6880 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Notices 

SUMMARY: On behalf of the Alaska 

Regional Response Team (ARRT), the 

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) announces 

establishment of a more inclusive, 

comprehensive, and conservative 

dispersant use policy that includes a 

preauthorization area and an enhanced 

protocol for use of chemical dispersant 

during responses to spills of crude oil in 

certain waters offshore of Alaska. 

Federal regulations covering certain 

vessel response plans require 

development of defined dispersant 

response capabilities when such vessels 

are operating in waters where dispersant 

use preauthorization agreements exist. 

DATES: Plan holders for affected vessel 

response plans have 24 months from the 

date of publication of this notice to 

achieve compliance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information about this document: From 

USCG: call or email Mark Everett, 

Incident Management & Preparedness 

Advisor, Seventeenth Coast Guard 

District, Juneau, AK; telephone (907) 

463–2804; email Mark.Everett@uscg.mil; 

From Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA): call or email Chris Field, 

Program Manager, Emergency 

Management Program (EPA Region 10); 

telephone (206) 553–1674; email 

Field.Chris@epa.gov; 

For the State of Alaska: call or email 

Gary Folley, Program Manager, 

Prevention, Preparedness & Response 

Program, Division of Spill Prevention & 

Response, Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation; telephone 

(907) 262–3411; email gary.folley@

alaska.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Comments 

Because this notice is nonrulemaking, no public participation or 

comments are being taken. Questions 

can be directed to any person named in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section, above. 

Discussion 

The Alaska Regional Response Team 

(ARRT) is one of 13 interagency, 

intergovernmental groups responsible 

under the National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 

(a.k.a. National Contingency Plan or 

NCP) at 40 CFR part 300 for regional 

planning, including policy 

development, and coordination of 

preparedness and response actions 

related to discharges of oil and releases 

of hazardous materials and other 

pollutants and contaminants into the 

environment. The ARRT’s 

responsibilities include development of 

policies regarding the preauthorization 

of certain alternative (non-mechanical) 

countermeasures, including chemical 

dispersants, used in oil spill response 

operations. 

Preauthorization for use of 

dispersants has not existed in the 

Alaska region since September 2008. 

This new policy change will allow for 

industry to develop a reliable, regulated 

dispersant use capability to be available 

to mitigate—if directed by the Federal 

On Scene Coordinator—large crude oil 

spills more readily. However, extensive 

government, tribal, and other 

stakeholder notifications would be 

required before use. 

Following a multi-year collaborative 

effort among governmental agencies as 

described in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.910, 

the ARRT signed a new Dispersant Use 

Plan for Alaska (Appendix I, Annex F, 

Alaska Federal/State Preparedness Plan 

for Response to Oil & Hazardous 

Substance Discharges/Releases [Unified 

Plan]) on January 27, 2016. This 

document includes, among other things, 

an updated protocol for use and 

monitoring of chemical dispersants in 

undesignated areas on a case-by-case 

basis and a preauthorization plan for 

use and monitoring of chemical 

dispersants on spills from tank vessels 

carrying crude oil as cargo during noninnocent passage through certain areas 

north and south of the Aleutian Island 

chain and the northern Gulf of Alaska. 

The Dispersant Use Plan for Alaska may 

be found at www.alaskarrt.org. 

U.S. Coast Guard enforcement of the 

requirements of 33 CFR 154.1035 and 

1045 and 33 CFR 155.1035, and 1050 

depends upon existence of a dispersant 

preauthorization plan (including a 

preauthorization area) which complies 

with the requirements of the NCP, 

specifically at 40 CFR 300.910. 

Enforcement of the preauthorization 

area compliance requirements will take 

effect 24 months after publication of this 

notice to allow plan holders time to 

achieve compliance. 

Development of the Dispersant Use 

Plan for Alaska included compliance 

with the consultation (with National 

Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish 

& Wildlife Service) requirements of 

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA), Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 

analysis required by the MagnussonStevens Fisheries Conservation and 

Management Act, consideration of the 

requirements of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), outreach to 

affected communities and stakeholder 

groups, compliance with State of Alaska 

public notice requirements, and 

consultation with federally-recognized 

tribes as required by Executive Order 

13175. Implementation of the new 

policy includes a 24-month timeline for 

development of dispersant areas to be 

avoided within geographic subareas 

covered by the preauthorization area. It 

also includes industry establishing 

sufficient dispersant capability in 

locales to be available for potential 

authorization for use by the Federal On 

Scene Coordinator during a spill 

response. Failure to establish dispersant 

areas to be avoided within geographic 

subareas covered by the 

preauthorization area will result in the 

entire geographic subarea reverting to 

the case-by-case dispersant use protocol 

used in undesignated areas until such 

time as dispersant use avoidance areas 

are developed. 

This notice is issued under authority 

of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and 

Executive Order 12777. 

Dated: January 28, 2016. 

M.L. Everett, 

Incident Management & Preparedness 

Advisor, U.S. Coast Guard District Seventeen. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02559 Filed 2–8–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

[USCBP–2016–0007] 

Receipt of Domestic Interested Party 

Petition Concerning the Tariff 

Classification of a Steel Tube Fitting 

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, Department of Homeland 

Security. 

ACTION: Notice; solicitation of 

comments. 

SUMMARY: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) has received a petition 

submitted on behalf of a domestic 

interested party requesting the 

reclassification under the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) of a steel tube fitting from 

Taiwan. CBP classified the steel tube 

fitting under subheading 7307.99.50, 

HTSUS, which provides for: ‘‘Tube or 

pipe fittings (for example, couplings, 

elbows, sleeves), of iron or steel: Other: 

Other: Other.’’ The 2015 column one, 

general rate of duty is 4.3 percent ad 

valorem. Petitioner contends that the 

proper classification for the steel tube 

fitting is under subheading 8412.90.90, 

HTSUS, which provides for: ‘‘Other 

engines and motors, and parts thereof: 

Parts: Other.’’ Petitioner asserts that 

some of its competitors are classifying 

all or a substantial portion of similar 

fittings as parts of hydraulic systems, 

under subheading 8412.90.90, HTSUS, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Notices 6881 

which is duty free, thus placing 

Petitioner at a competitive disadvantage. 

This document invites comments with 

regard to the correctness of the current 

classification. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 11, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number, by one of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

via docket number USCBP–2016–0007. 

• Mail: Trade and Commercial 

Regulations Branch, Regulations and 

Rulings, Office of International Trade, 

Customs and Border Protection, 90 K St. 

NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229– 

1177. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this notice of 

domestic interested party petition 

concerning the tariff classification of 

steel tube fittings. All comments 

received will be posted without change 

to http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents, exhibits, 

or comments received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov. Submitted 

comments may also be inspected during 

regular business days between the hours 

of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., at Trade and 

Commercial Regulations Branch, 

Regulations and Rulings, Office of 

International Trade, Customs and 

Border Protection, 90 K Street NE., 10th 

Floor, Washington, DC. Arrangements to 

inspect submitted comments should be 

made in advance by calling Joseph 

Clark, Trade and Commercial 

Regulations Branch, at (202) 325–0118. 

Please note that any submitted 

comments that CBP receives by mail 

will be posted on the above-referenced 

docket for the public’s convenience. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dwayne Rawlings, Tariff Classification 

and Marking Branch, Regulations and 

Rulings, Office of International Trade, 

Customs and Border Protection, at (202) 

325–0092. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

A petition has been filed under 

section 516 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1516), on behalf of 

Brennan Industries, Inc. (‘‘Petitioner’’), 

which manufactures various hydraulic 

connectors, fittings and adapters in 

Solon, Ohio. Brennan meets all of the 

requirements of a domestic interested 

party set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1516(a)(2) 

and section 175.3(a) in Title 19 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 

In New York Ruling (NY) E83408, 

dated July 8, 1999, a steel tube fitting 

from Taiwan is described as a ‘‘cold 

forged nonalloy steel male threaded 

connector body having a center hex nut, 

one flare tube end and one male pipe 

end. These tube fittings connect a piece 

of rigid tubing to a valve, manifold or 

another piece of rigid tubing in a 

hydraulic system.’’ CBP classified the 

steel tube fitting in subheading 

7307.99.50, Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

of the United States (HTSUS), as a tube 

or pipe fitting of iron or steel, other, 

other, other. Petitioner contends that the 

proper classification for the fitting is 

subheading 8412.90.90, HTSUS, which 

covers ‘‘Other engines and motors, and 

parts thereof: Parts: Other.’’ In 1999, the 

column one, general rate of duty for 

subheading 7307.99.50, HTSUS, was 4.3 

percent ad valorem, and for heading 

8412, HTSUS, it was ‘‘Free’’ (the current 

duty rates are respectively 4.3% ad 

valorem and ‘‘Free’’). 

Classification under the HTSUS is 

made in accordance with the General 

Rules of Interpretation (‘‘GRIs’’). GRI 1 

provides that the classification of goods 

shall be determined according to the 

terms of the headings of the tariff 

schedule and any relative section or 

chapter notes. In the event that the 

goods cannot be classified solely on the 

basis of GRI 1, and if the headings and 

legal notes do not otherwise require, the 

remaining GRIs 2 through 6 may be 

applied, in numerical order. 

The Harmonized Commodity 

Description and Coding System 

Explanatory Notes (ENs) constitute the 

official interpretation of the Harmonized 

System at the international level. While 

not legally binding on the contracting 

parties and, therefore, not dispositive, 

the ENs provide a commentary on the 

scope of each heading of the 

Harmonized System and are thus useful 

in ascertaining the classification of 

merchandise under the system. CBP’s 

position is that the ENs should always 

be consulted. See Treasury Decision 

(T.D.) 89–80, 54 FR 35127, 35128 (Aug. 

23, 1989). 

The Petitioner’s Views 

Petitioner contends that the proper 

classification for the fitting is 

subheading 8412.90.90, HTSUS, which 

covers ‘‘Other engines and motors, and 

parts thereof: Parts: Other.’’ Petitioner 

notes that the ENs for Section XV, 

HTSUS, (which covers heading 7307, 

HTSUS), make clear that Section XV, 

HTSUS, does not cover ‘‘[a]rticles of 

Section XVI (machinery, mechanical 

appliances and electrical goods, which 

include hydraulic system parts).’’ See 

EN 1(f) to Section XV. Section XVI, 

HTSUS, covers heading 8412, HTSUS. 

Petitioner also recognizes that Legal 

Note 1(g) to Section XVI excludes 

certain products from Section XVI 

coverage, including, inter alia, parts of 

general use, as defined in Note 2 to 

Section XV, of base metal (section XV), 

or similar goods of plastics (chapter 39). 

See also EN 1(g) to Section XVI (‘‘parts 

of general use’’ is defined throughout 

the tariff schedule to mean, inter alia, 

articles of heading 7307). Referencing 

Note 2(b) to Section XVI, Petitioner then 

asserts that machine parts, if suitable for 

use solely or principally with a 

particular kind of machine of heading 

8412, are to be classified with that 

machine or in heading 8409, 8431, 8448, 

8466, 8473, 8503, 8522, 8529 or 8538, as 

appropriate. Petitioner also cites to HQ 

956743 (dated January 24, 1995), NY 

I82861 (dated June 28, 2002), and NY 

K89798, supra (dated October 18, 2004; 

incorrectly cited by the Petitioner as NY 

K89789). 

Petitioner maintains the fitting of NY 

E83408 is ‘‘solely imported, sold and 

specifically designed according to 

hydraulic system industry specifications 

for use in assembly of particular 

hydraulic engine or motor systems,’’ 

and is essential to the effective and safe 

operation of the subassemblies and 

components to which they are parts. As 

such, according to Petitioner, it is 

classifiable in subheading 8412.90.90, 

HTSUS, which specifically covers 

‘‘other hydraulic engine and motor 

parts.’’ Petitioner also contends that 

CBP’s classification is incorrect because 

the fitting consists of more than one 

material or substance, thus implicating 

GRI 2(b) and GRI 3. Petitioner proceeds 

to reason that the fitting is prima facie 

classifiable as both a ‘‘tube and pipe 

fitting’’ of heading 7307, HTSUS, and an 

‘‘other hydraulic engine or motor part’’ 

of heading 8412, HTSUS, and, therefore, 

GRI 3 is applicable. Petitioner then 

reasons that GRI 3(a) cannot determine 

classification of the fitting because the 

competing headings are equally specific, 

and GRI 3(b) is inapplicable as well 

because the fitting’s essential character 

cannot be determined. Therefore, 

applying GRI 3(c), Petitioner concludes 

that heading 8412, HTSUS, is the proper 

heading because it is last in numerical 

order behind heading 7307, HTSUS. 

Analysis Used by CBP in Prior Ruling 

In the ruling that is the subject of this 

petition, CBP held that a cold-forged, 

non-alloy, steel tube fitting that 

connects rigid tubing to valves, 

manifolds or other pieces of rigid tubing 

in a hydraulic system is classified in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

6882 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Notices 

subheading 7307.99.50, HTSUS, as 

other tube or pipe fitting (for example, 

couplings, elbows, sleeves), of iron or 

steel. It is CBP’s position that the subject 

fitting is a part of general use that can 

connect tubes and pipes, and is thus 

classified under heading 7307, HTSUS, 

by application of GRI 1 and the 

exclusionary effect of Legal Note 1(g) to 

Section XVI. In order for classification 

by application of GRI 3 to be 

appropriate, a good must be unable to be 

classified by application of GRIs 1 or 2, 

and the good must be prima facie 

classifiable in two or more headings. In 

this instance, goods of heading 7307, 

HTSUS, are explicitly excluded from 

heading 8412, HTSUS, by application of 

Legal Note 1(g) to Section XVI. 

Therefore, GRI 3 is not applicable. 

Historically, CBP has recognized that, 

for tariff purposes, hoses are not 

interchangeable with pipes or tubes. In 

HQ 088393, dated March 26, 1991, CBP 

examined the difference between hose 

fittings, and tube or pipe fittings. In that 

ruling, CBP first noted that the courts 

have long recognized that although a 

‘‘hose’’ may be considered a ‘‘tube’’ in 

common meaning, they are not 

interchangeable terms for tariff 

purposes. Citing John V. Carr & Son, 

Inc. v. United States, 76 Cust.Ct. 162, 

C.D. 4652 (1976) (interpreting the 

meanings of the terms ‘‘hose’’ and 

‘‘pipes and tubes’’ within the context of 

the Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(TSUS)); see also J.E. Bernard & Co., Inc. 

v. United States, 64 Cust.Ct. 425, C.D. 

4029 (1970) (in comparing the TSUS 

tariff terms ‘‘copper tubing’’ and 

‘‘flexible metal tubing,’’ the court 

expressed the principle that quite often 

articles that literally appear to respond 

to the common meaning of a tariff term 

are not the articles classified in a tariff 

sense); R.J. Saunders & Co., Inc. v. 

United States, 49 C.C.P.A. 87, C.A.D. 

801 (1962). Thus, under the TSUS, CBP 

consistently held that hose fittings are 

not properly classifiable under the 

TSUS provision for pipe and tube 

fittings. See C.I.E. 953/63 (July 2, 1963), 

C.I.E. 1684/65 (October 18, 1965), TC 

465.251 M (June 18, 1968), TC 426.89 

AS (November 27, 1968), MFG 423.371 

G (September 8, 1970), and HQ 064538 

(April 17, 1980). While prior TSUS 

cases are not dispositive, 

‘‘[n]evertheless, on a case-by-case basis 

prior decisions should be considered 

instructive in interpreting the HTSUS, 

particularly where the nomenclature 

previously interpreted in those 

decisions remains unchanged and no 

dissimilar interpretation is required by 

the text of the HTSUS.’’ H.R. Conf. Rep. 

No. 100–576, at 549–50 (1988), 

reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 

1582–83; see also NY 870421, dated 

February 7, 1992. 

The text of heading 7307, HTSUS, 

provides for ‘‘tube or pipe fittings,’’ 

which is similar to the TSUS text in the 

cases discussed above (‘‘pipe and tube 

fittings,’’ heading 613, TSUS). Thus, 

with regard to the competing HTSUS 

provisions at issue, CBP’s position is 

that if an iron or steel fitting is a part 

of general use and is designed in such 

a manner where it can be used in 

conjunction with tubes or pipes, or 

tubes, pipes and hoses, that fitting is 

classified in heading 7307. See NY 

K87518, dated July 21, 2004; see also 

NY H87517, dated February 20, 2002. 

However, and again with regard to the 

competing headings at issue, if such 

fittings meet the terms of Note 2 to 

Section XVI and are considered to be 

parts of hydraulic systems, such as hose 

fittings (as opposed to ‘‘parts of general 

use’’ of heading 7307, HTSUS), they are 

classified in heading 8412, HTSUS. See 

NY K89798, dated October 18, 2004; NY 

N006172, dated February 28, 2007; NY 

H82321, dated June 25, 2001; NY 

N242950, dated June 26, 2013; see also 

HQ 956743, dated January 24, 1995 

(stating the general principle). 

CBP concludes that the subject fittings 

are parts of general use that can connect 

tubes and pipes, and are thus classified 

under heading 7307, HTSUS, by 

application of GRI 1 and the 

exclusionary effect of Legal Note 1(g) to 

Section XVI. Finally, with regard to 

Petitioner’s argument that GRI 3 is 

applicable, in order for classification by 

application of GRI 3 to be appropriate, 

a good must be unable to be classified 

by application of GRIs 1 or 2, and the 

good must be prima facie classifiable in 

two or more headings. In this instance, 

goods of heading 7307, HTSUS, are 

explicitly excluded from heading 8412, 

HTSUS, by application of Legal Note 

1(g) to Section XVI. Therefore, GRI 3 is 

not applicable. In addition, GRI 3 does 

not apply because the fittings do not 

consist of more than one material or 

substance. 

Comments 

Pursuant to section 175.21, CBP 

Regulations (19 CFR 175.21), before 

making a determination on this matter, 

CBP invites written comments on the 

petition from interested parties. 

The domestic interested party petition 

concerning the tariff classification of 

hydraulic system fittings, as well as all 

comments received in response to this 

notice, will be available for public 

inspection on the docket at 

www.regulations.gov. Please note that 

any submitted comments that CBP 

receives by mail will be posted on the 

above-referenced docket for the public’s 

convenience. 

Authority 

This notice is published in 

accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1516 and 

section 175.21 of the CBP Regulations 

(19 CFR 175.21). 

Dated: February 4, 2016. 

R. Gil Kerlikowske, 

Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02555 Filed 2–8–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services 

[OMB Control Number 1615–0054] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Notice of Naturalization 

Oath Ceremony, Form Number N–445; 

Extension, Without Change, of a 

Currently Approved Collection 

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, Department of 

Homeland Security. 

ACTION: 60-Day Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration (USCIS) invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

comment upon this proposed extension 

of a currently approved collection of 

information. In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 

1995, the information collection notice 

is published in the Federal Register to 

obtain comments regarding the nature of 

the information collection, the 

categories of respondents, the estimated 

burden (i.e. the time, effort, and 

resources used by the respondents to 

respond), the estimated cost to the 

respondent, and the actual information 

collection instruments. 

DATES: Comments are encouraged and 

will be accepted for 60 days until April 

11, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: All submissions received 

must include the OMB Control Number 

1615–0054 in the subject box, the 

agency name and Docket ID USCIS– 

2006–0055. To avoid duplicate 

submissions, please use only one of the 

following methods to submit comments: 

(1) Online. Submit comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at 

http://www.regulations.gov under eDocket ID number USCIS–2006–0055; 

(2) Email. Submit comments to 

USCISFRComment@uscis.dhs.gov; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES