Sample BIS comment letters

We write in response to Federal Register notice 2026-15961 regarding the proposed inclusion of additional derivative articles under Section 232. Our company imports fabricated steel articles and structural steel components classified under HTSUS headings 7326.90 and 7308.90, currently subject to Section 232 at the rate of the annex that lists each code (for example, 50% for Annex I-A structural steel under 7308.90), a 50% rate in effect since June 4, 2025 and applied to the full customs value since April 6, 2026.

While the specific articles named in this notice do not include our primary product lines, we submit this comment to document our existing exposure and to request that any future expansion of derivative-article coverage be accompanied by adequate advance notice, given the lead time our fixed-price contracts with downstream customers require.

We respectfully request that BIS and the Department of Commerce consider a phased effective date for any newly finalized derivative-article inclusions, consistent with the treatment afforded under the April 2, 2026 proclamation's transition provisions.

We submit this comment regarding Federal Register notice 2026-15961's proposal to include aluminum powders (HTSUS 7603.10.0000, powders of non-lamellar structure, the only aluminum powder code the notice names) among the 14 additional Section 232 derivative articles under consideration.

Our business imports aluminum powder for use in industrial coatings and specialty manufacturing processes not readily substitutable with domestic supply on the timeline contemplated by this notice. The proposed 25% Section 232 rate would materially affect the cost basis of downstream products manufactured in the United States using this input.

We ask that BIS specifically evaluate, per the notice's own stated criteria, (iii) the extent to which domestic production of aluminum powder at the purity and particle-size specifications our industry requires can meet domestic demand, and (iv) "the effect on the economy, including domestic industry, if the products are included as derivative articles."

We write regarding the proposed inclusion of parts of hydraulic engines and motors (HTSUS 8412.90.9005, the only hydraulic code the notice names) among the 14 additional Section 232 derivative articles proposed in Federal Register notice 2026-15961.

Our company distributes replacement hydraulic components for agricultural and construction equipment nationwide. A significant share of these parts are single-sourced from suppliers overseas due to OEM design specifications; the proposed 25% duty on full customs value (the basis set by the April 2, 2026 proclamation) would flow directly through to equipment operators, including many small agricultural businesses already facing tight margins.

We request that BIS weigh the volume of these imports against the notice's own topic (ii), "whether imports of the products are of such volume as to undermine national security," and note that hydraulic replacement parts for civilian agricultural and construction equipment are not, in our view, plausibly connected to that standard.

We submit this comment regarding Federal Register notice 2026-15961's proposal to include brass-wind musical instruments and parts (HTSUS 9205.10.0000, which the current HTS splits into 9205.10.00.40 and 9205.10.00.80, and parts under 9209.99.4080) among the 14 additional Section 232 derivative articles under consideration.

Our company imports brass-wind instruments — trumpets, trombones, and euphoniums — along with replacement parts, primarily for school band programs and independent music retailers nationwide. A 25% duty layered on top of existing input costs would fall most heavily on public-school music programs already operating on constrained budgets, and on independent retailers who cannot absorb margin compression the way larger national chains can.

We respectfully urge the Bureau to consider, per the notice's own topic (ii), "whether imports of the products are of such volume as to undermine national security," whether finished brass-wind instruments and their replacement parts bear a plausible relationship to that standard, and to weigh the downstream impact on public education budgets before finalizing this article's inclusion.

We write regarding Federal Register notice 2026-15961's proposed inclusion of fire extinguishers, charged or not (HTSUS 8424.10.0000), among the 14 additional Section 232 derivative articles under consideration.

Our company distributes portable and wheeled fire extinguishers to commercial property managers, contractors, and municipal fire-code compliance customers across several states. These units are life-safety equipment subject to NFPA and local fire-code mandatory-stocking requirements; a 25% duty would raise the cost of legally required safety equipment for the building owners and municipalities that must purchase it by code, with no substitute domestic supply currently able to meet volume at the specifications our customers' code compliance requires.

We respectfully request that BIS evaluate, per the notice's own criterion (iii), the extent to which domestic fire-extinguisher manufacturing can meet nationwide code-compliance demand on the timeline this notice contemplates, given that fire-code-mandated equipment shortages carry public-safety consequences distinct from ordinary consumer-goods tariff impacts.

We submit this comment on Federal Register notice 2026-15961's proposal to include parts of welding machines and apparatus (HTSUS 8515.90.2000) among the 14 additional Section 232 derivative articles under consideration.

Our company imports replacement parts for MIG, TIG, and arc welding equipment used by fabrication shops, contractors, and trade schools. Many of these parts are OEM-specific and single-sourced from the original equipment manufacturer overseas; a 25% duty on top of existing costs would directly raise the cost of maintaining welding equipment already in service across the domestic fabrication and construction trades that Section 232's steel and aluminum actions were intended to support.

We ask that BIS weigh, per the notice's own topic (iv), "the effect on the economy, including domestic industry, if the products are included as derivative articles" — welding-equipment downtime caused by delayed or costlier replacement parts affects the same domestic fabrication shops that benefit from the underlying steel and aluminum tariffs, and we respectfully urge the Bureau to consider whether taxing the tools of that trade works against the policy's own stated purpose.

We write regarding Federal Register notice 2026-15961's proposal to include other self-propelled cranes and mobile lifting frames (HTSUS 8426.41.0090) among the 14 additional Section 232 derivative articles under consideration.

Our company distributes self-propelled cranes and mobile lifting equipment to construction contractors and equipment rental fleets. These are high-value capital equipment purchases with long replacement cycles and few readily substitutable domestic sources at the capacity classes our customers require; a 25% duty added on top of the existing full-customs-value basis established by the April 2, 2026 proclamation would materially raise the cost of construction-fleet capital equipment at a time when several federally funded infrastructure projects are already underway on fixed budgets.

We respectfully request that BIS evaluate, per the notice's own topic (ii), "whether imports of the products are of such volume as to undermine national security," for this specific equipment class, and separately consider a longer transition period for capital-equipment purchase orders already committed under existing contracts before this notice was published.

We write regarding Federal Register notice 2026-15961's proposal to include filled steel containers — steel cylinders, reservoirs and tanks of headings 7310 and 7311 imported filled with gases or chemicals of HTSUS headings 2711, 2804 or 2901 — among the 14 additional Section 232 derivative articles under consideration.

Our company imports filled steel gas cylinders and pressure tanks for industrial and medical gas distribution. Empty cylinders and tanks of headings 7310 and 7311 are already on Annex I-A at 50%, but when they enter filled, the entry is classified by its contents and the container has generally not carried that duty. The notice proposes 50% Section 232 duty on the value of the container only (not the gas it holds) for these filled imports, a new cost for an industry that supplies compressed medical and industrial gases many hospitals and manufacturers depend on.

We respectfully urge the Bureau to account for this new cost directly in its cost-benefit analysis — per the notice's own criterion (iii), whether domestic production of filled steel containers at the volumes and specifications our industry requires can meet demand — and to specifically evaluate whether medical-gas-adjacent supply chains warrant a narrower exemption given the public-health stakes involved.