Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning Certain Billiards Tables, 63812-63815 [2015-26752]
Download as PDF
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
63812
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 203 / Wednesday, October 21, 2015 / Notices
expense. It can be costly to ‘‘retrofit’’
Section 508 accessibility standards if
remediation is later needed. The HHS
Section 508 Evaluation Product
Assessment Template, available at
https://www.hhs.gov/web/508/
contracting/technology/vendors.html,
provides a useful roadmap for
developers. It is a simple, web-based
checklist utilized by HHS officials to
allow vendors to document how their
products do or do not meet the various
Section 508 requirements.
Amount of the Prize; Award
Approving Official: The Award
Approving Official will be the Director
of the NHLBI. The NHLBI may select up
to three winners to receive a monetary
prize. Any money awarded to a winning
Student Team will be distributed
equally among the Student Team’s
eligible undergraduate students. The
Student Team Captain must be a citizen
or permanent resident of the United
States. Mentors and any team members
that do not meet the applicable
citizenship/residency requirements will
not be eligible to receive any monetary
prize award and will not be reimbursed
for meeting registration or travel
expenses to the annual NHLBI/National
Sickle Cell Disease meeting (August
2016), as discussed below.
• 1st Prize—$7,000 with up to an
additional $2,000 to reimburse the
Student Team for eligible expenses to
register for and travel to the annual
NHLBI/National Sickle Cell Disease
meeting to present and demonstrate its
winning entry.
• 2nd Prize—$5,000 with up to an
additional $2,000 to reimburse the
Student Team for eligible expenses to
register and travel to the annual NHLBI/
National Sickle Cell Disease meeting to
present and demonstrate its winning
entry.
• 3rd Prize—$3,000 with up to an
additional $2,000 to reimburse the
Student Team for eligible expenses to
register and travel to the annual NHLBI/
National Sickle Cell Disease meeting to
present and demonstrate its winning
entry.
• Up to three Student Teams may also
receive ‘‘Honorable Mentions’’ but no
monetary prize, or support to register
and travel to the annual NHLBI/
National Sickle Cell Disease meeting
will be provided. ‘‘Honorable Mentions’’
winning entries will be recognized on
the NHLBI Web site and/or other media
venues.
Payment of the Prize: Prizes awarded
under this Challenge will be paid by
electronic funds transfer and may be
subject to Federal income taxes. HHS/
NIH will comply with the Internal
Revenue Service withholding and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:39 Oct 20, 2015
Jkt 238001
reporting requirements, where
applicable.
Basis upon Which Submissions Will
be Evaluated: Five to seven Federal
employees will serve as judges. They
could include members from any NHLBI
Extramural Division/Office/Center, the
Division of Intramural Research, and
other NIH Federal employees. Each
submission will be rated on the
following criteria:
Significance (20 points): Potential
impact and significance of the
submission to improve public
awareness and knowledge about SCD
and associated complications and the
successful implementation of effective
interventions for SCD in real world
settings. This must include scientifically
accurate information.
Innovation (25 points): Submission is
an innovative and creative information
management tool that is:
a. Different from existing technologies
b. Designed for use on the most widelyavailable computing platforms:
Including, but not limited to:
Windows-based Operating Systems;
Mac OSX; iOS mobile computing
platforms; and Android mobile
computing platforms and
c. Widely available to end-users (ease
and breadth of dissemination)
Usability and design (25 points): User
friendliness and user comprehension
a. Appropriateness of user level and
efficiency of use
b. Tool generates the expected output
leading to user satisfaction
c. Evidence of co-design with and
support from users of proposed tool
(e.g., patient, family, caregivers,
community, and healthcare providers)
d. Appropriateness of images/messaging
for the intended audience
e. Clear, concise, and well-organized
message
f. Clarity of image and/or audio
Quality of pilot test and outcomes (30
points): Assess approach and feasibility
a. Research Objectives/Research
Question/Literature Review
b. Study Methods/Study Design
c. Study participants, allocation of study
participants, and intervention
(information management tool)
d. Variables/Data Collection
e. Statistical Analysis and Sample Size
f. Outreach and Dissemination plan
employed
g. Results and discussion of pilot test
outcomes
Feasibility
a. Dissemination plan employed likely
to result in widespread use
Frm 00076
Challenge Judges
Senior Advisor, Division of Blood
Diseases and Resources, National
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
Clinical Trials Specialist, Division of
Cardiovascular Sciences, National
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
Program Director, Division of Lung
Diseases, National Heart, Lung, and
Blood Institute
Deputy Director, Office of Translational
Alliances and Coordination, Division
of Extramural Research Activities,
National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute
Staff member, Office of Science Policy,
Engagement, Education and
Communications, National Heart,
Lung, and Blood Institute
Staff member, Center for Translation
Research and Implementation
Science, National Heart, Lung, and
Blood Institute
Deputy Chief, Education and
Community Involvement Branch,
National Human Genome Research
Institute
Dated: October 2, 2015.
Gary H. Gibbons,
Director, National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute.
[FR Doc. 2015–26753 Filed 10–20–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140–01–P
Approach
PO 00000
b. Based on the outcomes of the pilot,
assess likelihood of full
implementation to succeed
The NHLBI reserves the right to
disqualify a submission if the tool fails
to function as expressed in the
description provided by the submitting
Student Team or if the tool provides
inaccurate or incomplete information.
Submissions must be free of malware.
The NHLBI may test the tool to
determine whether malware or other
security threats may be present and
reserves the right to disqualify the
submission if, in NHLBI’s judgment, the
tool may damage government or others’
equipment or operating environment.
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Notice of Issuance of Final
Determination Concerning Certain
Billiards Tables
U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice of final determination.
AGENCY:
This document provides
notice that U.S. Customs and Border
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\21OCN1.SGM
21OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 203 / Wednesday, October 21, 2015 / Notices
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) has issued a final
determination concerning the country of
origin of certain billiards tables. Based
upon the facts presented, CBP has
concluded in the final determination
that the United States is the country of
origin of the billiards tables for purposes
of U.S. Government procurement.
The final determination was
issued on October 15, 2015. 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 no later than
November 20, 2015.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Grace A. Kim, Valuation and Special
Programs Branch, Regulations and
Rulings, Office of International Trade
(202) 325–7941.
Notice is
hereby given that on October 15, 2015
pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection
Regulations (19 CFR part 177, subpart
B), CBP issued a final determination
concerning the country of origin of
certain billiards tables, which may be
offered to the U.S. Government under an
undesignated government procurement
contract. This final determination, HQ
H268491, was issued 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
assembly and installation processes
performed in the United States, using
imported components, substantially
transform the imported components into
billiards tables. Therefore, the country
of origin of the billiards tables is the
United States for purposes of U.S.
Government procurement.
Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19
CFR 177.29), provides that a notice of
final determination 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.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: October 15, 2015.
Harold M. Singer,
Acting Executive Director, Regulations and
Rulings, Office of International Trade.
HQ H268491
October 15, 2015
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:39 Oct 20, 2015
OT:RR:CTF:VS H268491 GaK
CATEGORY: Origin
Jeremy Ross Page
Page Fura, P.C.
311 West Superior, Suite 306
Chicago, IL 60654
RE: U.S. Government Procurement; Country
of Origin of Billiards Tables; Substantial
Transformation
Dear Mr. Page:
This is in response to your letter, dated
August 12, 2015, requesting a final
determination on behalf of The Brunswick
Corporation (‘‘Company’’), pursuant to
subpart B of part 177 of the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) Regulations (19
CFR part 177). Under these regulations,
which implement Title III of the Trade
Agreements Act of 1979 (‘‘TAA’’), as
amended (19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.), CBP issues
country of origin advisory rulings and final
determinations as to 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.
This final determination concerns the
country of origin of the Company’s four
billiards tables. We note that as a U.S.
manufacturer, the Company is a party-atinterest within the meaning of 19 CFR
177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this
final determination. Diagrams of the tables
were submitted with your request.
FACTS:
There are four families of billiards tables at
issue: Centurion (‘‘Table A’’), Metro (‘‘Table
B’’), Gold Crown V (‘‘Table C’’), and Black
Wolf II (‘‘Table D’’) (collectively ‘‘tables’’).
The tables are designed and developed in the
U.S. and each table is produced in the U.S.
from components and subassemblies sourced
from various countries, including the U.S.
Due to the size and weight of each table, the
Company ships the individual components to
the U.S. customers’ location and assembles
the tables on-site. The assembly and
installation of the tables must be performed
by certified Company installers who are
employed and extensively trained by
licensed U.S.-based Company dealers.
The assembly of Table A consists of the
following: 1) assembly of base frame and legs,
2) slate assembly, 3) attachment of billiard
cloth to slate, 4) assembly of rail and apron,
and 5) assembly of the gully return system 1
(if ordered by the customer). Each process
must be performed in sequential order,
except for the gully return system which is
interspersed throughout the process. There
are approximately 65 steps and 72 parts,
including fasteners (e.g., nuts, bolts, screws,
and staples), wax or hard putty and glue.
First, the table legs and stretcher are
assembled and the base frame is constructed
on top of the legs so that a balanced and
leveled foundation is created. The next step
is the installation of the slate, where the
installers must level the base frame and shim
three slate pieces to ensure a completely flat
1 Ball
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
return system.
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63813
surface before attaching the slate to the base
frame. After the slate pieces are attached to
the table base, the slate joints are filled with
wax or hard putty and lightly sanded to
ensure a completely smooth surface. Once
the slate surface is cleaned and leveled, the
installers cut and glue strips of cloth to the
slate pockets and stretch the billiard cloth
over the slate and attach it to the slate with
a contact adhesive. Table A uses a framed
slate, which is backed with particle board
allowing the billiard cloth to be stapled to it.
The billiard cloth installation is said to be
complex and essential to ensure that the table
performs as designed. The cloth installation
consists of 22 steps of stretching it from
different directions and attaching it to the
slate frame. The failure to properly level the
table and base frame, seal the slate joints,
screw holes and/or attach the billiard cloth
properly will prevent the balls from running
true during play. After the billiard cloth is
properly attached, the rails and aprons are
installed and the bed spot 2 is affixed to the
cloth. If the customer ordered the gullies,
they are installed at this stage. The assembly
of Table A requires an average of 8 man
hours and two certified installers (4 hours
per installer). An additional 45 minutes is
required for leveling the table after assembly.
The installation cost combined with the
value of U.S. components, amounts to 43.3%
of the total cost. Other components are
sourced from Brazil, Vietnam, Indonesia, and
Taiwan.3
Table B has a different design than Table
A and is higher in quality. The assembly of
Table B is the same as Table A, except that
step 4 involves the attachment of rail cloth,
and the billiard cloth is also not pre-installed
on the rail cushions prior to delivery. There
are approximately 71 steps and 82 parts.
After the billiard cloth is attached to the
slate, the installers must wrap the rail
cushions in billiard cloth. The loose billiard
cloth is draped over each of the six rails and
a wooden feather strip (same length of the
rail) is pounded into place to affix the
billiard cloth to the rail and excess cloth is
trimmed. After the six rails are wrapped, the
rails and apron are installed on the table and
the bed spot is affixed. The assembly of Table
B requires the same time as assembly of
Table A, but an additional 2 hours to wrap
all six rails. The installation cost combined
with the value of U.S. components, amounts
to 35.3% of the total cost. Other components
are sourced from Brazil, Indonesia and
Taiwan.4
2 Bed spot is the self-adhesive sticker that
indicates where the balls are to be racked.
3 Pocket set Centurion/Century (U.S.), 8′1″ home
framed 3 piece slate set (Brazil), rails 8′H Centurion
black (Vietnam), Centurion legs 8′ black (Vietnam),
Centurion leg stretcher 8′ black (Vietnam),
Centurion aprons 8′ black (Vietnam), B/F 8′H
Centurion PW (Indonesia), main hardware
Centurion 2013 (Taiwan), and Centurion rail and
apron corners (Taiwan).
4 8′1″ home framed 3 piece slate set (Brazil), rails
8′H Metro black (Indonesia), castings & ext Metro
(Taiwan), main hardware Metro (Taiwan), levelers/
brackets Metro (Indonesia), pkg bridge tri racks
Metro (U.S.), aprons 8H Metro black carb PHII
(Indonesia), leg set Metro black carb (Indonesia),
Metro B/F 8′H carb (Indonesia), and drop pockets
GCIV, GCV, Metro (U.S.).
E:\FR\FM\21OCN1.SGM
21OCN1
63814
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 203 / Wednesday, October 21, 2015 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Table C is very similar to Table B, but due
to the different design and materials, the
assembly process is claimed to be more
complex and costly. Specifically, the
assembly of the rails and pocket castings
requires shimming and alignment to ensure
a quality fit. The assembly of the apron is
also more complex due to Table C’s higher
fit and finish, and inclusion of corner
castings and a ball storage box. There are
approximately 77 steps and 91 parts. The
assembly of Table C requires the same
amount of time to assemble as Table B. The
installation cost combined with the value of
U.S. components, amounts to 28.7% of the
total cost. Other components are sourced
from Brazil, Indonesia, and Taiwan.5
The assembly of Table D is similar to Table
A, with the exception of delineation of the
rail and apron assembly process. There are
approximately 60 steps and 71 parts. While
Table D is similar to the other tables in this
request, Table D is unique because it requires
the complete assembly of both legs. The
assembly of Table D requires an average of
8 man hours and two certified installers.
Since the rails are pre-wrapped, only an
additional 45 minutes are required to level
the table. The installation cost combined
with the value of U.S. components, amounts
to 49.4% of the total cost. Other components
are sourced from Brazil, Indonesia, Vietnam,
and Taiwan.6
ISSUE:
What is the country of origin of the four
billiards tables 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 as to 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.
Under the rule of origin set forth under 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
5 9′1″ pro framed 3 piece slate set (Brazil); drop
pockets GCIV, GCV, Metro (U.S.); quick set foot
plates (U.S.); GC IV 9′ base frame new (Brazil); rail
Gold Crown V 9′ mahogany/nickel (Indonesia);
main hard ware GC V (Taiwan); storage box GC V
trim nickel (Taiwan); main castings GC V nickel
(Taiwan); leg set 9′ GCVMAH carb (Brazil); stretcher
9′ GCVMAH carb (Brazil); aprons GCV 9′
mahogany/nickel carb (Brazil).
6 8′1″ home framed 3 piece slate set (Brazil), drop
pocket set (U.S.), Black Wolf II hardware and feet
(Indonesia), B/F 8H BRL/GEN carb (Vietnam), PKT
APR 8H Black Wolf carb (Vietnam), leg posts Black
Wolf carb (Vietnam), leg panels 8′H Black Wolf carb
(Vietnam), Black Wolf corners silver 2012 (Taiwan),
rails Black Wolf II 8′ (Brazil).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:39 Oct 20, 2015
Jkt 238001
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 Acquisition Regulations.
See 19 CFR 177.21. In this regard, CBP
recognizes that the Federal Acquisition
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 Acquisition
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.
In order to determine whether a substantial
transformation occurs when components of
various origins are assembled into completed
products, CBP considers the totality of the
circumstances and makes such
determinations on a case-by-case basis. The
country of origin of the item’s components,
extent of the processing that occurs within a
country, and whether such processing
renders a product with a new name,
character, and use are primary considerations
in such cases. Additionally, factors such as
the resources expended on product design
and development, extent and nature of postassembly inspection and testing procedures,
and the degree of skill required during the
actual manufacturing process may be
relevant when determining whether a
substantial transformation has occurred. No
one factor is determinative.
In Carlson Furniture Industries v. United
States, 65 Cust. Ct. 474 (1970), the U.S.
Customs Court ruled that U.S. operations on
imported chair parts constituted a substantial
transformation, resulting in the creation of a
new article of commerce. After importation,
the importer assembled, fitted, and glued the
wooden parts together, inserted steel pins
into the key joints, cut the legs to length and
leveled them, and in some instances,
upholstered the chairs and fitted the legs
with glides and casters. The court
determined that the importer had to perform
additional work on the imported chair parts
and add materials to create a functional
article of commerce. The court found that the
operations were substantial in nature, and
more than the mere assembly of the parts
together.
In Headquarters Ruling Letter (‘‘HQ’’)
W563456, dated July 31, 2006, CBP held that
certain office chairs assembled in the U.S.
were products of the U.S. for purposes of
U.S. government procurement. The office
chairs were assembled from over 70 U.S. and
foreign components. In finding that the
imported parts were substantially
transformed in the U.S., CBP stated that the
assembly processes that occurred in the U.S.
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
were complex and meaningful, required the
assembly of a large number of components,
and rendered a new and distinct article of
commerce that possessed a new name,
character, and use. CBP noted that the U.S.origin seat and back frame assemblies, which
were made with the importer’s trademark
fabric, together with the tilt assembly, were
of U.S. origin and gave the chair its unique
design profile and essential character. In HQ
561258, dated April 15, 1999, CBP
determined that the assembly of numerous
imported workstation components with the
U.S.-origin work surface into finished
workstations constituted a substantial
transformation. CBP held that the imported
components lost their identity as leg
brackets, drawer units, panels etc. when they
were assembled together to form a
workstation. In HQ H083693, dated March
23, 2010, CBP held that a certain wood chest
assembled in the U.S. was a product of the
U.S. for purposes of U.S. government
procurement. The wood chest was assembled
from over twenty U.S. and foreign
components in a twenty-step process which
took approximately forty-one minutes. CBP
held that the components used to
manufacture the wood chest, when combined
with a U.S. origin laminate top, were
substantially transformed as a result of the
assembly operations performed in the U.S.
In the instant case, the tables’ components
range from 71 to 91 which can only be
assembled by two skilled installers, operating
under the control and training of the
Company and its authorized network of
dealers. The assembly of the components
requires the installers to maintain proper
leveling throughout, while building different
parts of the billiards table, which is essential
to the ball running true during play. We find
that the assembly processes that occur in the
U.S. are complex and meaningful, require the
assembly of a large number of components,
and render a new and distinct article of
commerce that possesses a new name,
character, and use. Therefore, we find that
the imported components lose their
individual identities and become an integral
part of the billiards tables as a result of the
U.S. assembly operations and combination
with U.S. components; and that the
components acquire a different name,
character, and use as a result of the assembly
operations performed in the U.S. While not
dispositive, we note, in addition, that the
engineering, design, and development of the
tables occur in the U.S. Accordingly, the
assembled billiards tables will be considered
products of the U.S. for purposes of U.S.
Government procurement.
HOLDING:
Based on the facts of this case, we find that
the country of origin of all four billiards
tables is the U.S. 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. Pursuant to 19 CFR
177.30, any party-at-interest may, within 30
days of publication of the Federal Register
E:\FR\FM\21OCN1.SGM
21OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 203 / Wednesday, October 21, 2015 / Notices
Notice referenced above, seek judicial review
of this final determination before the Court
of International Trade.
Sincerely,
Harold M. Singer,
Acting Executive Director Regulations and
Rulings, Office of International Trade
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Modification of National Customs
Automation Program (NCAP) Test
Concerning Automated Commercial
Environment (ACE) Entry Summary,
Accounts and Revenue (ESAR) Test of
Automated Entry Summary Types 51
and 52 and Certain Modes of
Transportation
U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: General notice.
AGENCY:
This document announces
U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s
(CBP’s) plan to modify the National
Customs Automation Program (NCAP)
test concerning the Entry Summary,
Accounts and Revenue (ESAR) test
program in the Automated Commercial
Environment (ACE) to allow importers
and brokers to file electronically entry
summary data for entry types 51 and 52,
in addition to entry types 01, 03, and 11
that are already available for electronic
filing, for merchandise arriving by truck,
rail, vessel, and air, as well as arriving
by mail, pedestrian, and passenger
(hand-carried).
DATES: The ACE ESAR test
modifications set forth in this document
will begin on or about November 20,
2015. This test will continue until
concluded by way of a document
published in the Federal Register.
Public comments are invited and will be
accepted for the duration of the test.
ADDRESSES: Comments concerning this
notice and any aspect of this test may
be submitted at any time during the test
via email to Josephine Baiamonte,
Director, Business Transformation, ACE
Business Office, Office of International
Trade at josephine.baiamonte@
cbp.dhs.gov. In the subject line of your
email message, please use, ‘‘Comment
on Expansion of Automated Entry
Summary for Entry Types 51 and 52.’’
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical questions related to the
Automated Commercial Environment
(ACE) or Automated Broker Interface
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22:39 Oct 20, 2015
Jkt 238001
programs or procedures designed to
evaluate planned components of the
NCAP. The ACE ESAR Test, as modified
in this notice, is authorized pursuant to
§ 101.9(b) of title 19 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (19 CFR 101.9(b)),
which provides for the testing of NCAP
programs or procedures. See Treasury
Decision (T.D.) 95–21, 60 FR 14211
(March 16, 1995).
III. Modifications of ACE ESAR Test
On October 18, 2007, CBP published
a General Notice in the Federal Register
(72 FR 59105) announcing CBP’s plan to
conduct a new test concerning ACE
entry summary, accounts and revenue
capabilities, that provided for enhanced
account management functions for ACE
Portal Accounts and expanding the
universe of ACE account types. That test
notice is commonly referred to as ESAR
I. As stated in that notice, ACE is now
the lead system for CBP-required master
data elements (e.g., company name,
address, and point of contact) as well as
related reference files (e.g., country
code, port code, manufacturer ID, and
gold currency exchange rate and
conversion calculator).
This notice announces that CBP will
modify the ESAR test in order to allow
brokers and importers, who are also
ACE participants, to file electronically,
for air, ocean, rail, and truck modes of
transportation, as well as for mail,
pedestrian, and passenger (handcarried) modes of transportation, the
ACE entry summary for entry type 51
(i.e., merchandise imported by the
Defense Contract Management
Command (DCMAO NY) Military Only),
and for entry type 52 (i.e.,
Government—Dutiable (other than
DCMAO NY)), in addition to entry types
01, 03, and 11.
I. Background
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
VerDate Sep<11>2014
(ABI) transmissions, contact your
assigned client representative.
Interested parties without an assigned
client representative should direct their
questions to Steven Zaccaro at
steven.j.zaccaro@cbp.dhs.gov with the
subject line heading ‘‘Expansion of
Automated Entry Summary for Entry
Types 51 and 52-Request to
Participate.’’
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[FR Doc. 2015–26752 Filed 10–20–15; 8:45 am]
SUMMARY:
63815
The National Customs Automation
Program (NCAP) was established by
Subtitle B of Title VI—Customs
Modernization (Customs Modernization
Act), in the North American Free Trade
Agreement Implementation Act, Public
Law 103–182, 107 Stat. 2057 (19 U.S.C.
1411). Through NCAP, the initial thrust
of customs modernization was on trade
compliance and the development of the
Automated Commercial Environment
(ACE), the planned successor to the
Automated Commercial System (ACS).
ACE is an automated and electronic
system for processing commercial trade
data which is intended to streamline
business processes, facilitate growth in
trade, ensure cargo security, and foster
participation in global commerce, while
ensuring compliance with U.S. laws and
regulations and reducing costs for U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
and all of its communities of interest.
The ability to meet these objectives
depends on successfully modernizing
CBP’s business functions and the
information technology that supports
those functions.
CBP’s modernization efforts are
accomplished through phased releases
of ACE component functionality
designed to replace specific legacy ACS
functions. Each release will begin with
a test and, if the test is successful, will
end with the mandatory use of the new
ACE feature, thus retiring the legacy
ACS function. Each release builds on
previous releases and sets forth the
foundation for subsequent releases.
For the convenience of the public, a
chronological listing of Federal Register
publications detailing ACE test
developments is set forth below in
Section XIV, entitled, ‘‘Development of
ACE Prototypes.’’ The procedures and
criteria related to participation in the
prior ACE test pilots remain in effect
unless otherwise explicitly changed by
this or subsequent notices published in
the Federal Register.
II. Authorization for the Test
The Customs Modernization Act
provides the Commissioner of CBP with
authority to conduct limited test
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
IV. Eligibility Requirements
Importer and broker volunteers who
wish to participate in this test must
have an ACE Portal Account (see notices
referenced below relating to the
establishment of ACE Portal Accounts).
ABI volunteers wishing to participate in
this test must:
(1) Use statement or single pay for
payment processing; and
(2) Use a software package that has
completed ABI certification testing for
ACE.
Test participants must meet all the
eligibility criteria described in this
document in order to participate in the
test program.
V. Test Participation Selection Criteria
The ACE ESAR test is open to all
importers and customs brokers filing
ACE Entry Summaries for cargo
E:\FR\FM\21OCN1.SGM
21OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 203 (Wednesday, October 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63812-63815]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26752]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning Certain
Billiards Tables
AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice of final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document provides notice that U.S. Customs and Border
[[Page 63813]]
Protection (``CBP'') has issued a final determination concerning the
country of origin of certain billiards tables. Based upon the facts
presented, CBP has concluded in the final determination that the United
States is the country of origin of the billiards tables for purposes of
U.S. Government procurement.
DATES: The final determination was issued on October 15, 2015. 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 no later than November 20, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Grace A. Kim, Valuation and Special
Programs Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade
(202) 325-7941.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that on October 15,
2015 pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection Regulations (19 CFR part 177, subpart B), CBP issued a final
determination concerning the country of origin of certain billiards
tables, which may be offered to the U.S. Government under an
undesignated government procurement contract. This final determination,
HQ H268491, was issued 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 assembly and
installation processes performed in the United States, using imported
components, substantially transform the imported components into
billiards tables. Therefore, the country of origin of the billiards
tables is the United States for purposes of U.S. Government
procurement.
Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.29), provides that a
notice of final determination 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: October 15, 2015.
Harold M. Singer,
Acting Executive Director, Regulations and Rulings, Office of
International Trade.
HQ H268491
October 15, 2015
OT:RR:CTF:VS H268491 GaK
CATEGORY: Origin
Jeremy Ross Page
Page Fura, P.C.
311 West Superior, Suite 306
Chicago, IL 60654
RE: U.S. Government Procurement; Country of Origin of Billiards
Tables; Substantial Transformation
Dear Mr. Page:
This is in response to your letter, dated August 12, 2015,
requesting a final determination on behalf of The Brunswick
Corporation (``Company''), pursuant to subpart B of part 177 of the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') Regulations (19 CFR
part 177). Under these regulations, which implement Title III of the
Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (``TAA''), as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511
et seq.), CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final
determinations as to 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.
This final determination concerns the country of origin of the
Company's four billiards tables. We note that as a U.S.
manufacturer, the Company is a party-at-interest within the meaning
of 19 CFR 177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this final
determination. Diagrams of the tables were submitted with your
request.
FACTS:
There are four families of billiards tables at issue: Centurion
(``Table A''), Metro (``Table B''), Gold Crown V (``Table C''), and
Black Wolf II (``Table D'') (collectively ``tables''). The tables
are designed and developed in the U.S. and each table is produced in
the U.S. from components and subassemblies sourced from various
countries, including the U.S. Due to the size and weight of each
table, the Company ships the individual components to the U.S.
customers' location and assembles the tables on-site. The assembly
and installation of the tables must be performed by certified
Company installers who are employed and extensively trained by
licensed U.S.-based Company dealers.
The assembly of Table A consists of the following: 1) assembly
of base frame and legs, 2) slate assembly, 3) attachment of billiard
cloth to slate, 4) assembly of rail and apron, and 5) assembly of
the gully return system \1\ (if ordered by the customer). Each
process must be performed in sequential order, except for the gully
return system which is interspersed throughout the process. There
are approximately 65 steps and 72 parts, including fasteners (e.g.,
nuts, bolts, screws, and staples), wax or hard putty and glue.
First, the table legs and stretcher are assembled and the base frame
is constructed on top of the legs so that a balanced and leveled
foundation is created. The next step is the installation of the
slate, where the installers must level the base frame and shim three
slate pieces to ensure a completely flat surface before attaching
the slate to the base frame. After the slate pieces are attached to
the table base, the slate joints are filled with wax or hard putty
and lightly sanded to ensure a completely smooth surface. Once the
slate surface is cleaned and leveled, the installers cut and glue
strips of cloth to the slate pockets and stretch the billiard cloth
over the slate and attach it to the slate with a contact adhesive.
Table A uses a framed slate, which is backed with particle board
allowing the billiard cloth to be stapled to it. The billiard cloth
installation is said to be complex and essential to ensure that the
table performs as designed. The cloth installation consists of 22
steps of stretching it from different directions and attaching it to
the slate frame. The failure to properly level the table and base
frame, seal the slate joints, screw holes and/or attach the billiard
cloth properly will prevent the balls from running true during play.
After the billiard cloth is properly attached, the rails and aprons
are installed and the bed spot \2\ is affixed to the cloth. If the
customer ordered the gullies, they are installed at this stage. The
assembly of Table A requires an average of 8 man hours and two
certified installers (4 hours per installer). An additional 45
minutes is required for leveling the table after assembly. The
installation cost combined with the value of U.S. components,
amounts to 43.3% of the total cost. Other components are sourced
from Brazil, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Taiwan.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ball return system.
\2\ Bed spot is the self-adhesive sticker that indicates where
the balls are to be racked.
\3\ Pocket set Centurion/Century (U.S.), 8'1'' home framed 3
piece slate set (Brazil), rails 8'H Centurion black (Vietnam),
Centurion legs 8' black (Vietnam), Centurion leg stretcher 8' black
(Vietnam), Centurion aprons 8' black (Vietnam), B/F 8'H Centurion PW
(Indonesia), main hardware Centurion 2013 (Taiwan), and Centurion
rail and apron corners (Taiwan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table B has a different design than Table A and is higher in
quality. The assembly of Table B is the same as Table A, except that
step 4 involves the attachment of rail cloth, and the billiard cloth
is also not pre-installed on the rail cushions prior to delivery.
There are approximately 71 steps and 82 parts. After the billiard
cloth is attached to the slate, the installers must wrap the rail
cushions in billiard cloth. The loose billiard cloth is draped over
each of the six rails and a wooden feather strip (same length of the
rail) is pounded into place to affix the billiard cloth to the rail
and excess cloth is trimmed. After the six rails are wrapped, the
rails and apron are installed on the table and the bed spot is
affixed. The assembly of Table B requires the same time as assembly
of Table A, but an additional 2 hours to wrap all six rails. The
installation cost combined with the value of U.S. components,
amounts to 35.3% of the total cost. Other components are sourced
from Brazil, Indonesia and Taiwan.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 8'1'' home framed 3 piece slate set (Brazil), rails 8'H
Metro black (Indonesia), castings & ext Metro (Taiwan), main
hardware Metro (Taiwan), levelers/brackets Metro (Indonesia), pkg
bridge tri racks Metro (U.S.), aprons 8H Metro black carb PHII
(Indonesia), leg set Metro black carb (Indonesia), Metro B/F 8'H
carb (Indonesia), and drop pockets GCIV, GCV, Metro (U.S.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63814]]
Table C is very similar to Table B, but due to the different
design and materials, the assembly process is claimed to be more
complex and costly. Specifically, the assembly of the rails and
pocket castings requires shimming and alignment to ensure a quality
fit. The assembly of the apron is also more complex due to Table C's
higher fit and finish, and inclusion of corner castings and a ball
storage box. There are approximately 77 steps and 91 parts. The
assembly of Table C requires the same amount of time to assemble as
Table B. The installation cost combined with the value of U.S.
components, amounts to 28.7% of the total cost. Other components are
sourced from Brazil, Indonesia, and Taiwan.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 9'1'' pro framed 3 piece slate set (Brazil); drop pockets
GCIV, GCV, Metro (U.S.); quick set foot plates (U.S.); GC IV 9' base
frame new (Brazil); rail Gold Crown V 9' mahogany/nickel
(Indonesia); main hard ware GC V (Taiwan); storage box GC V trim
nickel (Taiwan); main castings GC V nickel (Taiwan); leg set 9'
GCVMAH carb (Brazil); stretcher 9' GCVMAH carb (Brazil); aprons GCV
9' mahogany/nickel carb (Brazil).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The assembly of Table D is similar to Table A, with the
exception of delineation of the rail and apron assembly process.
There are approximately 60 steps and 71 parts. While Table D is
similar to the other tables in this request, Table D is unique
because it requires the complete assembly of both legs. The assembly
of Table D requires an average of 8 man hours and two certified
installers. Since the rails are pre-wrapped, only an additional 45
minutes are required to level the table. The installation cost
combined with the value of U.S. components, amounts to 49.4% of the
total cost. Other components are sourced from Brazil, Indonesia,
Vietnam, and Taiwan.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 8'1'' home framed 3 piece slate set (Brazil), drop pocket
set (U.S.), Black Wolf II hardware and feet (Indonesia), B/F 8H BRL/
GEN carb (Vietnam), PKT APR 8H Black Wolf carb (Vietnam), leg posts
Black Wolf carb (Vietnam), leg panels 8'H Black Wolf carb (Vietnam),
Black Wolf corners silver 2012 (Taiwan), rails Black Wolf II 8'
(Brazil).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISSUE:
What is the country of origin of the four billiards tables 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 as to 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.
Under the rule of origin set forth under 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 Acquisition
Regulations. See 19 CFR 177.21. In this regard, CBP recognizes that
the Federal Acquisition 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 Acquisition 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.
In order to determine whether a substantial transformation
occurs when components of various origins are assembled into
completed products, CBP considers the totality of the circumstances
and makes such determinations on a case-by-case basis. The country
of origin of the item's components, extent of the processing that
occurs within a country, and whether such processing renders a
product with a new name, character, and use are primary
considerations in such cases. Additionally, factors such as the
resources expended on product design and development, extent and
nature of post-assembly inspection and testing procedures, and the
degree of skill required during the actual manufacturing process may
be relevant when determining whether a substantial transformation
has occurred. No one factor is determinative.
In Carlson Furniture Industries v. United States, 65 Cust. Ct.
474 (1970), the U.S. Customs Court ruled that U.S. operations on
imported chair parts constituted a substantial transformation,
resulting in the creation of a new article of commerce. After
importation, the importer assembled, fitted, and glued the wooden
parts together, inserted steel pins into the key joints, cut the
legs to length and leveled them, and in some instances, upholstered
the chairs and fitted the legs with glides and casters. The court
determined that the importer had to perform additional work on the
imported chair parts and add materials to create a functional
article of commerce. The court found that the operations were
substantial in nature, and more than the mere assembly of the parts
together.
In Headquarters Ruling Letter (``HQ'') W563456, dated July 31,
2006, CBP held that certain office chairs assembled in the U.S. were
products of the U.S. for purposes of U.S. government procurement.
The office chairs were assembled from over 70 U.S. and foreign
components. In finding that the imported parts were substantially
transformed in the U.S., CBP stated that the assembly processes that
occurred in the U.S. were complex and meaningful, required the
assembly of a large number of components, and rendered a new and
distinct article of commerce that possessed a new name, character,
and use. CBP noted that the U.S.-origin seat and back frame
assemblies, which were made with the importer's trademark fabric,
together with the tilt assembly, were of U.S. origin and gave the
chair its unique design profile and essential character. In HQ
561258, dated April 15, 1999, CBP determined that the assembly of
numerous imported workstation components with the U.S.-origin work
surface into finished workstations constituted a substantial
transformation. CBP held that the imported components lost their
identity as leg brackets, drawer units, panels etc. when they were
assembled together to form a workstation. In HQ H083693, dated March
23, 2010, CBP held that a certain wood chest assembled in the U.S.
was a product of the U.S. for purposes of U.S. government
procurement. The wood chest was assembled from over twenty U.S. and
foreign components in a twenty-step process which took approximately
forty-one minutes. CBP held that the components used to manufacture
the wood chest, when combined with a U.S. origin laminate top, were
substantially transformed as a result of the assembly operations
performed in the U.S.
In the instant case, the tables' components range from 71 to 91
which can only be assembled by two skilled installers, operating
under the control and training of the Company and its authorized
network of dealers. The assembly of the components requires the
installers to maintain proper leveling throughout, while building
different parts of the billiards table, which is essential to the
ball running true during play. We find that the assembly processes
that occur in the U.S. are complex and meaningful, require the
assembly of a large number of components, and render a new and
distinct article of commerce that possesses a new name, character,
and use. Therefore, we find that the imported components lose their
individual identities and become an integral part of the billiards
tables as a result of the U.S. assembly operations and combination
with U.S. components; and that the components acquire a different
name, character, and use as a result of the assembly operations
performed in the U.S. While not dispositive, we note, in addition,
that the engineering, design, and development of the tables occur in
the U.S. Accordingly, the assembled billiards tables will be
considered products of the U.S. for purposes of U.S. Government
procurement.
HOLDING:
Based on the facts of this case, we find that the country of
origin of all four billiards tables is the U.S. 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.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 177.30, any party-at-interest may, within 30 days
of publication of the Federal Register
[[Page 63815]]
Notice referenced above, seek judicial review of this final
determination before the Court of International Trade.
Sincerely,
Harold M. Singer,
Acting Executive Director Regulations and Rulings, Office of
International Trade
[FR Doc. 2015-26752 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P