Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning Stereoscopic Display Models, 23479-23482 [E8-9340]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 84 / Wednesday, April 30, 2008 / Notices
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques, or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Overview of this information
collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection:
Extension of a currently approved
information collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection:
Special Immigrant Visas for Fourth
Preference Employment-Based
Broadcasters.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and
the applicable component of the
Department of Homeland Security
sponsoring the collection: No Agency
Form Number (File No. OMB–25); U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(4) Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract: Primary: Individuals or
Households. The information collected
via the submitted supplemental
documentation (as contained in 8 CFR
204.13(d)) will be used by the USCIS to
determine eligibility for the requested
classification as fourth preference
employment-based immigrant
broadcasters.
(5) An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: 100 responses at 2 hours per
response.
(6) An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: 200 annual burden hours.
If you have additional comments,
suggestions, or need a copy of the
information collection instrument,
please visit: https://www.regulations.gov/
search/index.jsp.
We may also be contacted at: USCIS,
Regulatory Management Division, 111
Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Suite
3008, Washington, DC 20529, telephone
number 202–272–8377.
Dated: April 25, 2008.
Stephen Tarragon,
Acting Chief, Regulatory Management
Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E8–9496 Filed 4–29–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–97–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:09 Apr 29, 2008
Jkt 214001
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Bureau of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection
Notice of Issuance of Final
Determination Concerning
Stereoscopic Display Models
U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice of final determination.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document provides
notice that the Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) has issued a
final determination concerning the
country of origin of certain stereoscopic
display models to be offered to the
United States Government under an
undesignated government procurement
contract. CBP has concluded that, based
upon the facts presented, the operations
performed in the United States result in
a substantial transformation of the
goods. Therefore, the country of origin
of the stereoscopic display models is the
United States for purposes of U.S.
Government procurement.
DATE: The final determination was
issued on April 23, 2008. A copy of the
final determination is attached. Any
party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR
177.22(d), may seek judicial review of
this final determination within 30 days
of April 30, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karen Greene, Valuation and Special
Programs Branch, Regulations and
Rulings, Office of International Trade
(202–572–8838).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given that on April 23, 2008,
pursuant to subpart B of part 177,
Customs Regulations (19 CFR part 177,
subpart B), CBP issued a final
determination concerning the country of
origin of certain stereoscopic display
models to be offered to the United States
Government under an undesignated
government procurement contract. The
CBP ruling number is HQ H015324.
This final determination was issued at
the request of Planar Systems, Inc.
under procedures set forth at 19 CFR
part 177, subpart B, which implements
Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of
1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511–18).
In the final determination, CBP
concluded that, based upon the facts
presented, the operations performed in
the United States resulted in a
substantial transformation of the goods.
Therefore, the stereoscopic display
models are products of the United
States.
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
23479
Section 177.29, Customs Regulations
(19 CFR 177.29), provides that notice of
final determinations shall be published
in the Federal Register within 60 days
of the date the final determination is
issued. Section 177.30, CBP Regulations
(19 CFR 177.30), provides that any
party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR
177.22(d), may seek judicial review of a
final determination within 30 days of
publication of such determination in the
Federal Register.
Dated: April 23, 2008.
Sandra L. Bell,
Executive Director, Office of Regulations and
Rulings, Office of International Trade.
Attachment:
HQ H015324
April 23, 2008.
MAR–2–05 OT:RR:CTF:VS H015324 HEF
Category: Marking
Mr. Harold Paul Luks, Poliner & Luks LLP,
1300 19th Street, NW., Suite 401,
Washington, DC 20036.
RE: U.S. Government Procurement; Final
Determination; country of origin of
stereoscopic displays; substantial
transformation; 19 CFR part 177
Dear Mr. Luks:
This is in response to your letter dated
August 2, 2007, requesting a final
determination on behalf of Planar Systems,
Inc. (‘‘Planar’’), pursuant to subpart B of part
177, Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
Regulations (19 CFR 177.21 et seq.). Under
these regulations, which implement Title III
of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.), CBP issues
country of origin advisory rulings and final
determinations on whether an article is or
would be a product of a designated country
or instrumentality for the purpose of granting
waivers of certain ‘‘Buy American’’
restrictions in U.S. law or practice for
products offered for sale to the U.S.
Government.
This final determination concerns the
country of origin of certain stereoscopic
displays. We note that Planar is a party-atinterest within the meaning of 19 CFR
177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this
final determination. Confidential treatment
for certain business information identified in
your request for a final determination will be
extended in accordance with your request.
Photographs of the manufacturing process
were also submitted with your request. In
preparing this final determination,
consideration was given to your
supplemental submissions dated August 23,
2007; September 25, 2007; November 9, 2007;
November 13, 2007; and January 2, 2008.
Facts
The products subject to this final
determination are stereoscopic display
models, which, you explain, create threedimensional digital images of video output
by a computer or other stereoscopic video
source. The stereoscopic display models and
their key components were designed and
developed in the United States through the
use of Planar’s proprietary StereoMirrorTM
technology. You advise that the stereoscopic
E:\FR\FM\30APN1.SGM
30APN1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
23480
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 84 / Wednesday, April 30, 2008 / Notices
display models are used in a variety of
applications where two-dimensional images
are insufficient because of the lack of depth
and position, including: photogrammetry,
intelligence, and environmental applications;
remote vehicle operations; medical imaging;
complex modeling/visualization
applications; and three-dimensional
simulations for gaming and situational
training.
The two models that are the subject of your
request are the SD2020 and the SD2320W.
The SD2020 model incorporates two 20-inch
LCD monitors, and the SD2320W model
incorporates two 23-inch wide-format LCD
monitors. The SD2020 model has a total of
240 parts, and the SD2320W model has a
total of 238 parts. You describe the
configuration of the stereoscopic display
models as follows.
The two LCD monitors are mounted in a
custom-made stand in an up/down
configuration at a 110° angle. A special
beamsplitter mirror is mounted at the
bisecting angle between the two monitors.
The stand is manufactured so that the two
images are aligned as if looking at one
monitor. A graphics card in the computer
transmits/outputs right eye and left eye video
separately. The left eye image is sent to the
lower monitor. Because the right eye image
is reflected by the beamsplitter, the right eye
image is sent through a custom-designed and
manufactured mirror-flip PCI card (included
with the system) that reverses the image
before it is sent to the top monitor. The user
of the SD system wears passive polarizing
glasses provided with the system that enable
each eye to see only the image from one of
the monitors (i.e., the glasses block the right
eye from seeing the image on the lower
monitor and block the left eye from seeing
the image on the top monitor). Thus, the two
images appear to the user as a fused
stereoscopic three-dimensional image.
Planar procures the LCD monitors and
beamsplitter mirrors from foreign vendors
and imports the articles to the United States.
The LCD monitors originate in either China
or Taiwan, and the mirrors are of either
Japanese or German origin. You note that the
beamsplitter mirror is custom manufactured
to Planar’s specifications and has no other
function apart from its use in the display.
Planar sends one of the LCD monitors to
a third-party in the United States for an
optical transformation process. Pursuant to
your request, we are according confidential
treatment to the specific details of this
process. However, you provide the following
non-confidential summary of the process:
Planar Systems requires that the
polarization orientation of light emitted from
the monitor be effectively rotated 90°. This
complex process requires the careful removal
and replacement of optical films on both the
liquid crystal display panel and the backlight
film stack. Specialized machines operated by
experienced and trained technicians in cleanroom, ESD [electrostatic discharge]-protected
environments are required to complete these
changes in a non-destructive manner.
Your submission also relates that this
process requires five days to complete and is
of such a complex nature that Planar is not
capable of performing it in-house, despite
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:09 Apr 29, 2008
Jkt 214001
twenty-four years of display manufacturing
experience. Upon completion of the process,
the LCD monitor is reassembled, tested for
functionality, packaged, and returned to
Planar.
You explain that the stereoscopic display’s
mirror flip card acts to ‘‘flip’’ the image for
the user’s right eye, so that the image is
accurate when reflected in the beamsplitter
mirror. In order to achieve this capability,
Planar designed a special electronic circuit
board to mirror the digital visual interface
(‘‘DVI’’) video input content, one row at a
time, and output the reversed video to the
top monitor of the stereoscopic display. The
mirror flip card is manufactured in the
United States by two companies, in
accordance with the specifications and
directions provided by Planar. The first
company manufactures a four-layer printed
circuit board (‘‘PCB’’). You explain that each
layer of the PCB is built of a copper clad,
which consists of an insulating substrate and
a layer of copper of a specified thickness.
Each layer of the copper clad is etched to
remove unwanted copper to reveal the trace
and contacts for the circuitry. The four layers
are then aligned and laminated together to
form a single substrate. Next, holes are milled
for components and hardware. Then, the
holes are ‘‘seeded’’ and plated. The PCB is
silk-screened with a solder mask and
reference designators and routered to the
specific board dimensions. Finally, the PCB
is tested and packaged before being shipped
to the second company. At the second
company’s U.S. facility, the PCB will be
assembled with the remaining components of
the mirror flip card. First, the PCB is silkscreened with a solder paste to leave a thin
layer of solder on specific pads for the
remaining components. Automated
equipment places some of the parts on the
PCB. You describe the process as iterative, as
it may require several attempts to achieve the
proper placement. Parts that the machine
cannot place are placed by hand. Then, the
populated PCB is soldered in an infrared
reflow machine that passes the circuit under
an infrared light source with a programmed
time and temperature file. The PCB is
manually ‘‘stuffed’’ with the remaining
components like the DVI and power
connectors. Then, the PCB is passed through
a wave solder machine to solder these parts.
Finally, the completed mirror flip card is
tested for functionality before being packaged
and shipped to Planar.
As the components arrive at Planar’s U.S.
facility, they are inspected to determine
compliance with their respective
specifications. After three shipments are
received, fully inspected, and found to be in
compliance, the part number and vendor are
approved for random lot inspections. If a
problem arises, the full inspection process
will be reinstated until another three
shipments are found to be without faults.
After inspection, technicians assemble the
stereoscopic displays in accordance with the
company’s detailed work instructions. First,
a technician creates a ‘‘Build Setup’’ profile
in a Lotus database designed to track
inventory and production and assigns a serial
number to the unit. The lower and upper
monitor assemblies are assembled by
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
removing the accompanying stands from the
LCD monitors, attaching and routing the DVI
cables, and securing the monitors with
screws to a custom-made U.S.-origin stand.
Then, a support for the mirror is attached to
the lower monitor assembly. In total, the
upper monitor assembly consists of 12 parts
and the lower monitor assembly consists of
16 parts. Next, the mirror assembly is
manufactured by assembling the mirror frame
with protective gaskets and screws,
inspecting the mirror panel with a ‘‘glass
defect guide template,’’ inserting the
beamsplitter mirror into the frame, and
affixing the mirror assembly to the mirror
support on the display stand. The assembly
of the mirror involves 29 parts. Assembly of
the stereoscopic display is completed by the
attachment of the upper monitor assembly to
the lower monitor assembly with alignment
pins and screws.
A software test file is used to align the
system and the mirror is adjusted until it
achieves a one-pixel tolerance for a normal
viewing angle and a three-pixel tolerance for
a view from the left or right edges of the
mirror. The technicians ensure that the
beamsplitter is precisely positioned at a
bisecting angle between the two monitors to
prevent loss or confusion of the stereoscopic
image. You advise that even a small
misalignment may cause users to experience
headaches, eye fatigue, nausea or other
discomfort. The alignment process may
require up to 90 minutes to ensure accurate
and precise alignment and co-planarity of the
stereoscopic images.
After assembly and alignment, the display
undergoes testing and quality assurance
processes to ensure its proper performance.
The displays are also examined for pixel
defects, and the mirror and stand are
inspected for cosmetic defects. Finally, the
display is packaged with the mirror flip card,
a user manual, and U.S.-origin polarized
glasses and cables. The final product is then
shipped to the U.S. customer. You advise
that the production of each unit requires
approximately 135 minutes of work by a
skilled Planar technician. You also attest that
the processing and assembly operations
performed in the United States add
significant value to the product, as Planar’s
customers will pay a premium of up to ten
times the cost of a standard LCD monitor to
obtain the three-dimensional display
capability of Planar’s stereoscopic display
models.
Issue
What is the country of origin of the
stereoscopic display models for purposes of
U.S. Government procurement?
Law and Analysis
Pursuant to subpart B of part 177, 19 CFR
177.21 et seq., which implements Title III of
the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.), CBP issues
country of origin advisory rulings and final
determinations on whether an article is or
would be a product of a designated country
or instrumentality for the purposes of
granting waivers of certain ‘‘Buy American’’
restrictions in U.S. law or practice for
products offered for sale to the U.S.
Government.
E:\FR\FM\30APN1.SGM
30APN1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 84 / Wednesday, April 30, 2008 / Notices
Under the rule of origin set forth at 19
U.S.C. 2518(4)(B):
An article is a product of a country or
instrumentality only if (i) it is wholly the
growth, product, or manufacture of that
country or instrumentality, or (ii) in the case
of an article which consists in whole or in
part of materials from another country or
instrumentality, it has been substantially
transformed into a new and different article
of commerce with a name, character, or use
distinct from that of the article or articles
from which it was so transformed.
See also, 19 CFR 177.22(a).
In rendering advisory rulings and final
determinations for purposes of U.S.
Government procurement, CBP applies the
provisions of subpart B of Part 177 consistent
with the Federal Procurement Regulations.
See 19 CFR 177.21. In this regard, CBP
recognizes that the Federal Procurement
Regulations restrict the U.S. Government’s
purchase of products to U.S.-made or
designated country end products for
acquisitions subject to the TAA. See 48 CFR
25.403(c)(1). The Federal Procurement
Regulations define ‘‘U.S.-made end product’’
as:
* * * an article that is mined, produced,
or manufactured in the United States or that
is substantially transformed in the United
States into a new and different article of
commerce with a name, character, or use
distinct from that of the article or articles
from which it was transformed.
48 CFR 25.003
Therefore, the question presented in this
final determination is whether, as a result of
the operations performed in the United
States, the stereoscopic display models are
substantially transformed into products of
the United States.
In determining whether the combining of
parts or materials constitutes a substantial
transformation, the determinative issue is the
extent of operations performed and whether
the parts lose their identity and become an
integral part of the new article. Belcrest
Linens v. United States, 6 Ct. Int’l Trade 204,
573 F. Supp. 1149 (1983), aff’d, 741 F.2d
1368 (Fed. Cir. 1984). If the manufacturing or
combining process is a minor one which
leaves the identity of the imported article
intact, a substantial transformation has not
occurred. Uniroyal Inc. v. United States, 3 Ct.
Int’l Trade 220, 542 F. Supp. 1026 (1982).
Assembly operations that are minimal or
simple, as opposed to complex or
meaningful, will generally not result in a
substantial transformation. See C.S.D. 80–
111, C.S.D. 85–25, and C.S.D. 90–97.
In C.S.D. 85–25, 19 Cust. Bull. 844 (1985),
Headquarters Ruling Letter (‘‘HRL’’) 071827,
dated September 25, 1984, CBP determined
that assembly of a large number of fabricated
components onto a circuit board resulted in
a substantial transformation of the
constituent components for purposes of the
Generalized System of Preferences program.
In that decision, CBP stated that an assembly
process would not constitute a substantial
transformation unless the operation is
‘‘complex and meaningful.’’ Whether an
operation is complex and meaningful
depends on the nature of the operation,
including the number of components
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:09 Apr 29, 2008
Jkt 214001
assembled, number of different operations,
time, skill level required, attention to detail,
quality control, the value added to the article,
and the overall employment generated by the
manufacturing process.
CBP has considered the issue of whether
the processing and assembly of electronic
components into a finished article results in
a substantial transformation on a number of
occasions. In another final determination,
HRL 735315, dated April 10, 1995, CBP held
that the country of origin of optical
spectroscopy instrument (‘‘OSI’’) systems
was the United States for purposes of U.S.
Government procurement. Each system had
three essential elements: A controlling
computer, an optics module, and an output
device such as a printer. The optics module
shell and its related components were
imported from Australia. At the U.S.
customer site, U.S.-origin printed wiring
board assemblies (‘‘PWBs’’) were integrated
into the shells to create a finished optics
module. The PWBs were necessary for the
control and operation of the optics module.
Then, the module was further assembled
with a U.S.-origin controlling computer and
printer to create the OSI system. CBP found
that the assembly of the PWBs and other
components into the optics module shell
constituted a complex and meaningful
assembly and was sufficient to substantially
transform the optics module into a product
of the United States. As the other
components of the OSI system were products
of the United States, CBP held that their
incorporation with the optics module
rendered the OSI system a product of the
United States.
In HRL 734213, dated February 20, 1992,
CBP held that the conversion of an imported
computer monitor into a touchscreen monitor
in the United States constituted a substantial
transformation of the imported monitor for
country of origin marking purposes. To create
the touchscreen monitor, the imported
monitor was tested, a power plug was
installed, and the cathode ray tube was
removed. The bucket, swivel base, and front
plastic bezel of the monitor were also
removed and painted. Then, a transorb board
and the touchscreen were installed. The
touchscreen underwent testing and
alignment by skilled technicians. Then, the
monitor was reassembled, tested, and packed
for shipment. CBP found that the touchscreen
capability of the finished product was not
just a simple enhancement of the monitor,
but rather a significant change in its very
nature, which resulted in the monitor having
a new use as an interface device for a blood
analyzer unit.
By contrast, assembly operations that are
minimal or simple will generally not result
in a substantial transformation. For example,
in HRL 734050, dated June 17, 1991, CBP
determined that Japanese-origin components
were not substantially transformed in China
when assembled in that country to form
finished printers. The printers consisted of
five main components identified as the
‘‘head,’’ ‘‘mechanism,’’ ‘‘circuit,’’ ‘‘power
source,’’ and ‘‘outer case.’’ The circuit, power
source and outer case units were entirely
assembled or molded in Japan. The head and
mechanical units were made in Japan but
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
23481
exported to China in an unassembled state.
All five units were exported to China, where
the head and mechanical units were
assembled with screws and screwdrivers.
Thereafter, the head, mechanism, circuit, and
power source units were mounted onto the
outer case with screws and screwdrivers. In
holding that the country of origin of the
assembled printers was Japan, CBP
recognized that the vast majority of the
printers’ parts were of Japanese origin and
that the operations performed in China were
relatively simple assembly operations.
In order to determine whether a substantial
transformation occurs when components of
various origins are assembled to form
completed articles, CBP considers the totality
of the circumstances and makes such
decisions on a case-by-case basis. The
country of origin of the article’s components,
the extent of the processing that occurs
within a given country, and whether such
processing renders a product with a new
name, character, or use are primary
considerations in such cases. Additionally,
facts such as resources expended on product
design and development, extent and nature
of post-assembly inspection procedures, and
worker skill required during the actual
manufacturing process will be considered
when analyzing whether a substantial
transformation has occurred; however, no
one such factor is determinative.
Based on the facts provided in the instant
case, we find that the processing and
assembly operations performed in the United
States result in a substantial transformation
of the imported LCD monitors and the
beamsplitter mirror into a product with a
new name, character, and use. In support of
this determination, we note that one LCD is
subjected to significant further processing in
the United States. Specifically, we find that
the polarization process performed in the
United States changes the essential character
of the LCD, as the polarization feature of the
LCD imparts the stereoscopic functionality to
the entire system. In addition, the assembly,
testing, and alignment of the two LCD
monitors and the beamsplitter mirror to form
the stereoscopic display require a significant
amount of time and precision by skilled
technicians. Consequently, we find these
operations to be complex and meaningful.
You explain that neither the LCD monitors
nor the beamsplitter mirror can generate a
three-dimensional image until they are
integrated with the remaining components of
the finished stereoscopic display model.
Although the mirror flip card and goggles are
necessary for the proper operation of the
stereoscopic display model, they are not
integrated into the display at Planar’s facility.
Similar to the PWBs in HRL 735315, supra,
the mirror flip card is integrated into the
display at the U.S. customer site, and the
goggles will be worn by the customer during
the operation of the model. As these
components are of U.S. origin, we find that
their incorporation and use with the
stereoscopic display render the entire model
a product of the United States.
Holding:
Based upon the facts provided, we find
that the processing and assembly operations
performed in the United States constitute a
E:\FR\FM\30APN1.SGM
30APN1
23482
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 84 / Wednesday, April 30, 2008 / Notices
substantial transformation of the foreignorigin components. Therefore, the country of
origin of the stereoscopic display models is
the United States for purposes of U.S.
Government procurement.
Notice of this final determination will be
given in the Federal Register as required by
19 CFR 177.29. Any party-at-interest other
than the party which requested this final
determination may request, pursuant to 19
CFR 177.31, that CBP reexamine the matter
anew and issue a new final determination.
Any party-at-interest may, within 30 days
after publication of the Federal Register
notice referenced above, seek judicial review
of this final determination before the Court
of International Trade.
Sincerely,
Sandra L. Bell,
Executive Director, Office of Regulations and
Rulings, Office of International Trade.
[FR Doc. E8–9340 Filed 4–29–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–14–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR–5191–N–10]
Notice of Proposed Information
Collection: Comment Request;
Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure
Requirements
Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Housing, HUD.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The proposed information
collection requirement described below
will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act. The Department is
soliciting public comments on the
subject proposal.
DATES: Comments Due Date: June 30,
2008.
Interested persons are
invited to submit comments regarding
this proposal. Comments should refer to
the proposal by name and/or OMB
Control Number and should be sent to:
Lillian Deitzer, Departmental Reports
Management Officer, QDAM,
Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 7th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20410; e-mail
Lillian_L._Deitzer@HUD.gov or
telephone (202)402–8048.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivy
Jackson., Director, Office of RESPA and
Interstate Land Sales, Housing and
Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202)
708–0502 (this is not a toll free number)
for copies of the proposed forms and
other available information.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:09 Apr 29, 2008
Jkt 214001
The
Department is submitting the proposed
information collection to OMB for
review, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments
from members of the public and affected
agencies concerning the proposed
collection of information to: (1) Evaluate
whether the proposed collection is
necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) Evaluate the
accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of
information; (3) Enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (4) Minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on those who are to respond; including
the use of appropriate automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
This Notice also lists the following
information:
Title of Proposal: Interstate Land
Sales Full Disclosure Requirements.
OMB Control Number, if applicable:
2502–0243.
Description of the need for the
information and proposed use: Nonexempt Developers are required by the
Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure
Act to register with HUD and provide
purchasers with a property report. The
information is used to determine the
accuracy of the disclosures in the
property report. Developers are required
to submit an annual report and annual
financial statements. HUD investigates
developers who do not comply with the
regulations.
Agency form numbers, if applicable:
n/a.
Estimation of the total numbers of
hours needed to prepare the information
collection including number of
respondents, frequency of response, and
hours of response: The number of
burden hours is 34,653. The number of
respondents is 1011, the number of
responses is 113,997, the frequency of
response is on occasion, and the burden
hour per response is 117.
Status of the proposed information
collection: This is a previously
approved collection.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: April 22, 2008.
Frank L. Davis,
General Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Housing-Deputy Federal Housing
Commissioner.
[FR Doc. E8–9390 Filed 4–29–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
[Docket No. FR–5187–N–25]
Notice of Submission of Proposed
Information Collection to OMB;
Emergency Comment Request; HOME
Program Competitive Reallocation of
Funds; Notice of Proposed Information
Collection for Public Comment
Office of the Chief Information
Officer, HUD.
ACTION: Notice of proposed information
collection.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The proposed information
collection requirement described below
has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
emergency review and approval, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act. The Department is soliciting public
comments on the subject proposal.
DATES: Comments Due Date: May 7,
2008.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit comments regarding
this proposal. Comments must be
received within seven (7) days from the
date of this Notice. Comments should
refer to the proposal by name/or OMB
approval number) and should be sent to:
HUD Desk Officer, Office of
Management and Budget, New
Executive Office Building, Washington,
DC 20503; fax: (202) 395–6974.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lillian Deitzer, Reports Management
Officer, AYO, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, 451 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; email: Lillian.L.Deitzer@hud.gov;
telephone (202) 402–8048. This is not a
toll-free number. Copies of available
documents submitted to OMB may be
obtained from Ms. Deitzer.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
Notice informs the public that the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) has submitted to
OMB, for emergency processing, a
proposed information collection for
selecting applicants for the HOME
Investment Partnerships Program
(HOME) Competitive Reallocation of
Funds to Provide for Energy-Efficient
and Environmentally-Friendly (Green)
Community Housing Development
E:\FR\FM\30APN1.SGM
30APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 84 (Wednesday, April 30, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23479-23482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-9340]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Bureau of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning Stereoscopic
Display Models
AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice of final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document provides notice that the Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) has issued a final determination concerning the
country of origin of certain stereoscopic display models to be offered
to the United States Government under an undesignated government
procurement contract. CBP has concluded that, based upon the facts
presented, the operations performed in the United States result in a
substantial transformation of the goods. Therefore, the country of
origin of the stereoscopic display models is the United States for
purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
DATE: The final determination was issued on April 23, 2008. A copy of
the final determination is attached. Any party-at-interest, as defined
in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of this final
determination within 30 days of April 30, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Greene, Valuation and Special
Programs Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade
(202-572-8838).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that on April 23,
2008, pursuant to subpart B of part 177, Customs Regulations (19 CFR
part 177, subpart B), CBP issued a final determination concerning the
country of origin of certain stereoscopic display models to be offered
to the United States Government under an undesignated government
procurement contract. The CBP ruling number is HQ H015324. This final
determination was issued at the request of Planar Systems, Inc. under
procedures set forth at 19 CFR part 177, subpart B, which implements
Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C.
2511-18).
In the final determination, CBP concluded that, based upon the
facts presented, the operations performed in the United States resulted
in a substantial transformation of the goods. Therefore, the
stereoscopic display models are products of the United States.
Section 177.29, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 177.29), provides that
notice of final determinations shall be published in the Federal
Register within 60 days of the date the final determination is issued.
Section 177.30, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.30), provides that any
party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial
review of a final determination within 30 days of publication of such
determination in the Federal Register.
Dated: April 23, 2008.
Sandra L. Bell,
Executive Director, Office of Regulations and Rulings, Office of
International Trade.
Attachment:
HQ H015324
April 23, 2008.
MAR-2-05 OT:RR:CTF:VS H015324 HEF
Category: Marking
Mr. Harold Paul Luks, Poliner & Luks LLP, 1300 19th Street, NW.,
Suite 401, Washington, DC 20036.
RE: U.S. Government Procurement; Final Determination; country of
origin of stereoscopic displays; substantial transformation; 19 CFR
part 177
Dear Mr. Luks:
This is in response to your letter dated August 2, 2007,
requesting a final determination on behalf of Planar Systems, Inc.
(``Planar''), pursuant to subpart B of part 177, Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') Regulations (19 CFR 177.21 et seq.). Under
these regulations, which implement Title III of the Trade Agreements
Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.), CBP issues country
of origin advisory rulings and final determinations on whether an
article is or would be a product of a designated country or
instrumentality for the purpose of granting waivers of certain ``Buy
American'' restrictions in U.S. law or practice for products offered
for sale to the U.S. Government.
This final determination concerns the country of origin of
certain stereoscopic displays. We note that Planar is a party-at-
interest within the meaning of 19 CFR 177.22(d)(1) and is entitled
to request this final determination. Confidential treatment for
certain business information identified in your request for a final
determination will be extended in accordance with your request.
Photographs of the manufacturing process were also submitted with
your request. In preparing this final determination, consideration
was given to your supplemental submissions dated August 23, 2007;
September 25, 2007; November 9, 2007; November 13, 2007; and January
2, 2008.
Facts
The products subject to this final determination are
stereoscopic display models, which, you explain, create three-
dimensional digital images of video output by a computer or other
stereoscopic video source. The stereoscopic display models and their
key components were designed and developed in the United States
through the use of Planar's proprietary StereoMirror\TM\ technology.
You advise that the stereoscopic
[[Page 23480]]
display models are used in a variety of applications where two-
dimensional images are insufficient because of the lack of depth and
position, including: photogrammetry, intelligence, and environmental
applications; remote vehicle operations; medical imaging; complex
modeling/visualization applications; and three-dimensional
simulations for gaming and situational training.
The two models that are the subject of your request are the
SD2020 and the SD2320W. The SD2020 model incorporates two 20-inch
LCD monitors, and the SD2320W model incorporates two 23-inch wide-
format LCD monitors. The SD2020 model has a total of 240 parts, and
the SD2320W model has a total of 238 parts. You describe the
configuration of the stereoscopic display models as follows.
The two LCD monitors are mounted in a custom-made stand in an
up/down configuration at a 110[deg] angle. A special beamsplitter
mirror is mounted at the bisecting angle between the two monitors.
The stand is manufactured so that the two images are aligned as if
looking at one monitor. A graphics card in the computer transmits/
outputs right eye and left eye video separately. The left eye image
is sent to the lower monitor. Because the right eye image is
reflected by the beamsplitter, the right eye image is sent through a
custom-designed and manufactured mirror-flip PCI card (included with
the system) that reverses the image before it is sent to the top
monitor. The user of the SD system wears passive polarizing glasses
provided with the system that enable each eye to see only the image
from one of the monitors (i.e., the glasses block the right eye from
seeing the image on the lower monitor and block the left eye from
seeing the image on the top monitor). Thus, the two images appear to
the user as a fused stereoscopic three-dimensional image.
Planar procures the LCD monitors and beamsplitter mirrors from
foreign vendors and imports the articles to the United States. The
LCD monitors originate in either China or Taiwan, and the mirrors
are of either Japanese or German origin. You note that the
beamsplitter mirror is custom manufactured to Planar's
specifications and has no other function apart from its use in the
display.
Planar sends one of the LCD monitors to a third-party in the
United States for an optical transformation process. Pursuant to
your request, we are according confidential treatment to the
specific details of this process. However, you provide the following
non-confidential summary of the process:
Planar Systems requires that the polarization orientation of
light emitted from the monitor be effectively rotated 90[deg]. This
complex process requires the careful removal and replacement of
optical films on both the liquid crystal display panel and the
backlight film stack. Specialized machines operated by experienced
and trained technicians in clean-room, ESD [electrostatic
discharge]-protected environments are required to complete these
changes in a non-destructive manner.
Your submission also relates that this process requires five
days to complete and is of such a complex nature that Planar is not
capable of performing it in-house, despite twenty-four years of
display manufacturing experience. Upon completion of the process,
the LCD monitor is reassembled, tested for functionality, packaged,
and returned to Planar.
You explain that the stereoscopic display's mirror flip card
acts to ``flip'' the image for the user's right eye, so that the
image is accurate when reflected in the beamsplitter mirror. In
order to achieve this capability, Planar designed a special
electronic circuit board to mirror the digital visual interface
(``DVI'') video input content, one row at a time, and output the
reversed video to the top monitor of the stereoscopic display. The
mirror flip card is manufactured in the United States by two
companies, in accordance with the specifications and directions
provided by Planar. The first company manufactures a four-layer
printed circuit board (``PCB''). You explain that each layer of the
PCB is built of a copper clad, which consists of an insulating
substrate and a layer of copper of a specified thickness. Each layer
of the copper clad is etched to remove unwanted copper to reveal the
trace and contacts for the circuitry. The four layers are then
aligned and laminated together to form a single substrate. Next,
holes are milled for components and hardware. Then, the holes are
``seeded'' and plated. The PCB is silk-screened with a solder mask
and reference designators and routered to the specific board
dimensions. Finally, the PCB is tested and packaged before being
shipped to the second company. At the second company's U.S.
facility, the PCB will be assembled with the remaining components of
the mirror flip card. First, the PCB is silk-screened with a solder
paste to leave a thin layer of solder on specific pads for the
remaining components. Automated equipment places some of the parts
on the PCB. You describe the process as iterative, as it may require
several attempts to achieve the proper placement. Parts that the
machine cannot place are placed by hand. Then, the populated PCB is
soldered in an infrared reflow machine that passes the circuit under
an infrared light source with a programmed time and temperature
file. The PCB is manually ``stuffed'' with the remaining components
like the DVI and power connectors. Then, the PCB is passed through a
wave solder machine to solder these parts. Finally, the completed
mirror flip card is tested for functionality before being packaged
and shipped to Planar.
As the components arrive at Planar's U.S. facility, they are
inspected to determine compliance with their respective
specifications. After three shipments are received, fully inspected,
and found to be in compliance, the part number and vendor are
approved for random lot inspections. If a problem arises, the full
inspection process will be reinstated until another three shipments
are found to be without faults. After inspection, technicians
assemble the stereoscopic displays in accordance with the company's
detailed work instructions. First, a technician creates a ``Build
Setup'' profile in a Lotus database designed to track inventory and
production and assigns a serial number to the unit. The lower and
upper monitor assemblies are assembled by removing the accompanying
stands from the LCD monitors, attaching and routing the DVI cables,
and securing the monitors with screws to a custom-made U.S.-origin
stand. Then, a support for the mirror is attached to the lower
monitor assembly. In total, the upper monitor assembly consists of
12 parts and the lower monitor assembly consists of 16 parts. Next,
the mirror assembly is manufactured by assembling the mirror frame
with protective gaskets and screws, inspecting the mirror panel with
a ``glass defect guide template,'' inserting the beamsplitter mirror
into the frame, and affixing the mirror assembly to the mirror
support on the display stand. The assembly of the mirror involves 29
parts. Assembly of the stereoscopic display is completed by the
attachment of the upper monitor assembly to the lower monitor
assembly with alignment pins and screws.
A software test file is used to align the system and the mirror
is adjusted until it achieves a one-pixel tolerance for a normal
viewing angle and a three-pixel tolerance for a view from the left
or right edges of the mirror. The technicians ensure that the
beamsplitter is precisely positioned at a bisecting angle between
the two monitors to prevent loss or confusion of the stereoscopic
image. You advise that even a small misalignment may cause users to
experience headaches, eye fatigue, nausea or other discomfort. The
alignment process may require up to 90 minutes to ensure accurate
and precise alignment and co-planarity of the stereoscopic images.
After assembly and alignment, the display undergoes testing and
quality assurance processes to ensure its proper performance. The
displays are also examined for pixel defects, and the mirror and
stand are inspected for cosmetic defects. Finally, the display is
packaged with the mirror flip card, a user manual, and U.S.-origin
polarized glasses and cables. The final product is then shipped to
the U.S. customer. You advise that the production of each unit
requires approximately 135 minutes of work by a skilled Planar
technician. You also attest that the processing and assembly
operations performed in the United States add significant value to
the product, as Planar's customers will pay a premium of up to ten
times the cost of a standard LCD monitor to obtain the three-
dimensional display capability of Planar's stereoscopic display
models.
Issue
What is the country of origin of the stereoscopic display models
for purposes of U.S. Government procurement?
Law and Analysis
Pursuant to subpart B of part 177, 19 CFR 177.21 et seq., which
implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended
(19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.), CBP issues country of origin advisory
rulings and final determinations on whether an article is or would
be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the
purposes of granting waivers of certain ``Buy American''
restrictions in U.S. law or practice for products offered for sale
to the U.S. Government.
[[Page 23481]]
Under the rule of origin set forth at 19 U.S.C. 2518(4)(B):
An article is a product of a country or instrumentality only if
(i) it is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of that country
or instrumentality, or (ii) in the case of an article which consists
in whole or in part of materials from another country or
instrumentality, it has been substantially transformed into a new
and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use
distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was so
transformed.
See also, 19 CFR 177.22(a).
In rendering advisory rulings and final determinations for
purposes of U.S. Government procurement, CBP applies the provisions
of subpart B of Part 177 consistent with the Federal Procurement
Regulations. See 19 CFR 177.21. In this regard, CBP recognizes that
the Federal Procurement Regulations restrict the U.S. Government's
purchase of products to U.S.-made or designated country end products
for acquisitions subject to the TAA. See 48 CFR 25.403(c)(1). The
Federal Procurement Regulations define ``U.S.-made end product'' as:
* * * an article that is mined, produced, or manufactured in the
United States or that is substantially transformed in the United
States into a new and different article of commerce with a name,
character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from
which it was transformed.
48 CFR 25.003
Therefore, the question presented in this final determination is
whether, as a result of the operations performed in the United
States, the stereoscopic display models are substantially
transformed into products of the United States.
In determining whether the combining of parts or materials
constitutes a substantial transformation, the determinative issue is
the extent of operations performed and whether the parts lose their
identity and become an integral part of the new article. Belcrest
Linens v. United States, 6 Ct. Int'l Trade 204, 573 F. Supp. 1149
(1983), aff'd, 741 F.2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1984). If the manufacturing
or combining process is a minor one which leaves the identity of the
imported article intact, a substantial transformation has not
occurred. Uniroyal Inc. v. United States, 3 Ct. Int'l Trade 220, 542
F. Supp. 1026 (1982). Assembly operations that are minimal or
simple, as opposed to complex or meaningful, will generally not
result in a substantial transformation. See C.S.D. 80-111, C.S.D.
85-25, and C.S.D. 90-97.
In C.S.D. 85-25, 19 Cust. Bull. 844 (1985), Headquarters Ruling
Letter (``HRL'') 071827, dated September 25, 1984, CBP determined
that assembly of a large number of fabricated components onto a
circuit board resulted in a substantial transformation of the
constituent components for purposes of the Generalized System of
Preferences program. In that decision, CBP stated that an assembly
process would not constitute a substantial transformation unless the
operation is ``complex and meaningful.'' Whether an operation is
complex and meaningful depends on the nature of the operation,
including the number of components assembled, number of different
operations, time, skill level required, attention to detail, quality
control, the value added to the article, and the overall employment
generated by the manufacturing process.
CBP has considered the issue of whether the processing and
assembly of electronic components into a finished article results in
a substantial transformation on a number of occasions. In another
final determination, HRL 735315, dated April 10, 1995, CBP held that
the country of origin of optical spectroscopy instrument (``OSI'')
systems was the United States for purposes of U.S. Government
procurement. Each system had three essential elements: A controlling
computer, an optics module, and an output device such as a printer.
The optics module shell and its related components were imported
from Australia. At the U.S. customer site, U.S.-origin printed
wiring board assemblies (``PWBs'') were integrated into the shells
to create a finished optics module. The PWBs were necessary for the
control and operation of the optics module. Then, the module was
further assembled with a U.S.-origin controlling computer and
printer to create the OSI system. CBP found that the assembly of the
PWBs and other components into the optics module shell constituted a
complex and meaningful assembly and was sufficient to substantially
transform the optics module into a product of the United States. As
the other components of the OSI system were products of the United
States, CBP held that their incorporation with the optics module
rendered the OSI system a product of the United States.
In HRL 734213, dated February 20, 1992, CBP held that the
conversion of an imported computer monitor into a touchscreen
monitor in the United States constituted a substantial
transformation of the imported monitor for country of origin marking
purposes. To create the touchscreen monitor, the imported monitor
was tested, a power plug was installed, and the cathode ray tube was
removed. The bucket, swivel base, and front plastic bezel of the
monitor were also removed and painted. Then, a transorb board and
the touchscreen were installed. The touchscreen underwent testing
and alignment by skilled technicians. Then, the monitor was
reassembled, tested, and packed for shipment. CBP found that the
touchscreen capability of the finished product was not just a simple
enhancement of the monitor, but rather a significant change in its
very nature, which resulted in the monitor having a new use as an
interface device for a blood analyzer unit.
By contrast, assembly operations that are minimal or simple will
generally not result in a substantial transformation. For example,
in HRL 734050, dated June 17, 1991, CBP determined that Japanese-
origin components were not substantially transformed in China when
assembled in that country to form finished printers. The printers
consisted of five main components identified as the ``head,''
``mechanism,'' ``circuit,'' ``power source,'' and ``outer case.''
The circuit, power source and outer case units were entirely
assembled or molded in Japan. The head and mechanical units were
made in Japan but exported to China in an unassembled state. All
five units were exported to China, where the head and mechanical
units were assembled with screws and screwdrivers. Thereafter, the
head, mechanism, circuit, and power source units were mounted onto
the outer case with screws and screwdrivers. In holding that the
country of origin of the assembled printers was Japan, CBP
recognized that the vast majority of the printers' parts were of
Japanese origin and that the operations performed in China were
relatively simple assembly operations.
In order to determine whether a substantial transformation
occurs when components of various origins are assembled to form
completed articles, CBP considers the totality of the circumstances
and makes such decisions on a case-by-case basis. The country of
origin of the article's components, the extent of the processing
that occurs within a given country, and whether such processing
renders a product with a new name, character, or use are primary
considerations in such cases. Additionally, facts such as resources
expended on product design and development, extent and nature of
post-assembly inspection procedures, and worker skill required
during the actual manufacturing process will be considered when
analyzing whether a substantial transformation has occurred;
however, no one such factor is determinative.
Based on the facts provided in the instant case, we find that
the processing and assembly operations performed in the United
States result in a substantial transformation of the imported LCD
monitors and the beamsplitter mirror into a product with a new name,
character, and use. In support of this determination, we note that
one LCD is subjected to significant further processing in the United
States. Specifically, we find that the polarization process
performed in the United States changes the essential character of
the LCD, as the polarization feature of the LCD imparts the
stereoscopic functionality to the entire system. In addition, the
assembly, testing, and alignment of the two LCD monitors and the
beamsplitter mirror to form the stereoscopic display require a
significant amount of time and precision by skilled technicians.
Consequently, we find these operations to be complex and meaningful.
You explain that neither the LCD monitors nor the beamsplitter
mirror can generate a three-dimensional image until they are
integrated with the remaining components of the finished
stereoscopic display model. Although the mirror flip card and
goggles are necessary for the proper operation of the stereoscopic
display model, they are not integrated into the display at Planar's
facility. Similar to the PWBs in HRL 735315, supra, the mirror flip
card is integrated into the display at the U.S. customer site, and
the goggles will be worn by the customer during the operation of the
model. As these components are of U.S. origin, we find that their
incorporation and use with the stereoscopic display render the
entire model a product of the United States.
Holding:
Based upon the facts provided, we find that the processing and
assembly operations performed in the United States constitute a
[[Page 23482]]
substantial transformation of the foreign-origin components.
Therefore, the country of origin of the stereoscopic display models
is the United States for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
Notice of this final determination will be given in the Federal
Register as required by 19 CFR 177.29. Any party-at-interest other
than the party which requested this final determination may request,
pursuant to 19 CFR 177.31, that CBP reexamine the matter anew and
issue a new final determination. Any party-at-interest may, within
30 days after publication of the Federal Register notice referenced
above, seek judicial review of this final determination before the
Court of International Trade.
Sincerely,
Sandra L. Bell,
Executive Director, Office of Regulations and Rulings, Office of
International Trade.
[FR Doc. E8-9340 Filed 4-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P