CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 088674 DFC
James A. Noone Esq.
Karalekas & McCahill
Attorneys at Law
1250 Connecticut Avenue N.W.,
Suite 318
Washington, D.C. 20036-2603
RE: Yarn, Fiberglass
Dear Mr. Noone:
In a letter dated February 5, 1991, written on behalf
of The Gates Rubber Co., Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., and
Dayco Products Inc., you asked us to issue a ruling with
prospective application clarifying the interpretation of
the term resorcinol formaldehyde latex (RFL) under the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated
(HTSUSA).
FACTS:
Fiberglass yarn or cord and fabric woven from it are
imported for use in the manufacture of automotive and industrial
timing belts and certain fiberglass-belted automobile tires.
The yarn is used as the skeletal component, providing basic
support and reinforcement for the rubber body of the product.
In the manufacturing process, the fiberglass filaments
must be given a coating in order to protect them and, more
importantly, to enable them to adhere to the rubber end
product. These objectives are accomplished by dipping the
fiberglass yarn filaments into a solution known as RFL. You
-2-
maintain that any of a number of different compounds can
form the latex component of RFL and that the presence of
those latex compounds indicates that the yarn or fabric has
been dipped in RFL.
Yarns and woven fabrics of glass fiber originating in
Canada are free of duty under subheading 9905.70.10, HTSUSA,
and cord or yarn and tire cord fabric are free of duty from any
country entitled to the General Rates of Duty under sub-
headings 9902.70.19 and 9902.70.20, HTSUSA, provided the
glass filaments have a certain micron diameter and that the
yarn or fabric has been impregnated, coated or covered with
RFL.
Information before this office is that in one instance
at least, Customs refused to release a shipment of merchandise
claimed to fall under subheading 9905.70.10, HTSUSA, because
the U.S. Customs laboratory found the product to be coated
with styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) rather than RFL.
ISSUE:
Is the RFL impregnation of the product confirmed by
the presence of certain elastomeric latices such as SBR,
vinyl pyridine styrene butadiene, isoprene, neoprene or
chloroprene?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
We agree with you that the terms SBR, vinyl pyridine
styrene butadiene, isoprene, neoprene or chloroprene are
not exclusive of RFL. RFL assumes the presence of SBR or
some other latex. The presence of the above named latices
confirms that the fiberglass yarn has been impregnated with
RFL.
In the future we will assume, even if only the latex
portion of the RFL can be found, that the latex would not
adhere to the glass fiber without the RFL and, therefore,
the presence of RFL will be inferred.
-3-
HOLDING:
For fiberglass yarn or fabric classifiable under sub-
headings 9905.70.10, 9902.70.19 or 9902.70.20, HTSUSA, any
presence in the product of styrene butadiene rubber, vinyl
pyridine styrene butadiene, isoprene, neoprene, chloroprene
and certain other latices should be interpreted as confirming
that the product has been impregnated or coated with resorcinol
formaldehyde latex and is therefore in conformance with that
portion of the product description in the referenced subheadings.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division
6cc AD NY Seaport
1cc Alice Masterson NY Seaport
1cc Legal Reference
cahill library/peh
088674