are 

substantially transformed based on their 

assembly in the U.S. alone. The U.S. 

assembly operation that you describe consists 

of the assembly of a small number of parts, 

the addition of a serial number, the 

ultrasonic welding of a clear cover to the lock 

body assembly, and the packaging of the 

finished lock body assembly with the 

imported bolt shank. Similar to the situation 

described in HRL 735133, supra, we find that 

the described manufacturing process is a 

simple assembly operation of imported 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
7774 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 33 / Tuesday, February 20, 2007 / Notices 

components that is not complex and 

meaningful enough to result in a substantial 

transformation. In considering the last 

country in which the container seal 

underwent a substantial transformation, we 

believe that the lock body primarily imparts 

the essential character of the container seal. 

While the seal numbers are a unique feature 

to the container seal, the lock body is the 

component that imparts the ability of the 

container seal to actually lock and secure the 

cargo. The lock body is also the most 

valuable component of the container seal. 

Therefore, based on the facts presented in the 

first scenario, we find that China is the 

country of origin of the Vu Bolt Container 

Seal. 

In the second scenario, TydenBrammall 

proposes to assemble the Vu Bolt Container 

Seal in the same manner except that the lock 

body is of U.S. origin. According to the 

confidential figures you have provided, the 

cost of the lock body represents a significant 

percentage of the total cost of the 

components used in the Vu Bolt Container 

Seal. In fact, under this scenario, most of the 

cost in making the container seal is 

attributable to the U.S. part and the labor 

performed in the United States. Furthermore, 

as noted above, we find that the lock body 

imparts the essential character of the 

container seal. Thus, we find that the 

imported locking ring, inner cover, and clear 

cover are substantially transformed when 

assembled in the United States with the U.S.- 

origin lock body to form the lock body 

assembly. 

However, we also find that the Chineseorigin bolt shank is not substantially 

transformed when packaged with the lock 

body assembly in the United States. In HRL 

734219, dated September 3, 1991, CBP ruled 

that water pans and charcoal pans were not 

substantially transformed when combined in 

the United States with other domestic and 

foreign components of smoker/grill units. 

CBP reasoned that the water pans and 

charcoal pans were completely finished 

articles when imported, there was no 

extensive manufacturing process involved, 

and that placing the pans into a container 

with other domestic and foreign articles was 

a minor operation, required no skill, and was 

not time-consuming. CBP noted that the pans 

were not permanently attached either before 

sale or once assembly of the unit was 

completed by the consumer. Moreover, 

Customs observed that the pans were 

functionally necessary to the use of the 

smoker/grill units, in that the units could not 

perform the essential operations of 

barbecuing, smoking, roasting or steaming 

without the pans. 

In the instant case, the bolt shank is a 

finished article when it is imported into the 

United States. In the United States, it is 

merely packaged with the lock body 

assembly. This act is not an extensive 

manufacturing process. The bolt shank is not 

attached to the lock body assembly prior to 

the sale of the container seal. When the U.S. 

customer attaches the bolt shank, it remains 

clearly visible. Furthermore, the bolt shank is 

functionally necessary to the essential 

operation of the container seal. As such, the 

bolt shank is not substantially transformed as 

a result of packaging it with the lock body 

assembly. Therefore, the country of origin of 

the bolt shank is China. We note that the 

distinction between the origins of the bolt 

shank and the lock body assembly is not 

necessary in the first assembly scenario, as 

the country of origin for both the bolt shank 

and the lock body assembly is China. 

Based upon the information provided, we 

find that China is the country of origin of the 

Vu Bolt Container Seal that is produced 

entirely from Chinese and Malaysian parts. 

Where TydenBrammall uses a U.S. lock body 

in the assembly of the product in the United 

States, the country of origin of the lock body 

assembly is the United States and the country 

of origin of the bolt shank is China. 

II. XBorder Cable Seal 

In the first scenario, you propose to 

manufacture the XBorder Cable Seal using 

imported components only. On numerous 

occasions, CBP has considered various 

manufacturing processes performed on wire 

and cable and whether such processes result 

in substantial transformations. In HRL 

561392, dated June 21, 1999, CBP held that 

the cutting of a cable to length and the 

assembly of the cable to connectors did not 

result in a substantial transformation. In HRL 

561392, all of the components were from 

Taiwan and the operations were performed 

in China. 

In HRL 560214, dated September 3, 1997, 

CBP found that where imported wire rope 

cable was cut to length, U.S.-origin sliding 

hooks were put on the rope, and U.S.-origin 

end ferrules were swaged on in the United 

States, the wire rope cable was not 

substantially transformed. 

In HRL 555774, dated December 10, 1990, 

CBP held that no substantial transformation 

occurred where Japanese wire was cut to 

length and U.S.-origin electrical connectors 

were crimped onto the ends of the wire in 

the United States. 

Consistent with these decisions, we find 

that a substantial transformation does not 

occur as a result of operations described in 

the first scenario, which include cutting an 

imported cable to a specified length, 

grounding its ends, crimping an imported 

bolt shank and imported lock body onto the 

ends, and serializing the product with a laser. 

In considering the last country in which the 

cable seal underwent a substantial 

transformation, we believe that the essential 

character of the cable seal is derived from the 

lock body, which enables the cable ends to 

be sealed permanently to secure the cargo 

and prevent tampering without detection. 

Therefore, the country of origin of the 

XBorder Cable Seal is China. 

In the second scenario, TydenBrammall 

proposes to assemble the XBorder Cable Seal 

in the same manner except that the lock body 

is of U.S. origin. According to the 

confidential figures you have provided, the 

lock body is by far the most valuable 

component of the cable seal. In fact, most of 

the cost in making the finished cable seal is 

attributable to the U.S. part and labor 

performed in the United States. As we stated 

above, we also believe that the lock body 

imparts the essential character of the cable 

seal. Therefore, we find that the components 

of foreign origin are substantially 

transformed when they are assembled with 

the U.S. lock body in the United States to 

form the cable seal. Based on these specific 

facts, the country of origin of the XBorder 

Cable Seal is the United States. 

Holding: 

Based upon the facts provided, we find 

that where the Vu Bolt Container Seal is 

assembled from Chinese and Malaysian 

components in the United States, the 

components are not substantially 

transformed. The country of origin for the Vu 

Bolt Container Seal for purposes of U.S. 

Government procurement is China. 

Where the lock body assembly of the Vu 

Bolt Container Seal is assembled in the 

United States using a U.S.-origin lock body, 

we find that the imported locking ring, inner 

cover and clear cover are substantially 

transformed. Thus, the country of origin of 

the lock body assembly for purposes of U.S. 

Government procurement is the United 

States. In addition, we hold that the Chineseorigin bolt shank does not undergo a 

substantial transformation. Therefore, the 

country of origin of the bolt shank for 

purposes of U.S. Government procurement is 

China. 

Where the XBorder Cable Seal is assembled 

from imported components in the United 

States, the imported components do not 

undergo a substantial transformation. Based 

on these facts, the country of origin of the 

XBorder Cable Seal for purposes of U.S. 

Government Procurement is China. 

Where the XBorder Cable Seal is assembled 

in the United States from imported 

components and a U.S.-origin lock body, we 

find that the imported components undergo 

a substantial transformation. Therefore, the 

country of origin of this XBorder Cable Seal 

for purposes of U.S. Government 

procurement is the United States. 

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. 

Any party-at-interest 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. 07–740 Filed 2–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES