← Information Technology Industry Council
BISRulemakingBIS-2025-0023

Adoption and Procedures of the Section 232 Steel and Aluminum Tariff Inclusions Process

RIN
—
Last modified
Dec 12, 2025
Comment window
closed 280d ago
Information Technology Industry Council filings
5

Activity

Information Technology Industry Council filed 5 comments on this docket between Dec 12, 2025 and Dec 12, 2025. 999 other organizations filed here. The comment window closed 280d ago.

What Information Technology Industry Council filed (5)

Dec 12, 2025· Public Comment # 17. Information Technology Industry Council (ITI). 10/21/25· BIS-2025-0023-0870

Adding the requested IT components, including wire harnesses and networking cables, to the list of derivative products subject to the Section 232 steel tariff would significantly raise costs for companies deploying technology infrastructure in the United States, as well as those engaged in efforts to reshore manufacturing of advanced semiconductor manufacturing and other critical technologies. These products are not manufactured at sufficient scale in the United States to meet domestic demand, and are imported from trading partners including Taiwan and Vietnam. Importantly, these cost increases would arise not only from increased tariff expense, but also from the regulatory burden associated with having to trace, record, and report the origin of metal within components. At a time when the Trump Administration is seeking to ease regulatory burdens and enhance the attraction of the United States for deployment of data centers and other AI infrastructure, the proposed inclusion would cause a hindrance to Administration goals.

View on regulations.gov →
Dec 12, 2025· Public Comment # 11. Information Technology Industry Council (ITI). K. Johnson. 10/21/25· BIS-2025-0023-2686

Adding the requested IT components, including wire harnesses and networking cables, to the list of derivative products subject to the Section 232 aluminum tariff would significantly raise costs for companies deploying technology infrastructure in the United States. These products are not manufactured at sufficient scale in the United States to meet domestic demand, and are imported from trading partners including Taiwan and Vietnam. Importantly, these cost increases would arise not only from increased tariff expense, but also from the regulatory burden associated with having to trace, record, and report the origin of metal within components. At a time when the Trump Administration is seeking to ease regulatory burdens and enhance the attraction of the United States for deployment of data centers and other AI infrastructure, the proposed inclusion would cause a hindrance to Administration goals.

View on regulations.gov →
Dec 12, 2025· Public Comment # 9. Information Technology Industry Council (ITI). K. Johnson. 10/21/25· BIS-2025-0023-2920

According to its inclusion request, Sliger is a producer of computer chassis. It is proposing that metal enclosures for servers, as well as related brackets and rail kits, be added to the list of derivative products subject to the steel tariff, identifying several HTS codes that it purports can be used to import these products. We object to Sliger's proposed inclusions for the reasons set out below. While we believe this inclusion request should be rejected in its entirety, BIS should at minimum ensure that any inclusions granted in response to the request are narrow and limited to the specific derivative products that have been proposed for inclusion in the request. -Inclusions would conflict with Administration goals. The products that are being proposed for inclusion in the 50 percent steel tariff are used in the construction and maintenance of IT infrastructure in the United States, including semiconductor manufacturing facilities and data centers that enable the deployment of AI across the U.S. economy. An increase in the costs of construction and maintenance of chip fabrication, servers and data centers will penalize companies that have elected to build that infrastructure in the United States rather than overseas, while creating a cost incentive for future data centers to be built abroad instead of at home. Granting this inclusion request would run directly counter to the Trump Administration's AI leadership goals. -Inclusions would conflict with other Sec. 232 actions. BIS is currently in the process of investigating imports of semiconductors and related manufacturing equipment and derivative products. In light of that ongoing investigation, and in keeping with the Administration's coherent approach to segregation of major tariff actions, core computing products within the scope of the semiconductor investigation have been removed from application of reciprocal tariffs. These include items falling within the entirety of HTS heading 8471 and subheading 8473.30. Granting this inclusion request would cause a vast range of products currently subject to the semiconductors 232 investigation to become subject to a separate Section 232 tariff, preempting a decision about whether and how any final remedy in the semiconductors investigation may be structured, in particular with respect to interaction with other existing and future actions. -Inclusions are invalid. The petitioner proposes the addition of several HS codes that do not exist in the HTSUS, specifically 8473.30.0002, 8473.30.0051, 8473.30.0090, and 8473.30.0000. BIS should not assume to know which codes the petitioner "meant" to propose and should require that requesters identify valid existing HS codes as a minimum condition for an inclusion to be considered. -Inclusions are overbroad. The petitioner is seeking to include chassis to the list of derivative products subject to the Section 232 steel tariff, but the list of HS codes it has proposed for inclusion cover a vastly wider range of products. Petitioner explains its proposal by noting that chassis may be imported under various alternate codes "frequently," "often," "occasionally," or "sometimes." The possibility of an "occasional" entry of a chassis under a code cannot be a basis for inclusion of the entirety of that code in the derivative list. To the extent BIS elects to entertain this request for inclusion, it should include only those codes under which a chassis is properly classified, while allowing customs enforcement authorities to perform their designated function of monitoring and penalizing misclassification undertaken for duty-avoidance purposes. -Inclusions have no nexus to product. Petitioner proposes inclusion of an HS code that has no discernible nexus to the product it claims to be seeking to add to the steel 232 derivative list. The request proposes inclusion of statistical reporting number 8471.60.9050, suggesting (incorrectly) that this HS code corresponds to "computer units not elsewhe…

View on regulations.gov →
Dec 12, 2025· Public Comment # 13. Information Technology Industry Council (ITI). 10/21/25· BIS-2025-0023-0930

This petitioner is requesting the addition of "steel twist ties" to the list of derivative products subject to the Section 232 steel tariff. The petitioner identifies two HS codes (5609.00.3000 and 8309.90.0080) under which these twist ties are "primarily" imported, but requests the inclusion of several additional HS codes based on a rationale that the Department of Commerce has noted, in the context of a past antidumping investigation (initiated at the request of the same petitioner) that twist ties "may also enter" under these additional codes. This rationale does not provide a sound or justifiable basis for the inclusion of these additional codes in the list of derivative products subject to the Section 232 steel tariff. We request BIS reject this request. As the Department of Commerce will be aware, in antidumping duty investigations, the HS codes used to identify the scope of an order are only for reference; it is the written description of the products that is dispositive. Here, in the Section 232 context, the petitioner is seeking to flip this convention on its head by proposing that all imports covered under all referenced HS codes should become subject to derivative tariffs, irrespective of whether or not the codes contain items other than twist ties. The problem is best illustrated in the case of 3926.90.9989, a statistical reporting number that is a residual ("other/other" or "not elsewhere specified or indicated") category of "articles of plastic." This catch-all code contains numerous miscellaneous products, the essential character of which is their composition from plastic. There is no basis for including so wide a category of non-steel-containing products in the derivatives list. Moreover, it is evident that petitioner is seeking to use this inclusion process as a "short-cut" alternative to seeking additional tariff relief through U.S. trade remedy laws, which provide for USITC and Department of Commerce investigations and associated procedural rules. Indeed, the petitioner appears to justify its inclusion request on an argument that domestic production of twist ties is itself essential to national security, thus divorcing its inclusion request from a nexus to the steel 232 action and seeking to posit a new and separate 232 determination that Commerce has not made (i.e., that imports of twist ties impair U.S. security). We strongly urge BIS to not allow the Section 232 inclusion process to be used in the manner being attempted by petitioner.

View on regulations.gov →
Dec 12, 2025· Public Comment # 330. Information Technology Industry Council (ITI). 10/21/25· BIS-2025-0023-1424

This petitioner is requesting the addition of multiple HS codes to the list of derivative products subject to the Section 232 aluminum tariff. It does so on the basis of an argument that these codes cover articles "largely comprised of aluminum and [that] contain a significant percentage of aluminum as measured by weight and/or cost." The petition provides no substantiation for this statement, however, neither as a general matter nor individually with respect to each of the HS codes proposed for inclusion. This failure to provide any evidence to support a claim of "significant percentage of aluminum content" should alone be a basis for rejection of the proposed inclusions, which cover an expansive range of household and industrial products, including specialized items like replacement parts for semiconductor manufacturing equipment that are necessary to construct and operate chip fabrication facilities. If the proposed list of inclusions is not rejected in its entirety, then BIS should at minimum reject the request to include HS codes that, on their face, bear no relation to aluminum and the description of which belie an argument that they cover products that contain a "significant percentage of aluminum." This is particularly the case for subheading 3926.90.99, which corresponds to a "not elsewhere specified or indicated" or "other/other" category of articles of plastic. Among the products covered by this subheading—under which $8 billion in imports were entered in 2024—are "elastic bands made wholly of plastic," face masks and medical waste containers, and small consumer items made of plastic, such as cases for mobile phones and other consumer electronics.

View on regulations.gov →

Abstract

On February 10, 2025, the President issued Proclamations 10895 “Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into The United States” (Aluminum Proclamation), and 10896 “Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States” (Steel Proclamation), imposing specified rates of duty on imports of aluminum and steel, respectively (collectively, Inclusions Proclamations). The Inclusions Proclamations also required the Secretary of Commerce to establish a process for including additional derivative aluminum and steel articles within the scope of the ad valorem duties. This interim final rule (IFR) establishes the process for including additional derivative aluminum and steel articles within the scope of the ad valorem duties authorized by the President under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (“Section 232”). This IFR also removes the aluminum and steel exclusions process authorized by clause 3 of the March 18, 2018, Presidential Proclamations 9704 and 9705 (collectively, Exclusions Proclamations).

View on regulations.gov →

Co-filers (999)

See everyone who commented →