6 ms·

My first thought was "Are customs officers so stupid that they need to be told this?". But then my second, more cynical though was "Someone, somewhere, will que

by imgabe 10y ago

My first thought was "Are customs officers so stupid that they need to be told this?". But then my second, more cynical though was "Someone, somewhere, will question their methodology in distinguishing a bolt from a screw for some obscure legal purpose (maybe to avoid a tariff on screws that doesn't apply to bolts?) and they need this document to point to in order to explain in a defensible way why they made that distinction".

HillRat 10y ago
Evidently at least one lawsuit prompted the drafting of this semi-august publication. Good government means, in part, consistent and reliable application of rules -- even if it's as minute as the distinction between bolts and screws! This, in my mind, is a very particular example of the general case of good government often being inefficient governance. We are protected against tyranny, in an infinitesimal and indeed ridiculous way, by colorless bureaucrats dedicated to the proposition that every bolt shall be labeled a bolt, and each screw a screw, regardless of the power and wealth of those who might carry them through customs and seek to see them mislabeled. Godspeed, writers of CBP Informed Compliance Publication minutiae, godspeed.
- TheLarch 10y ago
  Perhaps there wasn't a lawsuit, but rather this is an artefact of the organization the created it, in Northcote Parkinson style. That is to say, perhaps Sally, a middle manager in the NAFTA Bureau, Cyclicals Division, Building Materials Department, Fasteners Group, has five reports and each of them plays a vital role. Godspeed, Sally.
  - ajdlinux 10y ago
    There was a lawsuit: "U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) uses the “Specification for Identification of Bolts and Screws,” ANSI - ASME B18.2.1 1981 (the “Specification”) to distinguish bolts from screws.1 In Rocknel Fastener, Inc. v. United States, 24 C.I.T. 900, 118 F.Supp. 2d 1238 (Ct. Int’l. Trade 2000), the Court of International Trade (CIT) sanctioned the use of the Specification for this purpose, stating that it provides a well-recognized, comprehensive basis for the common and commercial meaning of bolt and screw as understood by the fastener industry in the United States. See Id., at 906 and 913, 118 F.Supp. 2d at 1243 and 1249. The standard is full of industry jargon, so to make it easier to use, we have combined it here with illustrations and glossary terms from Fastener Standards 6th Edition, Industrial Fasteners Institute, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, 1988."
    - DannyBee 10y ago
      Yes, and in case anyone wanted to question whether this really came up there, i'll give the relevant paragraphs: "The products at issue in this case consist of a variety of metal fasteners that Rocknel imported from Japan in 1997. The fasteners, which are fabricated from metal alloys, have rod-shaped bodies and hexagonally shaped heads. Their bodies are fully or partially threaded. Rocknel has admitted that the fasteners were designed to be installed in holes of assembled parts and that the fasteners were designed to be tightened or released by turning their heads. ... The Customs Service liquidated the fasteners under subheading 7318.15.80 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Subsequently, Rocknel filed a protest, claiming that the fasteners should have been classified under HTSUS subheading 7318.15.20." (15.80 is screws, 15.20 is bolts) ... "The court concluded that the tariff schedule required that the terms “bolt” and “screw” be given mutually exclusive definitions. ... Because Customs had looked to the ANSI Specification as the source of the definitions of “bolt” and “screw” for tariff classification purposes, and because Rocknel had admitted that under the ANSI Specification the fasteners at issue in this case would be classified as screws and not bolts, the court granted summary judgment to Customs upholding the agency's classification of the fasteners."
    - TheLarch 10y ago
      I secretly thought the diagrams were kind of cool. I'm saddened to learn they were taken from elsewhere.
- mindslight 10y ago
  Consistent and reliable application of rules would preclude creating needlessly complex differentiations between two terms that basically refer to the same thing. The modern inability of an individual to independently and easily interpret the law is violation of equal protection. (IMHO the items described downthread by DannyBee sound like the canonical thing most people picture when they hear "bolt")
  - imgabe 10y ago
    They don't "basically refer to the same thing". They are different items that serve different purposes. They may appear similar from a distance, but go try to hang drywall with some machine bolts, then come back and tell me that they're "basically the same thing".
    - mindslight 10y ago
      Your reasoning implies that one can hang drywall with sheet metal screws, simply by virtue of them being called screws.
      - imgabe 10y ago
        No, it doesn't imply that at all. How do you draw that inference?
        mindslight 10y ago
        You implied that the reason one cannot hang drywall with machine bolts is specifically because they're bolts. If being called bolts vs screws were such a reliable indicator of functionality, then one would expect sheet metal screws to be much better at hanging drywall than say flat head machine bolts. BTW I personally call them machine screws. To me, the difference has more to do with what kind of drive they take, whether they're self-tapping, how big they are, or really just what kind of mood one is in. I'm well aware of many types of threaded fasteners, which is what makes trying for a general formal distinction between bolts and screws seem ridiculous. To me, it seems like more a matter of personal taste and dialect, bureaucrats attempting to force their prescriptions onto the world notwithstanding. Any one definition can capture most of the distinction, but leaves a remainder that's outright wrong. The CBP definition seems intuitively decent until you realize that the same item will be a screw or a bolt depending on the intent of the user. That's exactly the kind of ambiguity that keeps lawyers entrenched and erodes the rule of law. If a welded nut breaks free, does its screw become a bolt? When a nut gets tight enough to not spin on its own, does a bolt change into a screw?
Kadin 10y ago
I suspect there's probably high stakes involved for somebody, at some point in the fastener supply chain, based on whether their product is classified as a "screw" or a "bolt". E.g. there could be different import duties on screws vs. bolts based on the location of manufacture. (I'd hazard a guess that duties on screws are lower, while bolts are higher, because protecting the domestic structural bolt industry was probably viewed as more of a national interest at some point.) There's also some grey area between "screw" and "bolt" particularly when you get into what are conventionally called 'machine screws'. For instance, you can get very large socket cap 'machine screws' that are the size, and could easily serve the purpose of, large hex bolts. The only difference is the use of an internal hex head vs. an external hex, which doesn't matter all that much given modern drivers. It would seem, based on the CBP's definition, that a socket head "screw" of any size would be a screw as long as it's continually threaded, but the moment it has any amount of unthreaded shank, it might be classed as a bolt. So it's not surprising to me that the document exists, although the fact that it does exist hints at the byzantine nature of the Customs system.
- walrus01 10y ago
  Not so much a CBP problem as FAA and civilian lawsuit, but aerospace rated fasteners for large airplanes and space applications are serious business. To the extent that a few bolts for a beechcraft can cost $300 in a little plastic baggie.
mikeash 10y ago
Even with your first point, is the distinction really so obvious? Of course I can think of items which are obviously bolts and not screws, and vice versa, but I can also think of items where I have no idea which way they would be categorized. The document reveals some pretty subtle distinctions. For example, "An externally threaded fastener, which must be assembled with a nut to perform its intended service, is a bolt." But, "An externally threaded fastener, which must be torqued by its head into a tapped or other preformed hole to perform its intended service is a screw." Couldn't the exact same fastener fit either definition depending on the context in which it's intended to be used? And yes, it seems your tariff theory is on point. "STEEL SCREWS AND BOLTS are classified in Chapter 73, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under heading 7318. The tariff has separate provisions for the different types of screws and bolts, and separate provisions for threaded and non-threaded fasteners."
- DrStalker 10y ago
  You're right, I always though my desk was held together with bolts but today I learned it uses screws!
- 4ndr3vv 10y ago
  > Couldn't the exact same fastener fit either definition depending on the context in which it's intended to be used? Nope. The two definitions are mutually exclusive, that's the point! Give me an example when a screw uses a nut. There isn't one, because when a fastener uses a nut, its a bolt! Give me an example when a bolt has a thread that produces from the shaft body. Again, there isnt one, as this would make it a screw.
  - ghshephard 10y ago
    Can you clarify what you mean when you say, " thread that produces from the shaft body. " - I read that phrase over a few times, still not clear what you are saying.
    - 4ndr3vv 10y ago
      Get a pencil, now wrap a piece of string around it. The string protrudes from the pencil "shaft body" as per a screw. Conversely in a bolt, the thread is machined into the shaft; imagine carving the line that the string made into the pencil (so that you are removing rather than adding material) to produce the thread.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by imgabe 10y ago

HillRat 10y ago

Evidently at least one lawsuit prompted the drafting of this semi-august publication. Good government means, in part, consistent and reliable application of rules -- even if it's as minute as the distinction between bolts and screws! This, in my mind, is a very particular example of the general case of good government often being inefficient governance. We are protected against tyranny, in an infinitesimal and indeed ridiculous way, by colorless bureaucrats dedicated to the proposition that every bolt shall be labeled a bolt, and each screw a screw, regardless of the power and wealth of those who might carry them through customs and seek to see them mislabeled. Godspeed, writers of CBP Informed Compliance Publication minutiae, godspeed.

TheLarch 10y ago
Perhaps there wasn't a lawsuit, but rather this is an artefact of the organization the created it, in Northcote Parkinson style. That is to say, perhaps Sally, a middle manager in the NAFTA Bureau, Cyclicals Division, Building Materials Department, Fasteners Group, has five reports and each of them plays a vital role. Godspeed, Sally.
- ajdlinux 10y ago
  There was a lawsuit: "U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) uses the “Specification for Identification of Bolts and Screws,” ANSI - ASME B18.2.1 1981 (the “Specification”) to distinguish bolts from screws.1 In Rocknel Fastener, Inc. v. United States, 24 C.I.T. 900, 118 F.Supp. 2d 1238 (Ct. Int’l. Trade 2000), the Court of International Trade (CIT) sanctioned the use of the Specification for this purpose, stating that it provides a well-recognized, comprehensive basis for the common and commercial meaning of bolt and screw as understood by the fastener industry in the United States. See Id., at 906 and 913, 118 F.Supp. 2d at 1243 and 1249. The standard is full of industry jargon, so to make it easier to use, we have combined it here with illustrations and glossary terms from Fastener Standards 6th Edition, Industrial Fasteners Institute, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, 1988."
  - DannyBee 10y ago
    Yes, and in case anyone wanted to question whether this really came up there, i'll give the relevant paragraphs: "The products at issue in this case consist of a variety of metal fasteners that Rocknel imported from Japan in 1997. The fasteners, which are fabricated from metal alloys, have rod-shaped bodies and hexagonally shaped heads. Their bodies are fully or partially threaded. Rocknel has admitted that the fasteners were designed to be installed in holes of assembled parts and that the fasteners were designed to be tightened or released by turning their heads. ... The Customs Service liquidated the fasteners under subheading 7318.15.80 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Subsequently, Rocknel filed a protest, claiming that the fasteners should have been classified under HTSUS subheading 7318.15.20." (15.80 is screws, 15.20 is bolts) ... "The court concluded that the tariff schedule required that the terms “bolt” and “screw” be given mutually exclusive definitions. ... Because Customs had looked to the ANSI Specification as the source of the definitions of “bolt” and “screw” for tariff classification purposes, and because Rocknel had admitted that under the ANSI Specification the fasteners at issue in this case would be classified as screws and not bolts, the court granted summary judgment to Customs upholding the agency's classification of the fasteners."
  - TheLarch 10y ago
    I secretly thought the diagrams were kind of cool. I'm saddened to learn they were taken from elsewhere.
mindslight 10y ago
Consistent and reliable application of rules would preclude creating needlessly complex differentiations between two terms that basically refer to the same thing. The modern inability of an individual to independently and easily interpret the law is violation of equal protection. (IMHO the items described downthread by DannyBee sound like the canonical thing most people picture when they hear "bolt")
- imgabe 10y ago
  They don't "basically refer to the same thing". They are different items that serve different purposes. They may appear similar from a distance, but go try to hang drywall with some machine bolts, then come back and tell me that they're "basically the same thing".
  - mindslight 10y ago
    Your reasoning implies that one can hang drywall with sheet metal screws, simply by virtue of them being called screws.
    - imgabe 10y ago
      No, it doesn't imply that at all. How do you draw that inference?
      - mindslight 10y ago
        You implied that the reason one cannot hang drywall with machine bolts is specifically because they're bolts. If being called bolts vs screws were such a reliable indicator of functionality, then one would expect sheet metal screws to be much better at hanging drywall than say flat head machine bolts. BTW I personally call them machine screws. To me, the difference has more to do with what kind of drive they take, whether they're self-tapping, how big they are, or really just what kind of mood one is in. I'm well aware of many types of threaded fasteners, which is what makes trying for a general formal distinction between bolts and screws seem ridiculous. To me, it seems like more a matter of personal taste and dialect, bureaucrats attempting to force their prescriptions onto the world notwithstanding. Any one definition can capture most of the distinction, but leaves a remainder that's outright wrong. The CBP definition seems intuitively decent until you realize that the same item will be a screw or a bolt depending on the intent of the user. That's exactly the kind of ambiguity that keeps lawyers entrenched and erodes the rule of law. If a welded nut breaks free, does its screw become a bolt? When a nut gets tight enough to not spin on its own, does a bolt change into a screw?

Kadin 10y ago

I suspect there's probably high stakes involved for somebody, at some point in the fastener supply chain, based on whether their product is classified as a "screw" or a "bolt". E.g. there could be different import duties on screws vs. bolts based on the location of manufacture. (I'd hazard a guess that duties on screws are lower, while bolts are higher, because protecting the domestic structural bolt industry was probably viewed as more of a national interest at some point.) There's also some grey area between "screw" and "bolt" particularly when you get into what are conventionally called 'machine screws'. For instance, you can get very large socket cap 'machine screws' that are the size, and could easily serve the purpose of, large hex bolts. The only difference is the use of an internal hex head vs. an external hex, which doesn't matter all that much given modern drivers. It would seem, based on the CBP's definition, that a socket head "screw" of any size would be a screw as long as it's continually threaded, but the moment it has any amount of unthreaded shank, it might be classed as a bolt. So it's not surprising to me that the document exists, although the fact that it does exist hints at the byzantine nature of the Customs system.

walrus01 10y ago
Not so much a CBP problem as FAA and civilian lawsuit, but aerospace rated fasteners for large airplanes and space applications are serious business. To the extent that a few bolts for a beechcraft can cost $300 in a little plastic baggie.

mikeash 10y ago

Even with your first point, is the distinction really so obvious? Of course I can think of items which are obviously bolts and not screws, and vice versa, but I can also think of items where I have no idea which way they would be categorized. The document reveals some pretty subtle distinctions. For example, "An externally threaded fastener, which must be assembled with a nut to perform its intended service, is a bolt." But, "An externally threaded fastener, which must be torqued by its head into a tapped or other preformed hole to perform its intended service is a screw." Couldn't the exact same fastener fit either definition depending on the context in which it's intended to be used? And yes, it seems your tariff theory is on point. "STEEL SCREWS AND BOLTS are classified in Chapter 73, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under heading 7318. The tariff has separate provisions for the different types of screws and bolts, and separate provisions for threaded and non-threaded fasteners."

DrStalker 10y ago
You're right, I always though my desk was held together with bolts but today I learned it uses screws!
4ndr3vv 10y ago
> Couldn't the exact same fastener fit either definition depending on the context in which it's intended to be used? Nope. The two definitions are mutually exclusive, that's the point! Give me an example when a screw uses a nut. There isn't one, because when a fastener uses a nut, its a bolt! Give me an example when a bolt has a thread that produces from the shaft body. Again, there isnt one, as this would make it a screw.
- ghshephard 10y ago
  Can you clarify what you mean when you say, " thread that produces from the shaft body. " - I read that phrase over a few times, still not clear what you are saying.
  - 4ndr3vv 10y ago
    Get a pencil, now wrap a piece of string around it. The string protrudes from the pencil "shaft body" as per a screw. Conversely in a bolt, the thread is machined into the shaft; imagine carving the line that the string made into the pencil (so that you are removing rather than adding material) to produce the thread.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]