HQ 084985: Railroad grade crossing systems of rubber

Native CBP ruling rendition. Applicability is fact-specific; modification/revocation relationships and original publisher date are retained. Publisher sentinel year0001 means unknown date, not a historical legal adoption.

                            HQ 084985

                        September 6, 1989


CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 084985 TLS

CATEGORY: Classification

TARIFF NOS.: 4016.99.5050; 4008.29.0000

R. Kevin Williams, Esq.
Sonnenberg, Anderson, O'Donnell & Rodriguez
200 West Adams Street  Suite 2625
Chicago, Illinois  60606

RE:  Railroad grade crossing systems of rubber

Dear Mr. Williams:

     You requested a ruling on the proper classification of a
rubber railroad grade crossing system under the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA).  Our New York
office issued a ruling (NY 839061) pursuant to that request.
Subsequently, you submitted additional evidence which gives
reason to revoke part of that ruling and issue a revised ruling.

FACTS:

     The railroad grade crossing system consists of three
components.  The first is a field pad, which is positioned
between the street surface and the outside of the railroad rails;
the second is a gauge pad, which fits between the rails; the
third are filler blocks, which rest on the ties and the lower
part of the rail to support the gauge pad.  The field and gauge
pads, which are very similar, are shaped so that their grooved
edges fit around the railroad ties.  The filler blocks are shaped
to fit over the tie pads and tie plates.  Each of the three
components are made of approximately 90% reclaimed rubber and 10%
new styrene butadiene rubber.  These components are part of the
Hi-Rail system, which is completed with domestically-produced
metal kicker blocks.

     The additional information mentioned above involves the
make-up of the gauge pad.  An examination of a sample pad showed
that it is not of uniform construction throughout as originally
thought; it has rounded protrusions at the edges.  A sample field
pad was not examined, but it has already been determined that the
only distinction between the two is that the gauge pad is used
between the rails and the field pad is used on the outside of the
rails.  Thus, there is a need for further review to determine the
proper classification of these products.

                               -2-

ISSUE:

     Under which of the following HTSUSA headings are the gauge
pad and field pad properly classifiable:

1) Heading 4008, HTSUSA, covering plates, sheets, strip, rods,
and profile shapes, of vulcanized rubber other than hard rubber;

2) Heading 4016, HTSUSA, covering other articles of vulcanized
rubber other than hard rubber.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     The General Rules of Interpretation (GRI) govern the
classification of articles under the HTS.  GRI 1 requires that
classification be determined according to the terms of the
headings and any relative section or chapter notes.  Heading 4008
covers plates, sheets, strip, rods, and profile shapes, of
vulcanized rubber other than hard rubber.  As noted before, the
gauge and field pads are made up of 90% reclaimed rubber and 10%
styrene butadiene rubber.  However, they are not of uniform shape
throughout their cross-sections and therefore do not have profile
shapes as originally thought.  The pads are neither plates,
sheets, strips, rods, nor profile shapes of rubber.  They are not
properly classifiable under heading 4008.

     Heading 4016 covers other articles of vulcanized rubber.
The 90/10 composition that the pads consist of is of the
vulcanized rubber referred to in the heading.  Considering that
the pads do not meet the description in heading 4008, they are
appropriately classified under heading 4016.

HOLDING:

     The gauge and field pads are properly classified under
subheading 4016.99.5050, HTSUSA, as other articles of vulcanized
rubber.

     The filler blocks remain classified under subheading
4008.29.0000, HTSUSA, as a profile shape of vulcanized rubber
other than hard rubber.

                              Sincerely,




                              John Durant, Director
                              Commercial Rulings Division