Testing Method of Pressed and Toughened (Specially Tempered) Glassware, 55811-55816 [2010-22826]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Notices
Federal funds provided under the Stafford
Act for Public Assistance will be limited to
75 percent of the total eligible costs. In order
to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available
for these purposes such amounts as you find
necessary for Federal emergency assistance
and administrative expenses.
Further, you are authorized to make
changes to this declaration for the approved
assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that
pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, Department of Homeland
Security, under Executive Order 12148,
as amended, James N. Russo, of FEMA
is appointed to act as the Federal
Coordinating Officer for this declared
emergency.
The following areas of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts have
been designated as adversely affected by
this declared emergency:
Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, Essex,
Middlesex, Nantucket, Norfolk, Plymouth,
Suffolk, and Worcester Counties for
emergency protective measures (Category B),
including direct Federal assistance, under the
Public Assistance program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used
for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora
Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034,
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA);
97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant;
97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to
Individuals and Households In Presidentially
Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—
Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals
and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals
and Households—Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants—Public Assistance
(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039,
Hazard Mitigation Grant.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010–22853 Filed 9–13–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–23–P
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
[Docket ID FEMA–2010–0002; Internal
Agency Docket No. FEMA–3314–EM]
North Carolina; Amendment No. 2 to
Notice of an Emergency Declaration
Federal Emergency
Management Agency, DHS.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
16:38 Sep 13, 2010
(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used
for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora
Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034,
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA);
97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant;
97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to
Individuals and Households In Presidentially
Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—
Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals
and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals
and Households—Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants—Public Assistance
(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039,
Hazard Mitigation Grant.)
Jkt 220001
The notice
of a major disaster declaration for the
State of Wisconsin is hereby amended to
include the following area among those
areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the event declared a major
disaster by the President in his
declaration of August 11, 2010.
Calumet County for Public Assistance.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used
for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora
Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034,
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA);
97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant;
97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to
Individuals and Households In Presidentially
Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—
Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals
and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals
and Households—Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants—Public Assistance
(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039,
Hazard Mitigation Grant.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010–22854 Filed 9–13–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–23–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010–22852 Filed 9–13–10; 8:45 am]
Customs and Border Protection
BILLING CODE 9111–23–P
[Docket No. USCBP–2007–0099; CBP Dec.
10–31]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Testing Method of Pressed and
Toughened (Specially Tempered)
Glassware
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
AGENCY:
[Docket ID FEMA–2010–0002; Internal
Agency Docket No. FEMA–1933–DR]
Wisconsin; Amendment No. 1 to Notice
of a Major Disaster Declaration
Federal Emergency
Management Agency, DHS.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
VerDate Mar<15>2010
This notice amends the notice
of an emergency declaration for the
State of North Carolina (FEMA–3314–
EM), dated September 1, 2010, and
related determinations.
DATES: Effective Date: September 4,
2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3886.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given that the incident period for
this emergency is closed effective
September 4, 2010.
SUMMARY:
55811
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
This document adopts
modifications to the test method
currently applied by U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) for the testing
of pressed and toughened (specially
tempered) glassware, as set forth in
Treasury Decision (T.D.) 94–26 which
was published in the Federal Register
on March 22, 1994. This document sets
forth revised criteria for interpreting the
results obtained from the cutting test for
opaque glassware and provides an
interpretation of breakage for that test.
In addition, this document reinstates a
previously used testing method, the
center punch test, and provides a
SUMMARY:
This notice amends the notice
of a major disaster declaration for the
State of Wisconsin (FEMA–1933–DR),
dated August 11, 2010, and related
determinations.
DATES: Effective Date: September 7,
2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20472, (202) 646–3886.
SUMMARY:
U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice of method CBP uses to
test pressed and toughened (specially
tempered) glassware for tariff
classification purposes.
E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM
14SEN1
55812
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Notices
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
description of the center punch
apparatus to be used for that test. The
final CBP test method for pressed and
toughened (specially tempered)
glassware for tariff classification
purposes is set forth in its entirety in
this document.
DATES: CBP will begin applying this
revised test method on glassware
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption effective October 14,
2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Margaret Chinn, Office of Information
and Technology, Laboratories and
Scientific Services, (202) 344–1566;
Stephen Cassata, Office of Information
and Technology, Laboratories and
Scientific Services, (202) 344–1309.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This document sets forth
modifications to the criteria utilized by
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) to test certain glassware articles
to determine whether they are ‘‘pressed
and toughened (specially tempered)’’ for
tariff classification purposes under the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). The glassware
articles subject to these testing
procedures are generally imported into
the United States under subheadings
7013.28.05, 7013.37.05, 7013.42.10,
7013.49.10, and 7013.99.20, HTSUS.
Articles of ‘‘safety glass, consisting of
toughened (tempered) or laminated
glass’’ that are normally imported under
heading 7007, HTSUS (e.g.,
architectural plate glass and vehicle
windshields), are not within the
purview of this final notice.
Information regarding the apparatus
used, glass sample preparation, and the
methods employed by CBP to test
glassware articles to determine whether
they are pressed and toughened
(specially tempered) was previously set
forth in the Federal Register (59 FR
13531, March 22, 1994; see also, 59 FR
16895, April 8, 1994, correcting ‘‘T.D.
94–25’’ to ‘‘T.D. 94–26’’). Under T.D. 94–
26, photographic equipment,
polariscopes, tile saws (or similar tablemounted circular saws), or other
apparatus and supplies, such as
calipers, ovens, and water baths, can be
used to test subject glassware articles.
With respect to sample preparation, T.D.
94–26 states that a representative
number of samples should be analyzed
but recognizes the possibility that only
one sample may be available for testing.
The method to be used for the testing
of pressed and toughened (specially
tempered) glassware under T.D. 94–26
consists of three tests. They are the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Sep 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
‘‘macroscopic analysis,’’ ‘‘thermal shock
test,’’ and ‘‘evaluation of temper.’’ The
evaluation of temper test consists of a
polariscopic examination for
transparent or translucent glassware and
a cutting test for opaque glassware. The
proposed modification of the test
method was limited to the cutting test
for opaque glassware.
Proposed Modifications
On January 9, 2008, CBP published a
notice in the Federal Register (73 FR
1640) which proposed modifications to
the method applied for the testing of
pressed and toughened (specially
tempered) glassware as set forth in T.D.
94–26 and solicited public comments.
The notice proposed modifications to
the cutting test for opaque glassware but
did not propose changes to the testing
procedures used for the macroscopic
analysis test, thermal shock test, and
polariscopic examination aspect of the
evaluation of temper test. The notice
also proposed to reinstate the ‘‘center
punch test’’ and provided a description
of the center punch apparatus that
would be used for the proposed test.
Finally, the notice proposed to allow for
the optional use of additional tests by
CBP that would be used only to verify
the results obtained from the other
testing procedures. The modifications
set forth in the January 9, 2008, notice
are described in greater detail below.
Proposed Changes to Cutting Test for
Opaque Glassware
The cutting test for opaque glassware
is used for opaque glassware and
translucent glassware that cannot be
examined polariscopically because they
do not transmit adequate polarized
light. In the notice of January 9, 2008,
it was proposed to revise the criteria
used to interpret the results obtained
from the cutting test for opaque
glassware. In addition, it was proposed
to add an interpretation of breakage in
the test because the guidelines set forth
in T.D. 94–26 did not clearly explain
how breakage should be interpreted.
Under the proposal, CBP would
interpret the test such that the presence
of ‘‘some’’ dicing or crazing would be
sufficient to determine that a glass
article has been specially tempered for
tariff classification purposes. Under this
standard, ‘‘some’’ would be considered
to be any diced, crazed (gravel that
remains tenuously in contact with
neighboring pieces), or graveled
(presence of small cubes of
approximately equal dimensions on all
six sides) fragment yielded from the cut
sample that is more than just a fugitive
diced, crazed, or graveled fragment. In
addition, it was proposed to remove the
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
references to tempered soda lime,
borosilicate, and fluorosilicate glass that
are currently in the test because the
composition of the glass is not relevant
for testing purposes.
Proposal to Add Center Punch Test
The notice of January 9, 2008, also
proposed to reinstate the center punch
test. It was noted in the proposal that it
is dangerous for an analyst to perform
the cutting test on a sample that is less
than five inches in diameter or five
inches wide and that it would be
preferable to use the center punch test
in these cases. The center punch
apparatus to be used to perform the test
would be a slender tool approximately
8 to 12 inches in length with one end
tapered to a point. The tool would be
long enough to allow for its insertion
into tall-form tumblers and other
articles of similar shape while
permitting the nonpointed end to
extend above the rim. This would be
necessary for handling and safety
purposes when performing the center
punch test. The pointed end of the
center punch would not be so sharp so
as to chip the glassware on contact
without applying pressure.
In order to perform the center punch
test under the proposal, a sample would
initially be set on a solid and level
surface. An analyst would then place
the pointed end of the center punch
vertically against the inside center
bottom or heel of the article. The analyst
would strike the dull end of the punch
with a hammer, using blows of
gradually increasing severity until
breakage occurs. The breakage pattern,
approximate number, and relative shape
and size of the fragments would then be
noted. Thereafter, the breakage pattern
and/or typical fragments would be
photographed. It would only be
necessary for the broken sample to
exhibit ‘‘some’’ dicing, crazing, or
graveling in order to be considered
tempered for CBP’s classification
purposes. ‘‘Some’’ would be considered
to be any diced, crazed, or graveled
fragments yielded by the broken sample
that are more than just fugitive diced,
crazed, or graveled fragments.
Proposal to Add Option to Use
Additional Tests
In addition, the notice of January 9,
2008, proposed to provide for the
optional use of additional tests by CBP.
The additional tests would be used by
CBP only to verify the results obtained
from the other testing procedures. It was
stated that the additional tests would
facilitate the overall testing process by
ensuring that the results obtained from
E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM
14SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Notices
the other testing procedures are
accurate.
Discussion of Comments
Comments were solicited in the notice
of January 9, 2008, and the comment
period closed on March 17, 2008. One
commenter responded during this time
period on behalf of two clients, a
manufacturer and separate importer of
tempered glassware. The commenter
submitted two letters, a set of
photographs, and a series of ten short
videos. A description of the comments
and other material in the submission, as
well as CBP’s related analysis, follows.
Comment:
The commenter asserts that the
standard proposed for the testing of
pressed and toughened (specially
tempered) glassware set forth in the
notice of January 9, 2008, would
produce erroneous results and would
not meet certain parameters established
by the courts for testing methodology.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
CBP’s Response:
The commenter submitted
photographs and videos in an attempt to
demonstrate that CBP’s proposed testing
method for the testing of pressed and
toughened (specially tempered)
glassware would produce erroneous
results. As discussed further below,
however, CBP does not find the
commenter’s submission persuasive in
this regard because the proposed
modifications to the testing method
would actually introduce a higher
degree of accuracy into the testing
process. In addition, CBP believes that
this testing method would withstand
judicial scrutiny because the generally
accepted methods in the standard are
accurate, testable, and have been subject
to peer review and publication.
Comment:
The commenter states that the center
punch test is not a useful or reliable test
for tempered glassware and opposes its
reinstatement by CBP. The commenter
expressed its concern that CBP did not
make clear in the notice of January 9,
2008, whether the center punch test
would be used in lieu of, or in addition
to, the cutting test. Moreover, if the
center punch is intended to be used in
addition to the cutting test, the
commenter questions the relative weight
CBP will assign to each test in
determining whether an item is
considered tempered.
CBP’s Response:
CBP’s position is that the center
punch test is useful and reliable, and
CBP has determined that its
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Sep 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
reinstatement into the method for the
testing of pressed and toughened
(specially tempered) glassware is
necessary. In support of this
determination, CBP recognizes that the
reinstatement of the center punch test
will provide CBP analysts with a test
that can be used in cases where the
cutting test yields inconclusive results
or when it would be dangerous to use
the cutting test because of the
dimensions of the sample.
As noted above, one instance where
the center punch test will be used is
when the cutting test yields
inconclusive results. In this situation,
the results of the center punch test will
be interpreted in conjunction with the
results of the cutting test in order to
make the correct classification
determination. CBP believes this
additional test is required because the
CBP Laboratory occasionally tests
samples that break into several large
pieces when subjected to the cutting
test. Without the benefit of a second test
to confirm whether the tested glassware
is actually pressed and toughened
(specially tempered) in these cases, the
analyst is constrained under the current
standard to classify the article as
‘‘tempered’’ even though there may be
doubts as to whether the article is
actually tempered. Accordingly, the
revised standard set forth in this
document will afford the CBP analyst
with the opportunity to utilize the
center punch test in cases where the
results of the cutting test are
inconclusive (i.e., if the sample breaks
into several large pieces when subjected
to the cutting test).
The second instance where the center
punch test will be employed under the
proposed revised method is cases where
an article is too small to safely analyze
with the cutting test. CBP believes this
is necessary because the integrity of a
tempered glassware article can fail
during a cutting test, potentially
resulting in serious injury to the CBP
analyst. Accordingly, the revised
method will afford the analyst the
opportunity to utilize the center punch
test on articles considered ‘‘too small’’ to
safely perform a cutting test. The
revised method will make clear that
glassware articles considered too small
to analyze safely with a cutting test will
be those that are smaller than five
inches in diameter or five inches wide.
If a glassware article is smaller than five
inches in diameter or five inches wide
and the analyst chooses to use the
center punch test, a cutting test will not
be performed on the article and the
results obtained from the center punch
test will be considered independently.
Results obtained from the center punch
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55813
test in these situations will be
interpreted in the same manner as
results obtained from the cutting test.
Comment:
The commenter states that the
proposed breakage analysis for
tempered glassware subjected to the
cutting or center punch test (particularly
fluorosilicate which has characteristics
unique to its crystalline structure) is too
subjective and in many instances would
result in an erroneous conclusion that a
tempered article is not tempered. With
respect to the proposed breakage
analysis, the commenter specifically
states that both annealed and tempered
fluorosilicate plates which are subjected
to the center punch test break into small
pizza-shaped pieces, the only real
difference being that the tempered
plates take more force to break and yield
somewhat smaller pizza-shaped pieces.
In addition, other types of articles may
react differently when subjected to the
center punch test. For example, a
tempered mug which is subjected to the
center punch test may break into
irregular pieces smaller than those of an
annealed mug.
The commenter indicates that their
client has performed repeated center
punch tests on the full range of
fluorosilicate articles which they
manufacture and have confirmed that
other than the differences in the
appearance of the pieces noted above,
they did not observe dicing or crazing
of tempered fluorosilicate glass. The
commenter submitted various
photographs and ten short videos in
order to demonstrate the difficulty
associated with classifying glass as
tempered or non-tempered based on
breakage patterns. The commenter states
that the photographs depict annealed
and tempered fluorosilicate (opal) and
soda lime plates subjected to the center
punch test. The commenter indicates
that of the ten videos submitted, two are
of the center punch test performed on
tempered fluorosilicate glass plates; two
are of the center punch test performed
on annealed fluorosilicate glass plates;
one is of the center punch test
performed on a tempered soda lime
glass plate; one is of the center punch
test performed on an annealed soda lime
glass plate; one is of a hammer striking
a tempered fluorosilicate plate; one is of
a hammer striking an annealed
fluorosilicate plate; one is of the center
punch test performed on a tempered
fluorosilicate mug; and one is of the
center punch test performed on an
annealed fluorosilicate mug.
The commenter believes that the
photographs and videos prove that the
breakage differences resulting when the
E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM
14SEN1
55814
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Notices
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
center punch test is performed on
tempered versus annealed glass can be
so subtle as to be virtually non-existent.
The commenter specifically notes that
tempered fluorosilicate glass plates will
not exhibit any dicing, graveling, or
crazing when cut or center punched. In
addition, the commenter states that
dicing, crazing, or graveling are
characteristics that are generally
exhibited in heat-treated flat glass, not
flat glassware. The commenter contends
that because tempered dinnerware is
very different in shape and thickness,
dicing, crazing or graveling does not
ordinarily occur in soda lime glass
dinnerware and never occurs in
tempered fluorosilicate glass
dinnerware. Moreover, the commenter
states that there is no evidence that glass
dinnerware should dice, craze, or gravel
when cut.
CBP’s Response:
CBP disagrees with the commenter’s
statement that the analysis of breakage
patterns for tempered glassware
subjected to the cutting or center punch
tests is too subjective to be deemed
reliable. In addition, CBP notes that
some degree of temper must be visually
evident for a glassware article to be
considered ‘‘toughened (specially
tempered)’’ and also maintains that a
tempered glassware article will craze,
dice, or gravel when broken.
CBP notes that the degree of temper
in glassware is roughly equivalent to the
strength increase of the glass produced
by the compression on the outside of the
article and that this increase in
compression is compensated for by a
greater amount of internal tension.
CBP’s view is that, at some point, the
appearance of dicing indicates a certain
amount of achievement of strength
through tempering and that
progressively smaller fragments
corresponds to even higher levels of
temper. The factor affecting whether an
interior crack branches into other
fractures is principally the state of the
stress at those interior points through
which the crack propagates. CBP’s
criterion for ‘‘toughened (specially
tempered)’’ translates roughly into the
requirement that the state of tensile
strength in the interior of the article due
to tempering should be high enough to
produce this branching which is
exhibited by visible dicing, crazing, or
graveling during breakage through at
least part of the article. In this respect,
whether it is flat glass or dinner
glassware, it is a common axiom that a
tempered glassware article will craze,
dice, or gravel when it breaks.
With respect to the photographic and
video evidence submitted by the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Sep 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
commenter, CBP initially agrees that in
some cases the tempered glassware
depicted in the submissions does not
appear to craze, dice, or gravel when
impacted with a center punch.
However, it is noted that no evidence
was submitted to demonstrate that the
glassware subjected to testing in the
submissions was, in fact, tempered. In
addition, CBP notes that the
experiments were not technically
accurate because only a hammer was
used in some of the tests. Accordingly,
the criteria for interpreting breakage for
the cutting test for opaque glassware
and the reinstated center punch test, as
set forth in the January 9, 2008, notice,
will not be eliminated from the revised
method for the testing of pressed and
toughened (specially tempered)
glassware.
Comment:
The commenter states that CBP’s
proposal to use additional tests to verify
the results of the other tests is improper
because tests that are never disclosed or
described cannot be properly
scrutinized. In addition, the commenter
states that CBP has not explained what
weight would be assigned to the
additional tests for purposes of applying
the testing methodology.
CBP’s Response:
CBP agrees that the verification of
additional test results would be
problematic for the reasons the
commenter provides. Accordingly,
additional tests will not be used to
verify the results of the other tests, as
reflected in the revised method to be
applied for the testing of pressed and
toughened (specially tempered)
glassware which is set forth below.
Conclusion
After analyzing the comments and
other material contained in the
submission discussed above and further
review of the matter, CBP has decided
to adopt, except for the use of additional
tests as discussed in the comment
section above, the modifications to the
test method used by CBP for the testing
of pressed and toughened (specially
tempered) glassware as proposed in the
notice of January 9, 2008 (73 FR 1640)
for the cutting test for opaque glassware
and for the reinstatement of the center
punch test for articles less than five
inches in diameter and for inconclusive
results from the cutting test. In addition,
this document inserts a new section,
‘‘Scope and Field of Application’’, into
the test method. This new section
merely clarifies that the method
employs macroscopic analysis, thermal
shock testing, and evaluation of temper.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
This new section also clarifies that
pressed and toughened (specially
tempered) glassware articles are
normally imported under subheadings
7013.28.05, 7013.37.05, 7013.42.10,
7013.49.10, and 7013.99.20, HTSUS,
and that articles normally imported
under heading 7007, HTSUS, such as
windshields, are not within the purview
of the method. Finally, this document
makes other minor editorial changes to
the test method. The revised test
method, set forth in its entirety below,
will be employed by CBP on glassware
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after 30 days
from the date of publication of this
document in the Federal Register.
TESTING METHOD OF PRESSED AND
TOUGHENED (SPECIALLY
TEMPERED) GLASSWARE
SAFETY PRECAUTION: CERTAIN
PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN THIS
METHOD POSE A POTENTIAL
HAZARD TO PERSONNEL FROM THE
PROXIMITY TO OR HANDLING OF
BREAKING OR BROKEN GLASS. THIS
METHOD SHALL NOT BE
UNDERTAKEN WITHOUT
SUPERVISORY CONCURRENCE THAT
ADEQUATE PRECAUTIONS FOR
PERSONAL SAFETY HAVE BEEN
IMPLEMENTED.
SCOPE AND FIELD OF APPLICATION
This method employs macroscopic
analysis, thermal shock testing, and
evaluation of temper to determine if a
glassware item has been pressed and
toughened (specially tempered) for U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)’s
tariff classification purposes.
These glassware articles are normally
imported under subheading numbers
7013.28.05, 7013.37.05, 7013.42.10,
7013.49.10, and 7013.99.20 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS). Articles of
‘‘safety glass, consisting of toughened
(tempered) * * * glass,’’ normally
imported under heading 7007 of the
HTSUS, (e.g., vehicle windshields) are
not within the purview of this method.
1. APPARATUS:
Photographic Equipment:
A camera (equipped with flash or
supplemented by adequate lighting) is
recommended for making a permanent
record of unusual samples and test
results.
Polariscope:
The basic instrument consists of a
light source, a polarizer, and an
analyzer. The addition of a full-wave
retardation, or tint, plate permits
observation of color-enhanced stress
patterns. Ideally, the working space, or
E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM
14SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Notices
distance between the polarizer and the
analyzer, should be large enough to
accommodate samples ranging up to
eight inches in height.
Tile Saw (or Similar Table-Mounted
Circular Saw):
A tile saw having a cutting head
which can be adjusted horizontally and
vertically and which is equipped with
an 8 to 12 inch diameter continuous rim
diamond blade designed for wet cutting
glass is adequate for testing opaque
glassware articles.
Center Punch:
The center punch is a slender tool
having one end tapered to a point. The
tool should be approximately 8″; to 12″
in length to permit insertion into tallform tumblers and other articles of
similar shape while the nonpointed end
extends above the rim. This is necessary
for ease of handling and for safety while
performing the center punch test. The
pointed end of the center punch should
not be sufficiently sharp so as to chip
the glassware on contact without the
application of pressure.
Other Apparatus and Supplies:
The method requires various common
laboratory articles such as a caliper or
similar device for measuring the
diameter of the opening and the
maximum inside diameter of the
sample, an oven, a water bath, and other
equipment and supplies. Appropriate
safety devices and personal protective
equipment are also required.
2. PREPARATION OF THE SAMPLE
When available a representative
number of samples should be analyzed.
However, it is recognized that for any of
several reasons, e.g., cost of the item,
only a limited number of samples may
be submitted for analysis. The
possibility exists that only one sample
may be available for testing.
3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
The following procedures may be
conducted in whatever order the analyst
deems is appropriate for the particular
sample being examined. The test
protocol should be terminated at the
point that a sample fails to meet any of
the key criteria, i.e., ‘‘pressed’’,
‘‘toughened’’, or ‘‘specially tempered.’’
Evaluation for Determination if an
Article Has Been Pressed
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
3.1 Macroscopic Analysis:
3.1.1 Visual Inspection:
Inspect the sample for the following:
• Identifying marks, labels, sizes, etc.,
especially those that may have been
caused by a push-up valve and a mold
that have been pressed into the article;
• The style (stemware, tumbler, bowl,
plate, etc.);
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Sep 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
• The presence of ribs, handles,
flutes, etc.;
• The size of the rim or opening, if
applicable;
• The size of the most bulbous
portion of the article;
• Any other unusual characteristics
(e.g., chips, cracks).
Interpretation of Visual Inspection
Results: Characteristics such as mold
marks, ribs, handles, and flutes are often
indicative of a pressed rather than
blown glass article.
3.1.2 Dimensional Measurement
(Applies Only to Stemware, Tumblers,
Bowls, etc.):
Using a caliper or similar device,
measure the minimum diameter of the
mouth, opening, or upper rim of the
sample. With the same device, measure
the maximum inside diameter. Record
both measurements.
Interpretation of Dimensional
Measurement Results: A sample having
a maximum inside diameter greater than
the minimum diameter of the mouth,
opening, or upper rim is not likely to
have been ‘‘pressed.’’
Interpretation of the Macroscopic
Analysis Test: The analyst is advised to
consider the overall features of the
article and the dimensional analysis test
results in determining that an article has
been ‘‘pressed.’’ If the results show that
the sample is not ‘‘pressed’’, the testing
sequence for this sample should be
terminated at this point.
Evaluation for Determination if an
Article Has Been Toughened (Specially
Tempered)
3.2 Thermal Shock Test:
• Heat the sample(s) in an oven to
160 °C for 30 minutes.
• Remove one sample from the oven
and immediately immerse it in a water
bath set at 25 °C. This results in a 135
°C difference in temperature. [Note:
Reasonable alternate oven and water
bath settings up to ± 10 °C are
acceptable as long as the 135 °C
difference in temperature is
maintained.]
Interpretation of Thermal Shock Test
Results: Annealed glassware and
inadequately or partially tempered
glassware will generally not survive this
test of durability or toughness. If
breakage occurs, the sample is not
‘‘toughened’’ for CBP purposes. Record
the findings, and terminate the analysis.
3.3 Evaluation of Temper:
3.3.1 The Polariscopic Examination
(For Transparent or Translucent
Articles):
This method for the qualitative
evaluation of temper in glassware
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55815
should be conducted only on
transparent or translucent articles. This
method is not applicable to opaque
items or to articles which have been
tempered by a process other than
thermal tempering. In addition, some
translucent articles will not transmit
enough polarized light to permit the
observation of stress patterns; these
items should be evaluated for temper
using the Cutting Test.
• Place the full-wave retardation plate
(tint plate) between the polarizer and
the analyzer. The polarized light must
pass through both the sample and the
retardation plate for the color-enhanced
polariscopic pattern to be observed
through the analyzer. Position the
retardation plate in direct contact with
the polarizer or, alternatively, just in
front of the analyzer.
• Turn on the light source.
• Evaluate the stress in the bottom of
the intact article by placing its bottom
surface in contact with the polarizer so
that the polarized light passes
perpendicularly through the bottom
surface, or as close to perpendicularly as
possible, depending upon the article’s
shape. [This positioning does not work
well with stemware because of color
patterns caused by the stem itself. With
these items, it will be necessary to hold
the glass at a slight angle to view the
base and the bowl separately.]
• Evaluate the stress in the sides of
the intact article, especially near the rim
or edge, by positioning the article so
that the polarized light passes
perpendicularly through the sides near
the rim, or as close to perpendicularly
as possible, depending upon the
article’s shape. Observation of the stress
patterns in the sidewall and rim areas
should be made while viewing through
a single thickness of glass. For some
items, especially stemware, tumblers,
and mugs, this will require holding the
article at a slight angle to the polarizer
(open end raised slightly).
Interpretation of the Polariscopic
Examination: Thermal tempering of
glassware involves heating to the
softening point followed by rapid
cooling. The surfaces cool first and
reach a temperature where they become
rigid. With further cooling, the interior
or core tries to shrink but is prevented
from doing so by the rigid surface
layers. This results in the surfaces being
locked into a state of high compression
and the interior locked into
compensating tension.
When polarized light travels through
a stressed material, they divide into
slow and fast fronts. As a result of the
difference in speed of the slow and fast
rays, interferences occur and a pattern
of colors is observed. These colors can
E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM
14SEN1
55816
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Notices
be used to evaluate the stresses in the
article. As the stress increases, the
observed color changes to reflect the
amount of stress. The color changes
follow a rigorous sequence as the stressinduced retardation, or distance
between the fast and slow rays,
increases. In low-stress areas, black and
shades of gray are seen. Evaluation of
low stress is simplified by using a colorenhancing retardation or tint plate
which adds a shift of one fringe order,
or 565 nm, in the color pattern
throughout the observed field. With the
tint plate in place, even low and
moderately stressed areas will exhibit a
contrasting color effect.
Annealed glassware will exhibit a
uniform coloration of the polarized light
passing through it; there will be
essentially no change from the
background. Tempered articles will
exhibit non-uniform coloration of the
polarized light on the bottom surface
and sidewalls and bands of color
parallel to the rim or lip. [Note: With
highly colored articles, it may be helpful
to conduct the polariscopic exam
without the tint plate. There will be no
color enhancement, but the gray to black
interference patterns should be readily
discernible in tempered articles.]
If the sample passes the Thermal
Shock Test and shows evidence of fullsurface tempering (as opposed to rimtempering or partial tempering) when
examined polariscopically, the sample
has been ‘‘toughened (specially
tempered)’’ for CBP purposes.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
3.3.2 The Cutting Test for Opaque
Glassware
This test is applicable to opaque
articles and to those translucent articles
which cannot be examined
polariscopically because of inadequate
transmission of the polarized light.
• Ensure that the saw is equipped
with a continuous rim diamond blade
designed for wet cutting glass.
• Adjust the cutting head of the saw
vertically and horizontally, as
necessary, to accommodate the
glassware article.
• Be sure the water supply to both
sides of the diamond-rimmed blade is
adequate.
• Turn on the saw.
• While holding or otherwise
securing the article to prevent twisting
and binding during the cutting, slowly
and gently move the article into contact
with the blade.
• Proceed with the cutting.
• Note the breakage pattern, number,
and relative shape and size of the
fragments (indicate this without making
an actual count). Photograph the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Sep 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
breakage pattern and/or typical
fragments, if indicated.
Interpretation of the Cutting Test:
Annealed (non-tempered) glassware will
readily accept the diamond-rimmed
blade and will be cleanly cut in half.
Tempered glass, on the other hand, will
break into pieces when cut. The broken
pieces will need to exhibit some dicing,
crazing (gravel remaining tenuously in
contact with neighboring pieces) or
graveling. ‘‘Some’’ will be considered to
be any diced, crazed or graveled
fragments yielded by the broken sample
that is more than just a fugitive diced,
crazed or graveled fragment. The word
‘‘gravel’’ is intended to be synonymous
with ‘‘diced pieces’’ and implies the
presence of small cubes of roughly equal
dimensions on all six sides. The extent
of cutting needed to induce breakage
may vary from item to item, but in no
event will tempered articles be cleanly
cut in half by the diamond-rimmed
blade.
3.3.3 Center Punch Test
In the event that the Cutting Test is
inconclusive (i.e., if the sample breaks
into several large pieces when subjected
to the cutting test) or if an article is too
small (less than 5″ in diameter) to be
safely analyzed by the Cutting Test, the
analyst has the option to apply the
Center Punch Test to the article. The
Center Punch Test should be performed
as follows:
• Set the sample to be tested on a
solid, level surface.
• Place an upended cardboard box
over the item to be tested. The box
should be of sufficient size so that the
entire article is covered. The box should
be altered such that there is a hole in the
center which is large enough to admit
the shank of a center punch.
• Place the pointed end of the center
punch, vertically, against the inside
center bottom or heel.
• Strike the dull end of the punch
with a hammer, using blows of
gradually increasing severity, until
breakage occurs.
• Note the breakage pattern, number,
and relative shape and size of fragments
(indicate this without making an actual
count). Photograph the breakage pattern
and/or typical fragments, if indicated.
Interpretation of Center Punch Test
Results: In order to be considered
‘‘tempered’’ for CBP purposes, it is only
necessary for the broken sample to
exhibit some dicing, crazing or
graveling. ‘‘Some’’ will be considered to
be any diced, crazed or graveled
fragments yielded by the broken sample
that are more than just fugitive diced,
crazed or graveled fragments. The word
‘‘gravel’’ is intended to be synonymous
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
with ‘‘diced pieces’’ and implies the
presence of small cubes of roughly equal
dimensions on all six sides.
‘‘Toughened (specially tempered)’’
glassware will require considerably
more force to break than ordinary
glassware with the center punch test
and, when it breaks, some graveling or
crazing will be observed. Neither
graveling nor crazing will be observed
in ordinary glassware.
Powder and splinters will
occasionally be observed in samples of
‘‘toughened (specially tempered)’’
glassware. Also, few, if any, of these
samples will be reduced entirely to
gravel; larger fragments will remain.
However, these large fragments will
seldom be exceptionally pointed or
jagged and broken edges, especially on
diced pieces, will be reasonably dull.
The stem and base of the stemware
styles seldom disintegrate. The most
common breakage pattern for stemware
is characterized by a tack-shaped
fragment consisting of the base and a
portion of the stem remaining intact.
The tip of the stem portion should be
reasonably dull.
A sample that passes the Thermal
Shock Test and shows evidence of
tempering per the guidance given above
for the Cutting Test and/or Center
Punch Test has been ‘‘toughened
(specially tempered)’’ for CBP’s tariff
classification purposes.
Dated: September 9, 2010.
Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director, Laboratories and
Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection.
[FR Doc. 2010–22826 Filed 9–13–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–14–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Council of the Inspectors General on
Integrity and Efficiency
Senior Executive Service Performance
Review Board Membership
Council of the Inspectors
General on Integrity and Efficiency.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
This notice sets forth the
names and titles of the current
membership of the Council of the
Inspectors General on Integrity and
Efficiency (CIGIE) Performance Review
Board as of October 1, 2010.
DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Individual Offices of Inspectors General
at the telephone numbers listed below.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM
14SEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55811-55816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22826]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Customs and Border Protection
[Docket No. USCBP-2007-0099; CBP Dec. 10-31]
Testing Method of Pressed and Toughened (Specially Tempered)
Glassware
AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice of method CBP uses to test pressed and toughened
(specially tempered) glassware for tariff classification purposes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document adopts modifications to the test method
currently applied by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') for
the testing of pressed and toughened (specially tempered) glassware, as
set forth in Treasury Decision (T.D.) 94-26 which was published in the
Federal Register on March 22, 1994. This document sets forth revised
criteria for interpreting the results obtained from the cutting test
for opaque glassware and provides an interpretation of breakage for
that test. In addition, this document reinstates a previously used
testing method, the center punch test, and provides a
[[Page 55812]]
description of the center punch apparatus to be used for that test. The
final CBP test method for pressed and toughened (specially tempered)
glassware for tariff classification purposes is set forth in its
entirety in this document.
DATES: CBP will begin applying this revised test method on glassware
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption effective October
14, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Chinn, Office of Information
and Technology, Laboratories and Scientific Services, (202) 344-1566;
Stephen Cassata, Office of Information and Technology, Laboratories and
Scientific Services, (202) 344-1309.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This document sets forth modifications to the criteria utilized by
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to test certain glassware
articles to determine whether they are ``pressed and toughened
(specially tempered)'' for tariff classification purposes under the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). The
glassware articles subject to these testing procedures are generally
imported into the United States under subheadings 7013.28.05,
7013.37.05, 7013.42.10, 7013.49.10, and 7013.99.20, HTSUS. Articles of
``safety glass, consisting of toughened (tempered) or laminated glass''
that are normally imported under heading 7007, HTSUS (e.g.,
architectural plate glass and vehicle windshields), are not within the
purview of this final notice.
Information regarding the apparatus used, glass sample preparation,
and the methods employed by CBP to test glassware articles to determine
whether they are pressed and toughened (specially tempered) was
previously set forth in the Federal Register (59 FR 13531, March 22,
1994; see also, 59 FR 16895, April 8, 1994, correcting ``T.D. 94-25''
to ``T.D. 94-26''). Under T.D. 94-26, photographic equipment,
polariscopes, tile saws (or similar table-mounted circular saws), or
other apparatus and supplies, such as calipers, ovens, and water baths,
can be used to test subject glassware articles. With respect to sample
preparation, T.D. 94-26 states that a representative number of samples
should be analyzed but recognizes the possibility that only one sample
may be available for testing.
The method to be used for the testing of pressed and toughened
(specially tempered) glassware under T.D. 94-26 consists of three
tests. They are the ``macroscopic analysis,'' ``thermal shock test,''
and ``evaluation of temper.'' The evaluation of temper test consists of
a polariscopic examination for transparent or translucent glassware and
a cutting test for opaque glassware. The proposed modification of the
test method was limited to the cutting test for opaque glassware.
Proposed Modifications
On January 9, 2008, CBP published a notice in the Federal Register
(73 FR 1640) which proposed modifications to the method applied for the
testing of pressed and toughened (specially tempered) glassware as set
forth in T.D. 94-26 and solicited public comments. The notice proposed
modifications to the cutting test for opaque glassware but did not
propose changes to the testing procedures used for the macroscopic
analysis test, thermal shock test, and polariscopic examination aspect
of the evaluation of temper test. The notice also proposed to reinstate
the ``center punch test'' and provided a description of the center
punch apparatus that would be used for the proposed test. Finally, the
notice proposed to allow for the optional use of additional tests by
CBP that would be used only to verify the results obtained from the
other testing procedures. The modifications set forth in the January 9,
2008, notice are described in greater detail below.
Proposed Changes to Cutting Test for Opaque Glassware
The cutting test for opaque glassware is used for opaque glassware
and translucent glassware that cannot be examined polariscopically
because they do not transmit adequate polarized light. In the notice of
January 9, 2008, it was proposed to revise the criteria used to
interpret the results obtained from the cutting test for opaque
glassware. In addition, it was proposed to add an interpretation of
breakage in the test because the guidelines set forth in T.D. 94-26 did
not clearly explain how breakage should be interpreted. Under the
proposal, CBP would interpret the test such that the presence of
``some'' dicing or crazing would be sufficient to determine that a
glass article has been specially tempered for tariff classification
purposes. Under this standard, ``some'' would be considered to be any
diced, crazed (gravel that remains tenuously in contact with
neighboring pieces), or graveled (presence of small cubes of
approximately equal dimensions on all six sides) fragment yielded from
the cut sample that is more than just a fugitive diced, crazed, or
graveled fragment. In addition, it was proposed to remove the
references to tempered soda lime, borosilicate, and fluorosilicate
glass that are currently in the test because the composition of the
glass is not relevant for testing purposes.
Proposal to Add Center Punch Test
The notice of January 9, 2008, also proposed to reinstate the
center punch test. It was noted in the proposal that it is dangerous
for an analyst to perform the cutting test on a sample that is less
than five inches in diameter or five inches wide and that it would be
preferable to use the center punch test in these cases. The center
punch apparatus to be used to perform the test would be a slender tool
approximately 8 to 12 inches in length with one end tapered to a point.
The tool would be long enough to allow for its insertion into tall-form
tumblers and other articles of similar shape while permitting the
nonpointed end to extend above the rim. This would be necessary for
handling and safety purposes when performing the center punch test. The
pointed end of the center punch would not be so sharp so as to chip the
glassware on contact without applying pressure.
In order to perform the center punch test under the proposal, a
sample would initially be set on a solid and level surface. An analyst
would then place the pointed end of the center punch vertically against
the inside center bottom or heel of the article. The analyst would
strike the dull end of the punch with a hammer, using blows of
gradually increasing severity until breakage occurs. The breakage
pattern, approximate number, and relative shape and size of the
fragments would then be noted. Thereafter, the breakage pattern and/or
typical fragments would be photographed. It would only be necessary for
the broken sample to exhibit ``some'' dicing, crazing, or graveling in
order to be considered tempered for CBP's classification purposes.
``Some'' would be considered to be any diced, crazed, or graveled
fragments yielded by the broken sample that are more than just fugitive
diced, crazed, or graveled fragments.
Proposal to Add Option to Use Additional Tests
In addition, the notice of January 9, 2008, proposed to provide for
the optional use of additional tests by CBP. The additional tests would
be used by CBP only to verify the results obtained from the other
testing procedures. It was stated that the additional tests would
facilitate the overall testing process by ensuring that the results
obtained from
[[Page 55813]]
the other testing procedures are accurate.
Discussion of Comments
Comments were solicited in the notice of January 9, 2008, and the
comment period closed on March 17, 2008. One commenter responded during
this time period on behalf of two clients, a manufacturer and separate
importer of tempered glassware. The commenter submitted two letters, a
set of photographs, and a series of ten short videos. A description of
the comments and other material in the submission, as well as CBP's
related analysis, follows.
Comment:
The commenter asserts that the standard proposed for the testing of
pressed and toughened (specially tempered) glassware set forth in the
notice of January 9, 2008, would produce erroneous results and would
not meet certain parameters established by the courts for testing
methodology.
CBP's Response:
The commenter submitted photographs and videos in an attempt to
demonstrate that CBP's proposed testing method for the testing of
pressed and toughened (specially tempered) glassware would produce
erroneous results. As discussed further below, however, CBP does not
find the commenter's submission persuasive in this regard because the
proposed modifications to the testing method would actually introduce a
higher degree of accuracy into the testing process. In addition, CBP
believes that this testing method would withstand judicial scrutiny
because the generally accepted methods in the standard are accurate,
testable, and have been subject to peer review and publication.
Comment:
The commenter states that the center punch test is not a useful or
reliable test for tempered glassware and opposes its reinstatement by
CBP. The commenter expressed its concern that CBP did not make clear in
the notice of January 9, 2008, whether the center punch test would be
used in lieu of, or in addition to, the cutting test. Moreover, if the
center punch is intended to be used in addition to the cutting test,
the commenter questions the relative weight CBP will assign to each
test in determining whether an item is considered tempered.
CBP's Response:
CBP's position is that the center punch test is useful and
reliable, and CBP has determined that its reinstatement into the method
for the testing of pressed and toughened (specially tempered) glassware
is necessary. In support of this determination, CBP recognizes that the
reinstatement of the center punch test will provide CBP analysts with a
test that can be used in cases where the cutting test yields
inconclusive results or when it would be dangerous to use the cutting
test because of the dimensions of the sample.
As noted above, one instance where the center punch test will be
used is when the cutting test yields inconclusive results. In this
situation, the results of the center punch test will be interpreted in
conjunction with the results of the cutting test in order to make the
correct classification determination. CBP believes this additional test
is required because the CBP Laboratory occasionally tests samples that
break into several large pieces when subjected to the cutting test.
Without the benefit of a second test to confirm whether the tested
glassware is actually pressed and toughened (specially tempered) in
these cases, the analyst is constrained under the current standard to
classify the article as ``tempered'' even though there may be doubts as
to whether the article is actually tempered. Accordingly, the revised
standard set forth in this document will afford the CBP analyst with
the opportunity to utilize the center punch test in cases where the
results of the cutting test are inconclusive (i.e., if the sample
breaks into several large pieces when subjected to the cutting test).
The second instance where the center punch test will be employed
under the proposed revised method is cases where an article is too
small to safely analyze with the cutting test. CBP believes this is
necessary because the integrity of a tempered glassware article can
fail during a cutting test, potentially resulting in serious injury to
the CBP analyst. Accordingly, the revised method will afford the
analyst the opportunity to utilize the center punch test on articles
considered ``too small'' to safely perform a cutting test. The revised
method will make clear that glassware articles considered too small to
analyze safely with a cutting test will be those that are smaller than
five inches in diameter or five inches wide. If a glassware article is
smaller than five inches in diameter or five inches wide and the
analyst chooses to use the center punch test, a cutting test will not
be performed on the article and the results obtained from the center
punch test will be considered independently. Results obtained from the
center punch test in these situations will be interpreted in the same
manner as results obtained from the cutting test.
Comment:
The commenter states that the proposed breakage analysis for
tempered glassware subjected to the cutting or center punch test
(particularly fluorosilicate which has characteristics unique to its
crystalline structure) is too subjective and in many instances would
result in an erroneous conclusion that a tempered article is not
tempered. With respect to the proposed breakage analysis, the commenter
specifically states that both annealed and tempered fluorosilicate
plates which are subjected to the center punch test break into small
pizza-shaped pieces, the only real difference being that the tempered
plates take more force to break and yield somewhat smaller pizza-shaped
pieces. In addition, other types of articles may react differently when
subjected to the center punch test. For example, a tempered mug which
is subjected to the center punch test may break into irregular pieces
smaller than those of an annealed mug.
The commenter indicates that their client has performed repeated
center punch tests on the full range of fluorosilicate articles which
they manufacture and have confirmed that other than the differences in
the appearance of the pieces noted above, they did not observe dicing
or crazing of tempered fluorosilicate glass. The commenter submitted
various photographs and ten short videos in order to demonstrate the
difficulty associated with classifying glass as tempered or non-
tempered based on breakage patterns. The commenter states that the
photographs depict annealed and tempered fluorosilicate (opal) and soda
lime plates subjected to the center punch test. The commenter indicates
that of the ten videos submitted, two are of the center punch test
performed on tempered fluorosilicate glass plates; two are of the
center punch test performed on annealed fluorosilicate glass plates;
one is of the center punch test performed on a tempered soda lime glass
plate; one is of the center punch test performed on an annealed soda
lime glass plate; one is of a hammer striking a tempered fluorosilicate
plate; one is of a hammer striking an annealed fluorosilicate plate;
one is of the center punch test performed on a tempered fluorosilicate
mug; and one is of the center punch test performed on an annealed
fluorosilicate mug.
The commenter believes that the photographs and videos prove that
the breakage differences resulting when the
[[Page 55814]]
center punch test is performed on tempered versus annealed glass can be
so subtle as to be virtually non-existent. The commenter specifically
notes that tempered fluorosilicate glass plates will not exhibit any
dicing, graveling, or crazing when cut or center punched. In addition,
the commenter states that dicing, crazing, or graveling are
characteristics that are generally exhibited in heat-treated flat
glass, not flat glassware. The commenter contends that because tempered
dinnerware is very different in shape and thickness, dicing, crazing or
graveling does not ordinarily occur in soda lime glass dinnerware and
never occurs in tempered fluorosilicate glass dinnerware. Moreover, the
commenter states that there is no evidence that glass dinnerware should
dice, craze, or gravel when cut.
CBP's Response:
CBP disagrees with the commenter's statement that the analysis of
breakage patterns for tempered glassware subjected to the cutting or
center punch tests is too subjective to be deemed reliable. In
addition, CBP notes that some degree of temper must be visually evident
for a glassware article to be considered ``toughened (specially
tempered)'' and also maintains that a tempered glassware article will
craze, dice, or gravel when broken.
CBP notes that the degree of temper in glassware is roughly
equivalent to the strength increase of the glass produced by the
compression on the outside of the article and that this increase in
compression is compensated for by a greater amount of internal tension.
CBP's view is that, at some point, the appearance of dicing indicates a
certain amount of achievement of strength through tempering and that
progressively smaller fragments corresponds to even higher levels of
temper. The factor affecting whether an interior crack branches into
other fractures is principally the state of the stress at those
interior points through which the crack propagates. CBP's criterion for
``toughened (specially tempered)'' translates roughly into the
requirement that the state of tensile strength in the interior of the
article due to tempering should be high enough to produce this
branching which is exhibited by visible dicing, crazing, or graveling
during breakage through at least part of the article. In this respect,
whether it is flat glass or dinner glassware, it is a common axiom that
a tempered glassware article will craze, dice, or gravel when it
breaks.
With respect to the photographic and video evidence submitted by
the commenter, CBP initially agrees that in some cases the tempered
glassware depicted in the submissions does not appear to craze, dice,
or gravel when impacted with a center punch. However, it is noted that
no evidence was submitted to demonstrate that the glassware subjected
to testing in the submissions was, in fact, tempered. In addition, CBP
notes that the experiments were not technically accurate because only a
hammer was used in some of the tests. Accordingly, the criteria for
interpreting breakage for the cutting test for opaque glassware and the
reinstated center punch test, as set forth in the January 9, 2008,
notice, will not be eliminated from the revised method for the testing
of pressed and toughened (specially tempered) glassware.
Comment:
The commenter states that CBP's proposal to use additional tests to
verify the results of the other tests is improper because tests that
are never disclosed or described cannot be properly scrutinized. In
addition, the commenter states that CBP has not explained what weight
would be assigned to the additional tests for purposes of applying the
testing methodology.
CBP's Response:
CBP agrees that the verification of additional test results would
be problematic for the reasons the commenter provides. Accordingly,
additional tests will not be used to verify the results of the other
tests, as reflected in the revised method to be applied for the testing
of pressed and toughened (specially tempered) glassware which is set
forth below.
Conclusion
After analyzing the comments and other material contained in the
submission discussed above and further review of the matter, CBP has
decided to adopt, except for the use of additional tests as discussed
in the comment section above, the modifications to the test method used
by CBP for the testing of pressed and toughened (specially tempered)
glassware as proposed in the notice of January 9, 2008 (73 FR 1640) for
the cutting test for opaque glassware and for the reinstatement of the
center punch test for articles less than five inches in diameter and
for inconclusive results from the cutting test. In addition, this
document inserts a new section, ``Scope and Field of Application'',
into the test method. This new section merely clarifies that the method
employs macroscopic analysis, thermal shock testing, and evaluation of
temper. This new section also clarifies that pressed and toughened
(specially tempered) glassware articles are normally imported under
subheadings 7013.28.05, 7013.37.05, 7013.42.10, 7013.49.10, and
7013.99.20, HTSUS, and that articles normally imported under heading
7007, HTSUS, such as windshields, are not within the purview of the
method. Finally, this document makes other minor editorial changes to
the test method. The revised test method, set forth in its entirety
below, will be employed by CBP on glassware entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after 30 days from the date of
publication of this document in the Federal Register.
TESTING METHOD OF PRESSED AND TOUGHENED (SPECIALLY TEMPERED) GLASSWARE
SAFETY PRECAUTION: CERTAIN PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN THIS METHOD POSE
A POTENTIAL HAZARD TO PERSONNEL FROM THE PROXIMITY TO OR HANDLING OF
BREAKING OR BROKEN GLASS. THIS METHOD SHALL NOT BE UNDERTAKEN WITHOUT
SUPERVISORY CONCURRENCE THAT ADEQUATE PRECAUTIONS FOR PERSONAL SAFETY
HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED.
SCOPE AND FIELD OF APPLICATION
This method employs macroscopic analysis, thermal shock testing,
and evaluation of temper to determine if a glassware item has been
pressed and toughened (specially tempered) for U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP)'s tariff classification purposes.
These glassware articles are normally imported under subheading
numbers 7013.28.05, 7013.37.05, 7013.42.10, 7013.49.10, and 7013.99.20
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Articles of ``safety glass, consisting of toughened (tempered) * * *
glass,'' normally imported under heading 7007 of the HTSUS, (e.g.,
vehicle windshields) are not within the purview of this method.
1. APPARATUS:
Photographic Equipment:
A camera (equipped with flash or supplemented by adequate lighting)
is recommended for making a permanent record of unusual samples and
test results.
Polariscope:
The basic instrument consists of a light source, a polarizer, and
an analyzer. The addition of a full-wave retardation, or tint, plate
permits observation of color-enhanced stress patterns. Ideally, the
working space, or
[[Page 55815]]
distance between the polarizer and the analyzer, should be large enough
to accommodate samples ranging up to eight inches in height.
Tile Saw (or Similar Table-Mounted Circular Saw):
A tile saw having a cutting head which can be adjusted horizontally
and vertically and which is equipped with an 8 to 12 inch diameter
continuous rim diamond blade designed for wet cutting glass is adequate
for testing opaque glassware articles.
Center Punch:
The center punch is a slender tool having one end tapered to a
point. The tool should be approximately 8''; to 12'' in length to
permit insertion into tall-form tumblers and other articles of similar
shape while the nonpointed end extends above the rim. This is necessary
for ease of handling and for safety while performing the center punch
test. The pointed end of the center punch should not be sufficiently
sharp so as to chip the glassware on contact without the application of
pressure.
Other Apparatus and Supplies:
The method requires various common laboratory articles such as a
caliper or similar device for measuring the diameter of the opening and
the maximum inside diameter of the sample, an oven, a water bath, and
other equipment and supplies. Appropriate safety devices and personal
protective equipment are also required.
2. PREPARATION OF THE SAMPLE
When available a representative number of samples should be
analyzed. However, it is recognized that for any of several reasons,
e.g., cost of the item, only a limited number of samples may be
submitted for analysis. The possibility exists that only one sample may
be available for testing.
3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
The following procedures may be conducted in whatever order the
analyst deems is appropriate for the particular sample being examined.
The test protocol should be terminated at the point that a sample fails
to meet any of the key criteria, i.e., ``pressed'', ``toughened'', or
``specially tempered.''
Evaluation for Determination if an Article Has Been Pressed
3.1 Macroscopic Analysis:
3.1.1 Visual Inspection:
Inspect the sample for the following:
Identifying marks, labels, sizes, etc., especially those
that may have been caused by a push-up valve and a mold that have been
pressed into the article;
The style (stemware, tumbler, bowl, plate, etc.);
The presence of ribs, handles, flutes, etc.;
The size of the rim or opening, if applicable;
The size of the most bulbous portion of the article;
Any other unusual characteristics (e.g., chips, cracks).
Interpretation of Visual Inspection Results: Characteristics such
as mold marks, ribs, handles, and flutes are often indicative of a
pressed rather than blown glass article.
3.1.2 Dimensional Measurement (Applies Only to Stemware, Tumblers,
Bowls, etc.):
Using a caliper or similar device, measure the minimum diameter of
the mouth, opening, or upper rim of the sample. With the same device,
measure the maximum inside diameter. Record both measurements.
Interpretation of Dimensional Measurement Results: A sample having
a maximum inside diameter greater than the minimum diameter of the
mouth, opening, or upper rim is not likely to have been ``pressed.''
Interpretation of the Macroscopic Analysis Test: The analyst is
advised to consider the overall features of the article and the
dimensional analysis test results in determining that an article has
been ``pressed.'' If the results show that the sample is not
``pressed'', the testing sequence for this sample should be terminated
at this point.
Evaluation for Determination if an Article Has Been Toughened
(Specially Tempered)
3.2 Thermal Shock Test:
Heat the sample(s) in an oven to 160 [deg]C for 30
minutes.
Remove one sample from the oven and immediately immerse it
in a water bath set at 25 [deg]C. This results in a 135 [deg]C
difference in temperature. [Note: Reasonable alternate oven and water
bath settings up to 10 [deg]C are acceptable as long as
the 135 [deg]C difference in temperature is maintained.]
Interpretation of Thermal Shock Test Results: Annealed glassware
and inadequately or partially tempered glassware will generally not
survive this test of durability or toughness. If breakage occurs, the
sample is not ``toughened'' for CBP purposes. Record the findings, and
terminate the analysis.
3.3 Evaluation of Temper:
3.3.1 The Polariscopic Examination (For Transparent or Translucent
Articles):
This method for the qualitative evaluation of temper in glassware
should be conducted only on transparent or translucent articles. This
method is not applicable to opaque items or to articles which have been
tempered by a process other than thermal tempering. In addition, some
translucent articles will not transmit enough polarized light to permit
the observation of stress patterns; these items should be evaluated for
temper using the Cutting Test.
Place the full-wave retardation plate (tint plate) between
the polarizer and the analyzer. The polarized light must pass through
both the sample and the retardation plate for the color-enhanced
polariscopic pattern to be observed through the analyzer. Position the
retardation plate in direct contact with the polarizer or,
alternatively, just in front of the analyzer.
Turn on the light source.
Evaluate the stress in the bottom of the intact article by
placing its bottom surface in contact with the polarizer so that the
polarized light passes perpendicularly through the bottom surface, or
as close to perpendicularly as possible, depending upon the article's
shape. [This positioning does not work well with stemware because of
color patterns caused by the stem itself. With these items, it will be
necessary to hold the glass at a slight angle to view the base and the
bowl separately.]
Evaluate the stress in the sides of the intact article,
especially near the rim or edge, by positioning the article so that the
polarized light passes perpendicularly through the sides near the rim,
or as close to perpendicularly as possible, depending upon the
article's shape. Observation of the stress patterns in the sidewall and
rim areas should be made while viewing through a single thickness of
glass. For some items, especially stemware, tumblers, and mugs, this
will require holding the article at a slight angle to the polarizer
(open end raised slightly).
Interpretation of the Polariscopic Examination: Thermal tempering
of glassware involves heating to the softening point followed by rapid
cooling. The surfaces cool first and reach a temperature where they
become rigid. With further cooling, the interior or core tries to
shrink but is prevented from doing so by the rigid surface layers. This
results in the surfaces being locked into a state of high compression
and the interior locked into compensating tension.
When polarized light travels through a stressed material, they
divide into slow and fast fronts. As a result of the difference in
speed of the slow and fast rays, interferences occur and a pattern of
colors is observed. These colors can
[[Page 55816]]
be used to evaluate the stresses in the article. As the stress
increases, the observed color changes to reflect the amount of stress.
The color changes follow a rigorous sequence as the stress-induced
retardation, or distance between the fast and slow rays, increases. In
low-stress areas, black and shades of gray are seen. Evaluation of low
stress is simplified by using a color-enhancing retardation or tint
plate which adds a shift of one fringe order, or 565 nm, in the color
pattern throughout the observed field. With the tint plate in place,
even low and moderately stressed areas will exhibit a contrasting color
effect.
Annealed glassware will exhibit a uniform coloration of the
polarized light passing through it; there will be essentially no change
from the background. Tempered articles will exhibit non-uniform
coloration of the polarized light on the bottom surface and sidewalls
and bands of color parallel to the rim or lip. [Note: With highly
colored articles, it may be helpful to conduct the polariscopic exam
without the tint plate. There will be no color enhancement, but the
gray to black interference patterns should be readily discernible in
tempered articles.]
If the sample passes the Thermal Shock Test and shows evidence of
full-surface tempering (as opposed to rim-tempering or partial
tempering) when examined polariscopically, the sample has been
``toughened (specially tempered)'' for CBP purposes.
3.3.2 The Cutting Test for Opaque Glassware
This test is applicable to opaque articles and to those translucent
articles which cannot be examined polariscopically because of
inadequate transmission of the polarized light.
Ensure that the saw is equipped with a continuous rim
diamond blade designed for wet cutting glass.
Adjust the cutting head of the saw vertically and
horizontally, as necessary, to accommodate the glassware article.
Be sure the water supply to both sides of the diamond-
rimmed blade is adequate.
Turn on the saw.
While holding or otherwise securing the article to prevent
twisting and binding during the cutting, slowly and gently move the
article into contact with the blade.
Proceed with the cutting.
Note the breakage pattern, number, and relative shape and
size of the fragments (indicate this without making an actual count).
Photograph the breakage pattern and/or typical fragments, if indicated.
Interpretation of the Cutting Test: Annealed (non-tempered)
glassware will readily accept the diamond-rimmed blade and will be
cleanly cut in half. Tempered glass, on the other hand, will break into
pieces when cut. The broken pieces will need to exhibit some dicing,
crazing (gravel remaining tenuously in contact with neighboring pieces)
or graveling. ``Some'' will be considered to be any diced, crazed or
graveled fragments yielded by the broken sample that is more than just
a fugitive diced, crazed or graveled fragment. The word ``gravel'' is
intended to be synonymous with ``diced pieces'' and implies the
presence of small cubes of roughly equal dimensions on all six sides.
The extent of cutting needed to induce breakage may vary from item to
item, but in no event will tempered articles be cleanly cut in half by
the diamond-rimmed blade.
3.3.3 Center Punch Test
In the event that the Cutting Test is inconclusive (i.e., if the
sample breaks into several large pieces when subjected to the cutting
test) or if an article is too small (less than 5'' in diameter) to be
safely analyzed by the Cutting Test, the analyst has the option to
apply the Center Punch Test to the article. The Center Punch Test
should be performed as follows:
Set the sample to be tested on a solid, level surface.
Place an upended cardboard box over the item to be tested.
The box should be of sufficient size so that the entire article is
covered. The box should be altered such that there is a hole in the
center which is large enough to admit the shank of a center punch.
Place the pointed end of the center punch, vertically,
against the inside center bottom or heel.
Strike the dull end of the punch with a hammer, using
blows of gradually increasing severity, until breakage occurs.
Note the breakage pattern, number, and relative shape and
size of fragments (indicate this without making an actual count).
Photograph the breakage pattern and/or typical fragments, if indicated.
Interpretation of Center Punch Test Results: In order to be
considered ``tempered'' for CBP purposes, it is only necessary for the
broken sample to exhibit some dicing, crazing or graveling. ``Some''
will be considered to be any diced, crazed or graveled fragments
yielded by the broken sample that are more than just fugitive diced,
crazed or graveled fragments. The word ``gravel'' is intended to be
synonymous with ``diced pieces'' and implies the presence of small
cubes of roughly equal dimensions on all six sides.
``Toughened (specially tempered)'' glassware will require
considerably more force to break than ordinary glassware with the
center punch test and, when it breaks, some graveling or crazing will
be observed. Neither graveling nor crazing will be observed in ordinary
glassware.
Powder and splinters will occasionally be observed in samples of
``toughened (specially tempered)'' glassware. Also, few, if any, of
these samples will be reduced entirely to gravel; larger fragments will
remain. However, these large fragments will seldom be exceptionally
pointed or jagged and broken edges, especially on diced pieces, will be
reasonably dull.
The stem and base of the stemware styles seldom disintegrate. The
most common breakage pattern for stemware is characterized by a tack-
shaped fragment consisting of the base and a portion of the stem
remaining intact. The tip of the stem portion should be reasonably
dull.
A sample that passes the Thermal Shock Test and shows evidence of
tempering per the guidance given above for the Cutting Test and/or
Center Punch Test has been ``toughened (specially tempered)'' for CBP's
tariff classification purposes.
Dated: September 9, 2010.
Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs
and Border Protection.
[FR Doc. 2010-22826 Filed 9-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P