Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning a Certain Visitor Management System, 23015-23018 [2017-10057]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 96 / Friday, May 19, 2017 / Notices
monoclonal neutralizing antibodies for
treatment and prevention of Ebola Zaire
disease. The monoclonal antibodies
(mAbs) bind to different regions of the
Ebola glycoprotein that are unique for
these two mAbs. Alone or in
combination, the mAbs prevent or
reverse Ebola Zaire virus disease in nonhuman primates. Nonclinical studies
have demonstrated complete protection
against disease with a single antibody
and complete protection against viremia
by addition of a second antibody. The
current nonclinical pharmacology
demonstrates a favorable
pharmacokinetic profile and there is a
first-in-time human clinical trial
projected for 2017. The anticipated
indications for this technology include
pre-and post-symptomatic treatment,
and pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis.
This technology is available for
licensing for commercial development
in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37
CFR part 404, as well as for further
development and evaluation under a
research collaboration.
• Therapeutics
• Diagnostics
• Favorable pharmacokinetic profile
• Favorable manufacturing
• Complete protection against disease
with a single unique mAb
• Complete protection with fewer
administrations and/or lower doses than
any other mAb
• Complete protection against viremia
with two antibodies
Development Stage
• In vivo data available (animal)
• Entering first-in-time human
clinical trial (2017)
Inventors: Nancy J. Sullivan (NIAID);
Barney S. Graham (NIAID); Julie
Ledgerwood (NIAID); Daphne A.
Stanley (NIAID); Antonio Lanzavecchia
(IRB) Davide Corti (IRB); John Trefry
(USAMRIID/WR)
Publications
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[FR Doc. 2017–10156 Filed 5–18–17; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Competitive Advantages
Corti D, et al., Protective monotherapy
against lethal Ebola virus infection by
a potently neutralizing antibody.
Science. 2016 Mar 18;351:1339–42.
[PMID: 26917593]
Misasi J, et al., Structural and molecular
basis for Ebola virus neutralization by
protective human antibodies. Science.
2016 Mar 18;3511343–6. [PMID:
26917592].
Intellectual Property
HHS Reference No. E–045–2015—U.S.
Provisional Application No. 62/087,087,
19:15 May 18, 2017
Dated: May 9, 2017.
Suzanne Frisbie,
Deputy Director, Technology Transfer and
Intellectual Property Office, National Institute
of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
BILLING CODE 4140–01–P
Potential Commercial Applications
VerDate Sep<11>2014
filed December 3, 2014; PCT
Application No. PCT/US2015/060733,
filed November 13, 2015 HHS Reference
No. E–278–2016- U.S. Provisional
Application No.62,080,094, filed
November 14, 2014; PCT Application
No. PCT/IB2015/002342, filed
November 13, 2015
Licensing Contact: Dr. Dianca Finch,
240–669–5503; dianca.finch@nih.gov.
Collaborative Research Opportunity:
The National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases is seeking statements
of capability or interest from parties
interested in collaborative research to
further develop, evaluate or
commercialize products for treatment
and prevention of Ebola Zaire disease.
For collaboration opportunities, please
contact Dr. Dianca Finch, 240–669–
5503; dianca.finch@nih.gov.
Jkt 241001
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Notice of Issuance of Final
Determination Concerning a Certain
Visitor Management System
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
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) has issued a final
determination concerning the country of
origin of a certain visitor management
system known as the Raptor Basic
System. Based upon the facts presented
for purposes of U.S. Government
procurement, CBP has concluded that
China is the country of origin of the
identification scanner and printer
components of the Raptor Basic System,
that the United States is the country of
origin of the label component of the
Raptor Basic System, and that Taiwan is
the country of origin of the barcode
scanner that is compatible with the
Raptor Basic System.
DATES: The final determination was
issued on May 08, 2017. A copy of the
final determination is attached. Any
party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR
177.22(d), may seek judicial review of
this final determination within June 19,
2017.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
23015
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Dinerstein, Valuation and
Special Programs Branch, Regulations
and Rulings, Office of Trade, at (202)
325–0132.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given that on May 08, 2017,
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 a
certain visitor management system
known as the Raptor Basic System,
which may be offered to the U.S.
Government under an undesignated
government procurement contract. This
final determination, HQ H277116, 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 the
identification scanner and printer
components of the Raptor Basic System
were not substantially transformed in
the United States, and thus remain
products of China. Additionally, CBP
concluded that the label component of
the Raptor Basic System was a product
of the United States and that the
barcode scanner that is compatible with
the Raptor Basic System was a product
of Taiwan. Therefore, for purposes of
U.S. Government procurement, China is
the country of origin of the
identification scanner and printer
components of the Raptor Basic System,
the United States is the country of origin
of the label component of the Raptor
Basic System, and Taiwan is the country
of origin of the barcode scanner that is
compatible with the Raptor Basic
System.
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: May 08, 2017.
Alice A. Kipel,
Executive Director, Regulations and Rulings,
Office of Trade.
HQ H277116
May 08, 2017
OT:RR:CTF:VS H277116 AJR
Ms. Heather Mims
Centre Law and Consulting LLC
8330 Boone Boulevard, Suite 300
E:\FR\FM\19MYN1.SGM
19MYN1
23016
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 96 / Friday, May 19, 2017 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Tysons, VA 22182
RE: U.S. Government Procurement;
Country of Origin of a Visitor
Management System
Dear Ms. Mims:
This is in response to your letter,
dated June 15, 2016, requesting a final
determination on behalf of Raptor
Technologies, LLC (‘‘Raptor’’), pursuant
to subpart B of Part 177 of the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
Regulations (19 C.F.R. 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 Raptor Basic
System (‘‘RBS’’). We note that Raptor is
a party-at-interest within the meaning of
19 C.F.R. § 177.22(d)(1) and is entitled
to request this final determination.
FACTS:
Raptor provides security and safety
products to schools across the United
States, and plans to sell its RBS product
to the U.S. Government. The RBS is a
visitor management system that is
typically installed in elementary schools
and used as a screening tool. The RBS
is comprised of a scanner, a printer, the
Raptor software, and labels. Installation
of the RBS requires the use of a
customer provided computer, where the
software is installed. Once the RBS is
installed and ready for use, users are
able to scan the identification cards of
individuals visiting the school in order
to obtain personal/public information
pertaining to the visitor. Based on the
information received, the user prints out
a color coded visitor tag which signifies
the access or identity type of the visiting
person.
Specifically, the RBS consists of the
Raptor software, one roll of Blanco
labels, one Acuant Duplex ID scanner
(‘‘ID scanner’’), and one Dymo printer.
Along with the cost for these items, the
software updates, database set-up, and
shipping fee are integrated into the RBS
price. Additional ID scanners, printers,
and labels can be purchased for use
with the RBS, along with barcode
scanners that are also compatible with
the system. According to Raptor, the
RBS and its compatible products are
produced for sale in the United States
as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:15 May 18, 2017
Jkt 241001
(1) Raptor Software: Raptor
developed the software for the RBS in
the United States. Additionally, Raptor’s
engineers write the source code for the
software in the United States, and
Raptor will install the software to
customer specifications onto the RBS in
the United States. The software is a
critical component because it controls
the entire system enabling it to manage,
report, send, alert, and track all visitors
entering public or private premises,
along with notifying the Raptor
technical support team about any
potential issues. The software connects
and communicates with the printers,
scanners, and customer-provided
computers within the system. The
software accounts for 30 percent of the
RBS price. Additionally, the software
makes the RBS operational by
automatically updating and permitting
access to various databases, including
the RBS database, which is also located
in the United States. Raptor spends
approximately two hours setting up the
database, and training its customers
how to use the system, which accounts
for 21.86 percent of the RBS price.
Together the cost of the software,
database set-up, and training for the
RBS system account for 51.86 percent of
the RBS price.
(2) Blanco Labels: Blanco, Inc.
develops and manufactures the labels in
the United States, and the labels are
printed with the Raptor logo in the
United States. The RBS only uses these
labels for the temporary badges and
passes that it prints. The labels account
for 6.25 percent of the RBS price.
(3) Acuant Duplex ID Scanner: The ID
scanner consists of a hardware
component made in China and a
software component developed by
Acuant (‘‘Acuant software’’) in the
United States. The Acuant software is
loaded onto the hardware component in
the United States, and permits the ID
scanner to communicate with the Raptor
software. Raptor states that without the
Raptor software, the ID scanner would
not be an integral part of the RBS. The
ID scanner accounts for 30.93 percent of
the RBS price.
(4) Dymo Printer: Dymo designs and
engineers the printer in the United
States and manufactures the printer in
China. The printer communicates with
the Raptor software, and Raptor states
that without this software, the printer
would not print the specific visitor
badges or passes. The printer accounts
for 8.68 percent of the RBS price.
(5) Barcode Scanner: The barcode
scanner is not required for the RBS, but
is compatible with the system. Scan
Technology Inc. manufactures the
barcode scanner in Taiwan with parts
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
that are also from Taiwan. The barcode
scanners are also inspected and tested
in Taiwan before they are shipped to the
United States. While the barcode
scanners are not part of the RBS, and
will not be included within the RBS
price, the purchase price for one
barcode scanner comes to
approximately 10 percent of the RBS
price.
The final assembly of the RBS occurs
in the United States. According to
Raptor, this process is complex and uses
skilled technicians to complete it. This
assembly takes approximately one hour
per system and sometimes there are
several systems installed in one school.
The final testing of the RBS printers,
scanners, and software also occurs in
the United States. According to Raptor,
it takes approximately one hour to test
a system with a skilled technician, but
some locations require testing multiple
systems. Additionally, Raptor
technicians train the users on how to
use the system in the United States, and
this training takes approximately one
hour.
ISSUE:
What is the country of origin of the
RBS for purposes of U.S. Government
procurement?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, 19
C.F.R. § 177.21 et seq., which
implements Title III of the 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.
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 C.F.R. § 177.22(a).
In order to determine whether a
substantial transformation occurs when
the components of various origins are
assembled to form completed articles,
CBP considers the totality of the
circumstances and makes decisions on a
E:\FR\FM\19MYN1.SGM
19MYN1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 96 / Friday, May 19, 2017 / Notices
case-by-case basis. The country of origin
of the article’s components, the extent of
the processing that occurs within a
given country, and whether such
processing renders a product with a new
name, character, and use are primary
considerations in such cases. Here, the
determination will be a ‘‘mixed question
of technology and customs law, mostly
the latter.’’ Texas Instruments v. United
States, 681 F.2d 778, 782 (CCPA 1982).
In this case, Raptor acquires scanners
and printers that were manufactured
outside of the United States and installs
onto them the Raptor software that was
developed in the United States. The
installation of the Raptor software takes
place in the United States, and Raptor
further customizes these devices with
the software for each of its customers in
the United States, as well as trains its
customers on how to use the system.
This package of hardware components,
software components, and services are
integrated together by Raptor as the
RBS, which is the product being sold to
the U.S. Government.
Raptor believes that the country of
origin of the RBS is the United States
reasoning that the printers, scanners,
labels, and software are substantially
transformed into the RBS in the United
States by installing critical software in
the United States. Raptor also believes
that the software, ID scanner, printer,
and label components of the RBS are
individually products of the United
States, and that the RBS-compatible
Barcode scanner is a product of Taiwan.
With regard to the Raptor software,
Raptor argues that software is
substantially transformed into a new
article of commerce where the software
build takes place, citing to HRL
H268858, dated February 12, 2016.1
However, while HRL H268858 took into
account the development of the software
as a factor in substantial transformation,
it did not state that the intangible
software itself was a product of a
particular origin. Rather, it decided that
the intangible software, partially
developed in the United States, and
tangible U.S.-origin blank discs, when
combined by loading the software onto
the discs, resulted in one product of the
United States.
Unlike HRL H268858, where CBP
determined the country of origin of a
tangible product, here we have no
indication that the Raptor software by
itself is a tangible product prior to its
integration with the scanners and
printers of the RBS. In rendering final
determinations for purposes of U.S.
Government procurement, CBP
1 Raptor also cites to HRL H192146, dated June 8,
2012, which is a non-binding advisory ruling.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:15 May 18, 2017
Jkt 241001
recognizes that the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (‘‘FAR’’) restricts the U.S.
Government’s purchase of products to
U.S.-made or designated country end
products for acquisitions subject to the
TAA, which excludes automatic data
processing (‘‘ADP’’) telecommunications
and transmission services, and related
services. See 19 C.F.R. § 177.21; and,
subpart 25.4, FAR (48 C.F.R. Subpart
25.4). See also General Note 3(e),
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) (stating that
that telecommunication transmissions
are not goods subject to the provisions
of the tariff schedule, and as such would
not require a country of origin marking).
To the extent the Raptor software is an
intangible product developed in the
United States and transmitted via
intangible signals, the Raptor software,
by itself, is not subject to the country of
origin determinations issued by CBP for
purposes of U.S. Government
procurement.
However, the ID scanner and printer,
which are tangible products imported
into the United States are subject to the
country of origin determination issued
by CBP. In this regard, CBP may look at
the process of loading U.S.-developed
software onto these products in the
United States when considering the
extent of processing that occurs within
the United States under the substantial
transformation test. While Raptor argues
that this process will transform the ID
scanner and printer into products of the
United States, we disagree as explained
below.
Here, both the development and
loading of the software take place in the
United States. However, the ID scanners
and printers in this case serve as
scanners and printers, even before
software is loaded onto them in the
United States. While the Acuant
software gives the ID scanner the
particular features of an Acuant branded
scanner, and while the Raptor software
gives the ID scanner and printer the
ability to function within the RBS, this
does not change the fact that these
products have a predetermined use
prior to having software installed onto
them in the United States. See HRL
H215657, dated April 29, 2013 (holding
that the process of developing and
installing software onto foreign
flashlights in the United States did not
change the basic operations of the
flashlight). Likewise, the process of
customizing the RBS to work with
multiple devices and multiple
databases, or the process of training the
customer how to use the system, will
not transform the scanner into
something other than a scanner or the
printer into something other than a
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
23017
printer. See generally National Hand
Tool Corp. v. United States, 16 Ct. Int’l
Trade 308, 311 (1992) (holding that
processing in the United States did not
substantially transform tools already
shaped for a predetermined use prior to
importation into the United States).
Raptor also cites to HRL H039856,
dated August 12, 2009, to argue that the
RBS is a product of the United States.
In HRL H039856, various components of
foreign origin, including a printer
control unit and laser scanning unit,
were imported into Japan and
assembled into multifunction printers
(‘‘MFP(s)’’). CBP has considered similar
MFP cases on various occasions. In
these cases, various components,
including printer unit and scanner unit
subassemblies, are physically integrated
together to create an MFP capable of
printing, scanning, and similar
operations. Prior to this assembly, these
subassemblies lack these capabilities.
See HRL H263561, dated December 23,
2015; HRL H025106, dated June 11,
2008; and, HRL 562936, dated March
17, 2004. Unlike these MPF cases, the
scanner and printer in this case do not
require integration into the RBS to
function as scanners and printers.
Moreover, integrating the scanner and
printer components into the RBS does
not result in a printer and scanner that
are physically assembled together. That
is, after integration into the system, the
scanner will look like the same scanner,
and the printer like the same printer,
both still without permanent physical
attachments to other tangible products.
See Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3
CIT 220, 542 F. Supp. 1026 (1982), aff’d
702 F. 2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (noting
that if the manufacturing or combining
process is a minor one which leaves the
identity of the article intact, a
substantial transformation has not
occurred).
We also disagree with Raptor’s
argument that the various hardware
component parts of the RBS cannot
function as a visitor management system
without the Raptor software, citing to
HRL H090115, dated August 2, 2010,
and HRL H21555, dated July 13, 2012.
The software installation process in
HRL H090115 was only part of the 16
day process that rendered a substantial
transformation, and thus is
distinguished from this case which only
involves a one to three hour process per
system, mainly focusing on the software
installation. Similarly we distinguish
HRL H21555 because that case involved
microcomputer devices which could not
function without the proprietary
software, whereas this case involves
printers and scanners that are functional
without the Raptor software.
E:\FR\FM\19MYN1.SGM
19MYN1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
23018
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 96 / Friday, May 19, 2017 / Notices
Additionally, we note that the ID
scanner and printer are products that
can be individually purchased and used
outside of the system without the Raptor
software. Thus, whether these products
are substantially transformed into the
RBS is really a question of whether the
software development and loading are
sufficient to transform these individual
products into a different article of
commerce, the RBS. As indicated above,
regardless of the software installed onto
the ID scanner and printer, the ID
scanner and printer already have their
respective functions as scanners and
printers prior to their incorporation into
the system. They function as scanners
and printers when they are
manufactured in China, their basic
functions in this regard do not change
once imported into the United States,
and their physical appearance will
remain the same even after integrated
into the RBS. Accordingly, the ID
scanner and printer remain products of
China for purposes of U.S. Government
procurement.
With regard to the Blanco labels,
Raptor indicates that such will be
designed and manufactured in the
United States. Similarly, Raptor
indicates that the barcode scanner will
be manufactured entirely in Taiwan.
Raptor provides affidavits signed by the
label manufacturer and barcode scanner
manufacturer stating that such are
products of the United States and
Taiwan, respectively. To the extent that
the labels and barcode scanner are
products from the United States and
Taiwan, respectively, each may be
individually compliant under the TAA.
While the labels are products that are
integrated within the RBS, their country
of origin does not change the country of
origin of the ID scanner and printer
within the RBS. In a number of rulings
CBP stated, ‘‘merely packaging parts of
a kit together does not constitute a
substantial transformation.’’ See HRL
732498, dated October 3, 1989; and HRL
732897, dated June 6, 1990. As noted
from these rulings, packaging the ID
scanner and printers with the labels
does not substantially transform these
products because such are already in
their finished forms, not modified or
affixed to each other, or combined in a
permanent matter. Accordingly, the ID
scanner and printers remain products of
the country where they will be
manufactured, China.
HOLDING:
Based on the facts provided, the
integration of the ID scanner, printer,
and labels via the Raptor software into
the RBS does not substantially
transform these individual products into
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:15 May 18, 2017
Jkt 241001
a product of the United States. Rather,
for purposes of U.S. Government
procurement, the labels are products of
the United States, and the ID scanner
and printer remain products of China
because they are not substantially
transformed by the processes that take
place in the United States. Moreover, to
the extent the RBS-compatible barcode
scanner is manufactured in Taiwan, it is
a product of Taiwan for purposes of U.S.
Government procurement.
Notice of this final determination will
be given in the Federal Register, as
required by 19 C.F.R. § 177.29. Any
party-at-interest other than the party
which requested this final
determination may request, pursuant to
19 C.F.R. § 177.31, that CBP reexamine
the matter anew and issue a new final
determination. Pursuant to 19 C.F.R.
§ 177.30, any party-at-interest may,
within 30 days of publication of the
Federal Register Notice referenced
above, seek judicial review of this final
determination before the Court of
International Trade.
Sincerely,
Alice A. Kipel, Executive Director
Regulations and Rulings
Office of Trade
[FR Doc. 2017–10057 Filed 5–18–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
[Docket ID FEMA–2017–0002; Internal
Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1664]
Proposed Flood Hazard
Determinations
Federal Emergency
Management Agency; DHS.
ACTION: Notice; correction.
AGENCY:
On January 23, 2017, FEMA
published in the Federal Register a
proposed flood hazard determination
notice that contained an erroneous
table. This notice provides corrections
to that table, to be used in lieu of the
information published at 82 FR 7849.
The table provided here represents the
proposed flood hazard determinations
and communities affected for Los
Angeles County, California, and
Incorporated Areas.
DATES: Comments are to be submitted
on or before August 17, 2017.
ADDRESSES: The Preliminary Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), and where
applicable, the Flood Insurance Study
(FIS) report for each community are
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
available for inspection at both the
online location and the respective
Community Map Repository address
listed in the table below. Additionally,
the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are
accessible online through the FEMA
Map Service Center at
www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
You may submit comments, identified
by Docket No. FEMA–B–1664, to Rick
Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services
Branch, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400
C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646–7659, or (email)
patrick.sacbibit@fema.dhs.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick
Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services
Branch, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400
C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646–7659, or (email)
patrick.sacbibit@fema.dhs.gov; or visit
the FEMA Map Information eXchange
(FMIX) online at
www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_
main.html.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA
proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community
listed in the table below, in accordance
with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104,
and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard
determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required
by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that
are required. They should not be
construed to mean that the community
must change any existing ordinances
that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements.
The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own, or
pursuant to policies established by other
Federal, State, or regional entities.
These flood hazard determinations are
used to meet the floodplain
management requirements of the NFIP
and are also used to calculate the
appropriate flood insurance premium
rates for new buildings built after the
FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel
(SRP) is available to communities in
support of the appeal resolution
process. SRPs are independent panels of
experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and
other pertinent sciences established to
review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide
recommendations for resolution. Use of
the SRP may only be exercised after
FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation
process for at least 60 days without a
E:\FR\FM\19MYN1.SGM
19MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 96 (Friday, May 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23015-23018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10057]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning a Certain
Visitor Management System
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
Protection (``CBP'') has issued a final determination concerning the
country of origin of a certain visitor management system known as the
Raptor Basic System. Based upon the facts presented for purposes of
U.S. Government procurement, CBP has concluded that China is the
country of origin of the identification scanner and printer components
of the Raptor Basic System, that the United States is the country of
origin of the label component of the Raptor Basic System, and that
Taiwan is the country of origin of the barcode scanner that is
compatible with the Raptor Basic System.
DATES: The final determination was issued on May 08, 2017. A copy of
the final determination is attached. Any party-at-interest, as defined
in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of this final
determination within June 19, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Dinerstein, Valuation and
Special Programs Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, at
(202) 325-0132.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that on May 08, 2017,
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 a certain visitor
management system known as the Raptor Basic System, which may be
offered to the U.S. Government under an undesignated government
procurement contract. This final determination, HQ H277116, 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 the
identification scanner and printer components of the Raptor Basic
System were not substantially transformed in the United States, and
thus remain products of China. Additionally, CBP concluded that the
label component of the Raptor Basic System was a product of the United
States and that the barcode scanner that is compatible with the Raptor
Basic System was a product of Taiwan. Therefore, for purposes of U.S.
Government procurement, China is the country of origin of the
identification scanner and printer components of the Raptor Basic
System, the United States is the country of origin of the label
component of the Raptor Basic System, and Taiwan is the country of
origin of the barcode scanner that is compatible with the Raptor Basic
System.
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: May 08, 2017.
Alice A. Kipel,
Executive Director, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade.
HQ H277116
May 08, 2017
OT:RR:CTF:VS H277116 AJR
Ms. Heather Mims
Centre Law and Consulting LLC
8330 Boone Boulevard, Suite 300
[[Page 23016]]
Tysons, VA 22182
RE: U.S. Government Procurement; Country of Origin of a Visitor
Management System
Dear Ms. Mims:
This is in response to your letter, dated June 15, 2016, requesting
a final determination on behalf of Raptor Technologies, LLC
(``Raptor''), pursuant to subpart B of Part 177 of the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (``CBP'') Regulations (19 C.F.R. Part 177). Under
these regulations, which implement Title III of the Trade Agreements
Act of 1979 (``TAA''), as amended (19 U.S.C. Sec. 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
Raptor Basic System (``RBS''). We note that Raptor is a party-at-
interest within the meaning of 19 C.F.R. Sec. 177.22(d)(1) and is
entitled to request this final determination.
FACTS:
Raptor provides security and safety products to schools across the
United States, and plans to sell its RBS product to the U.S.
Government. The RBS is a visitor management system that is typically
installed in elementary schools and used as a screening tool. The RBS
is comprised of a scanner, a printer, the Raptor software, and labels.
Installation of the RBS requires the use of a customer provided
computer, where the software is installed. Once the RBS is installed
and ready for use, users are able to scan the identification cards of
individuals visiting the school in order to obtain personal/public
information pertaining to the visitor. Based on the information
received, the user prints out a color coded visitor tag which signifies
the access or identity type of the visiting person.
Specifically, the RBS consists of the Raptor software, one roll of
Blanco labels, one Acuant Duplex ID scanner (``ID scanner''), and one
Dymo printer. Along with the cost for these items, the software
updates, database set-up, and shipping fee are integrated into the RBS
price. Additional ID scanners, printers, and labels can be purchased
for use with the RBS, along with barcode scanners that are also
compatible with the system. According to Raptor, the RBS and its
compatible products are produced for sale in the United States as
follows:
(1) Raptor Software: Raptor developed the software for the RBS in
the United States. Additionally, Raptor's engineers write the source
code for the software in the United States, and Raptor will install the
software to customer specifications onto the RBS in the United States.
The software is a critical component because it controls the entire
system enabling it to manage, report, send, alert, and track all
visitors entering public or private premises, along with notifying the
Raptor technical support team about any potential issues. The software
connects and communicates with the printers, scanners, and customer-
provided computers within the system. The software accounts for 30
percent of the RBS price. Additionally, the software makes the RBS
operational by automatically updating and permitting access to various
databases, including the RBS database, which is also located in the
United States. Raptor spends approximately two hours setting up the
database, and training its customers how to use the system, which
accounts for 21.86 percent of the RBS price. Together the cost of the
software, database set-up, and training for the RBS system account for
51.86 percent of the RBS price.
(2) Blanco Labels: Blanco, Inc. develops and manufactures the
labels in the United States, and the labels are printed with the Raptor
logo in the United States. The RBS only uses these labels for the
temporary badges and passes that it prints. The labels account for 6.25
percent of the RBS price.
(3) Acuant Duplex ID Scanner: The ID scanner consists of a hardware
component made in China and a software component developed by Acuant
(``Acuant software'') in the United States. The Acuant software is
loaded onto the hardware component in the United States, and permits
the ID scanner to communicate with the Raptor software. Raptor states
that without the Raptor software, the ID scanner would not be an
integral part of the RBS. The ID scanner accounts for 30.93 percent of
the RBS price.
(4) Dymo Printer: Dymo designs and engineers the printer in the
United States and manufactures the printer in China. The printer
communicates with the Raptor software, and Raptor states that without
this software, the printer would not print the specific visitor badges
or passes. The printer accounts for 8.68 percent of the RBS price.
(5) Barcode Scanner: The barcode scanner is not required for the
RBS, but is compatible with the system. Scan Technology Inc.
manufactures the barcode scanner in Taiwan with parts that are also
from Taiwan. The barcode scanners are also inspected and tested in
Taiwan before they are shipped to the United States. While the barcode
scanners are not part of the RBS, and will not be included within the
RBS price, the purchase price for one barcode scanner comes to
approximately 10 percent of the RBS price.
The final assembly of the RBS occurs in the United States.
According to Raptor, this process is complex and uses skilled
technicians to complete it. This assembly takes approximately one hour
per system and sometimes there are several systems installed in one
school. The final testing of the RBS printers, scanners, and software
also occurs in the United States. According to Raptor, it takes
approximately one hour to test a system with a skilled technician, but
some locations require testing multiple systems. Additionally, Raptor
technicians train the users on how to use the system in the United
States, and this training takes approximately one hour.
ISSUE:
What is the country of origin of the RBS for purposes of U.S.
Government procurement?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, 19 C.F.R. Sec. 177.21 et seq.,
which implements Title III of the TAA, as amended (19 U.S.C. Sec. 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. Sec.
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 C.F.R. Sec. 177.22(a).
In order to determine whether a substantial transformation occurs
when the components of various origins are assembled to form completed
articles, CBP considers the totality of the circumstances and makes
decisions on a
[[Page 23017]]
case-by-case basis. The country of origin of the article's components,
the extent of the processing that occurs within a given country, and
whether such processing renders a product with a new name, character,
and use are primary considerations in such cases. Here, the
determination will be a ``mixed question of technology and customs law,
mostly the latter.'' Texas Instruments v. United States, 681 F.2d 778,
782 (CCPA 1982).
In this case, Raptor acquires scanners and printers that were
manufactured outside of the United States and installs onto them the
Raptor software that was developed in the United States. The
installation of the Raptor software takes place in the United States,
and Raptor further customizes these devices with the software for each
of its customers in the United States, as well as trains its customers
on how to use the system. This package of hardware components, software
components, and services are integrated together by Raptor as the RBS,
which is the product being sold to the U.S. Government.
Raptor believes that the country of origin of the RBS is the United
States reasoning that the printers, scanners, labels, and software are
substantially transformed into the RBS in the United States by
installing critical software in the United States. Raptor also believes
that the software, ID scanner, printer, and label components of the RBS
are individually products of the United States, and that the RBS-
compatible Barcode scanner is a product of Taiwan.
With regard to the Raptor software, Raptor argues that software is
substantially transformed into a new article of commerce where the
software build takes place, citing to HRL H268858, dated February 12,
2016.\1\ However, while HRL H268858 took into account the development
of the software as a factor in substantial transformation, it did not
state that the intangible software itself was a product of a particular
origin. Rather, it decided that the intangible software, partially
developed in the United States, and tangible U.S.-origin blank discs,
when combined by loading the software onto the discs, resulted in one
product of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Raptor also cites to HRL H192146, dated June 8, 2012, which
is a non-binding advisory ruling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike HRL H268858, where CBP determined the country of origin of a
tangible product, here we have no indication that the Raptor software
by itself is a tangible product prior to its integration with the
scanners and printers of the RBS. In rendering final determinations for
purposes of U.S. Government procurement, CBP recognizes that the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (``FAR'') restricts the U.S.
Government's purchase of products to U.S.-made or designated country
end products for acquisitions subject to the TAA, which excludes
automatic data processing (``ADP'') telecommunications and transmission
services, and related services. See 19 C.F.R. Sec. 177.21; and,
subpart 25.4, FAR (48 C.F.R. Subpart 25.4). See also General Note 3(e),
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') (stating
that that telecommunication transmissions are not goods subject to the
provisions of the tariff schedule, and as such would not require a
country of origin marking). To the extent the Raptor software is an
intangible product developed in the United States and transmitted via
intangible signals, the Raptor software, by itself, is not subject to
the country of origin determinations issued by CBP for purposes of U.S.
Government procurement.
However, the ID scanner and printer, which are tangible products
imported into the United States are subject to the country of origin
determination issued by CBP. In this regard, CBP may look at the
process of loading U.S.-developed software onto these products in the
United States when considering the extent of processing that occurs
within the United States under the substantial transformation test.
While Raptor argues that this process will transform the ID scanner and
printer into products of the United States, we disagree as explained
below.
Here, both the development and loading of the software take place
in the United States. However, the ID scanners and printers in this
case serve as scanners and printers, even before software is loaded
onto them in the United States. While the Acuant software gives the ID
scanner the particular features of an Acuant branded scanner, and while
the Raptor software gives the ID scanner and printer the ability to
function within the RBS, this does not change the fact that these
products have a predetermined use prior to having software installed
onto them in the United States. See HRL H215657, dated April 29, 2013
(holding that the process of developing and installing software onto
foreign flashlights in the United States did not change the basic
operations of the flashlight). Likewise, the process of customizing the
RBS to work with multiple devices and multiple databases, or the
process of training the customer how to use the system, will not
transform the scanner into something other than a scanner or the
printer into something other than a printer. See generally National
Hand Tool Corp. v. United States, 16 Ct. Int'l Trade 308, 311 (1992)
(holding that processing in the United States did not substantially
transform tools already shaped for a predetermined use prior to
importation into the United States).
Raptor also cites to HRL H039856, dated August 12, 2009, to argue
that the RBS is a product of the United States. In HRL H039856, various
components of foreign origin, including a printer control unit and
laser scanning unit, were imported into Japan and assembled into
multifunction printers (``MFP(s)''). CBP has considered similar MFP
cases on various occasions. In these cases, various components,
including printer unit and scanner unit subassemblies, are physically
integrated together to create an MFP capable of printing, scanning, and
similar operations. Prior to this assembly, these subassemblies lack
these capabilities. See HRL H263561, dated December 23, 2015; HRL
H025106, dated June 11, 2008; and, HRL 562936, dated March 17, 2004.
Unlike these MPF cases, the scanner and printer in this case do not
require integration into the RBS to function as scanners and printers.
Moreover, integrating the scanner and printer components into the RBS
does not result in a printer and scanner that are physically assembled
together. That is, after integration into the system, the scanner will
look like the same scanner, and the printer like the same printer, both
still without permanent physical attachments to other tangible
products. See Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3 CIT 220, 542 F. Supp.
1026 (1982), aff'd 702 F. 2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (noting that if the
manufacturing or combining process is a minor one which leaves the
identity of the article intact, a substantial transformation has not
occurred).
We also disagree with Raptor's argument that the various hardware
component parts of the RBS cannot function as a visitor management
system without the Raptor software, citing to HRL H090115, dated August
2, 2010, and HRL H21555, dated July 13, 2012. The software installation
process in HRL H090115 was only part of the 16 day process that
rendered a substantial transformation, and thus is distinguished from
this case which only involves a one to three hour process per system,
mainly focusing on the software installation. Similarly we distinguish
HRL H21555 because that case involved microcomputer devices which could
not function without the proprietary software, whereas this case
involves printers and scanners that are functional without the Raptor
software.
[[Page 23018]]
Additionally, we note that the ID scanner and printer are products
that can be individually purchased and used outside of the system
without the Raptor software. Thus, whether these products are
substantially transformed into the RBS is really a question of whether
the software development and loading are sufficient to transform these
individual products into a different article of commerce, the RBS. As
indicated above, regardless of the software installed onto the ID
scanner and printer, the ID scanner and printer already have their
respective functions as scanners and printers prior to their
incorporation into the system. They function as scanners and printers
when they are manufactured in China, their basic functions in this
regard do not change once imported into the United States, and their
physical appearance will remain the same even after integrated into the
RBS. Accordingly, the ID scanner and printer remain products of China
for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
With regard to the Blanco labels, Raptor indicates that such will
be designed and manufactured in the United States. Similarly, Raptor
indicates that the barcode scanner will be manufactured entirely in
Taiwan. Raptor provides affidavits signed by the label manufacturer and
barcode scanner manufacturer stating that such are products of the
United States and Taiwan, respectively. To the extent that the labels
and barcode scanner are products from the United States and Taiwan,
respectively, each may be individually compliant under the TAA.
While the labels are products that are integrated within the RBS,
their country of origin does not change the country of origin of the ID
scanner and printer within the RBS. In a number of rulings CBP stated,
``merely packaging parts of a kit together does not constitute a
substantial transformation.'' See HRL 732498, dated October 3, 1989;
and HRL 732897, dated June 6, 1990. As noted from these rulings,
packaging the ID scanner and printers with the labels does not
substantially transform these products because such are already in
their finished forms, not modified or affixed to each other, or
combined in a permanent matter. Accordingly, the ID scanner and
printers remain products of the country where they will be
manufactured, China.
HOLDING:
Based on the facts provided, the integration of the ID scanner,
printer, and labels via the Raptor software into the RBS does not
substantially transform these individual products into a product of the
United States. Rather, for purposes of U.S. Government procurement, the
labels are products of the United States, and the ID scanner and
printer remain products of China because they are not substantially
transformed by the processes that take place in the United States.
Moreover, to the extent the RBS-compatible barcode scanner is
manufactured in Taiwan, it is a product of Taiwan for purposes of U.S.
Government procurement.
Notice of this final determination will be given in the Federal
Register, as required by 19 C.F.R. Sec. 177.29. Any party-at-interest
other than the party which requested this final determination may
request, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. Sec. 177.31, that CBP reexamine the
matter anew and issue a new final determination. Pursuant to 19 C.F.R.
Sec. 177.30, any party-at-interest may, within 30 days of publication
of the Federal Register Notice referenced above, seek judicial review
of this final determination before the Court of International Trade.
Sincerely,
Alice A. Kipel, Executive Director
Regulations and Rulings
Office of Trade
[FR Doc. 2017-10057 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
