Notice of Issuance of Final Determinations Concerning Country of Origin of the Hub and Mobile Platforms, and the AMC Home Tele-Health System, 9017-9021 [2018-04273]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2018 / Notices
transformed through the assembly of the
parts in the United States. The country of
origin of the aluminum honeycomb panels is
Italy.
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 International Trade
[FR Doc. 2018–04279 Filed 3–1–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Notice of Issuance of Final
Determinations Concerning Country of
Origin of the Hub and Mobile
Platforms, and the AMC Home TeleHealth System
U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice of final determinations.
AGENCY:
This document provides
notice that U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) has issued two final
determinations concerning the country
of origin of tablet computers and smart
phones known as the Hub and Mobile
Platforms, and CareConsole Hub and
Mobile Hub. CBP has concluded in the
final determinations that for purposes of
U.S. Government procurement the
installation of proprietary software on
tablet computers or smart phones does
not substantially transform the imported
tablet computers or smart phones.
DATES: The final determinations were
issued on February 21, 2018. Copies of
the final determinations are attached.
Any party-at-interest, as defined in 19
CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review
of these final determinations within
April 2, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy
Marie Virga, Valuation and Special
Programs Branch, Regulations and
Rulings, Office of Trade (202–325–
1511).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given that on February 21, 2018,
CBP issued two final determinations
concerning the country of origin of
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:10 Mar 01, 2018
Jkt 244001
tablet computers, smart phones, and
systems, which may be offered to the
United States Government under an
undesignated government procurement
contract. These final determinations,
HQ H284834 and HQ H284617, were
issued at the request of 1Vision, LLC
and Care Innovations, LLC, respectively,
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 determinations, CBP was
asked to consider whether disabling the
general applications of a tablet
computer or smart phone and loading
specialized software onto the device,
enabling a patient to provide medical
information to the VA, constituted a
substantial transformation. In one final
determination, CBP was further asked if
the integration of the altered tablets and
smartphones into a larger telehealth
system constituted a substantial
transformation. In the final
determinations, CBP concluded that
these activities do not constitute a
substantial transformation and the
origin of the tablet computers, smart
phones, and systems remains the
original country of manufacturing.
Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19
CFR 177.29), provides that notice of
final determinations shall be published
in the Federal Register within 60 days
of the date the final determination is
issued. Section 177.30, CBP Regulations
(19 CFR 177.30), provides that any
party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR
177.22(d), may seek judicial review of a
final determination within 30 days of
publication of such determination in the
Federal Register.
Dated: February 21, 2018.
Alice A. Kipel,
Executive Director, Regulations and Rulings,
Office of Trade.
HQ H284834
February 21, 2018
OT:RR:CTF:VS: H284834 JMV
CATEGORY: Origin
George W. Thompson, Esq.
Thompson & Associates, PLLC
1250 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC, 20036
RE: U.S. Government Procurement; Title III,
Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C.
§ 2511); Subpart B, Part 177, CBP
Regulations; Tablet Computers, CareConsole
Hub and Mobile Hub
Dear Mr. Thompson:
This is in response to your letter of March
20, 2017, on behalf of 1Vision, LLC
(‘‘1Vision’’), requesting a final determination
concerning the country origin of a product
that you refer to as the AMC Home Telehealth System (‘‘Tele-health System’’ or ‘‘the
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
9017
System’’), pursuant to subpart B of Part 177,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
Regulations (19 C.F.R. § 177.21, et seq.). You
state in your letter that this request is being
made pursuant to a contract with the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with
1Vision requiring the filing of a request for
a country of origin determination from CBP.
As a domestic producer, 1Vision is a partyat-interest within the meaning of 19 C.F.R.
§ 177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this
final determination.
FACTS:
The products at issue are the Tele-health
System in its entirety and the components,
the CareConsole Hub and the Mobile Hub.
The CareConsole Hub and the Mobile Hub,
respectively, begin as a tablet computer and
a smart phone. The CareConsole Hub is
produced in the Republic of Korea and the
Mobile Hub is produced in China. Both
products are intended for purchase by the
Veterans Health Administration for use by
patients at home. The CareConsole Hub and
the Mobile Hub are designed to collect health
data that is measured by other peripheral
devices, such as blood pressure cuffs, blood
glucose monitors, etc. These other peripheral
devices are not imported with the tablet and
could be used ‘‘as is’’ within the 1Vision
ecosystem, without any changes.
In the United States, the tablet and smart
phone go through a number of software
uninstallations and installations. The generic
Android functions originally included on the
devices, such as alarms, calculators and text
messaging, are removed. In order to enable
the devices to function within the Telehealth System, other functions, such as
Bluetooth capability, are modified and
additional software is added. In addition,
1Vision also further processes the devices to
include additional security mechanisms and
to enable them to function in Plain Old
Telephone Systems (‘‘POTS’’), an analog
telephone service that continues to be the
basic form of home and small business
service connection to telephone networks.
Finally, the AMC CareConsole Mobile
Application is installed on both devices.
According to the information provided, this
software was developed entirely in the
United States. The software enables the
patient to provide vital sign data by
connecting to the peripheral devices via
Bluetooth. The patient’s information is then
forwarded to VA clinicians over the VA
intranet. This application is installed on the
tablet to meet the VA’s requirements for
medical devices, including patient
confidentiality and interoperability with VA
systems and protocols. After the software
installation is completed, the tablets cannot
run any other program and cannot be
reprogrammed to perform any other function.
The CareConsole Hub and Mobile Hub are
then integrated into the Tele-health System,
which also includes servers, data storage,
networking, additional software, and health
monitoring devices such as blood pressure
cuffs and glucose monitors. The integration
process consists of the CareConsole Hub or
Mobile Hub contacting the Tele-health
System, hosted in the VA data centers, which
then sends an activation code and
E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM
02MRN1
9018
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2018 / Notices
configuration file to the CareConsole Hub or
Mobile Hub. The CareConsole Hub and
Mobile Hub are then automatically
configured to the peripheral health
monitoring devices.
All the components, other than the
CareConsole Hub and Mobile Hub, come
from the United States, Mexico, Japan,
Taiwan, Ireland, or the Republic of Korea.
These components are customized as
necessary to function in conjunction with
each other. The CareConsole Hub and Mobile
Hub collect information from the patients in
their homes and transmit that data to the
Tele-health System. The information is then
presented to the VA Care Coordinators
through the web application. The Tele-health
System’s various components are installed at
multiple locations, including in the patients’
homes, VA data centers and VA offices.
Like the Hub and Mobile Hub, the servers
also cannot be used out of the box and must
be customized. The servers are acquired
without an operating system or software and
are inoperable until software is installed. The
servers are first installed at the VA Facility.
The installation process takes five business
days as it involves various assembling,
configuring and testing processes. The final
step is to load the AMC CareConsole software
onto the servers.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
ISSUE:
1. Whether the imported tablets and smart
phones are substantially transformed by
the uninstallation and installation of
software in the United States, so as to
make them a product of the United
States.
2. Whether all the components of the Telehealth System are substantially
transformed through the creation and
installation of that system in the United
States so as to make them a product of
the United States.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
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, pursuant to subpart B of
Part 177, 19 C.F.R. § 177.21 et seq., which
implements Title III of the Trade Agreements
Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2511 et
seq.).
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 rendering final determinations for
purposes of U.S. Government procurement,
CBP applies the provisions of subpart B of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:10 Mar 01, 2018
Jkt 244001
Part 177 consistent with the Federal
Procurement Regulations. See 19 C.F.R.
§ 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 Trade
Agreements Act. See 48 C.F.R. § 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 name,
character, or use distinct from that of the
article or articles from which it was
transformed.’’ See 48 C.F.R § 25.003.
In Data General v. United States, 4 C.I.T.
182 (1982), the court determined that the
programming of a foreign PROM
(Programmable Read-Only Memory chip) in
the United States substantially transformed
the PROM into a U.S. article. In the United
States, the programming bestowed upon each
integrated circuit its electronic function, that
is, its ‘‘memory’’ which could be retrieved. A
distinct physical change was effected in the
PROM by the opening or closing of the fuses,
depending on the method of programming.
The essence of the article, its
interconnections or stored memory, was
established by programming. See also, Texas
Instruments v. United States, 681 F.2d 778,
782 (CCPA 1982) (stating the substantial
transformation issue is a ‘‘mixed question of
technology and customs law’’); HQ 735027,
dated September 7, 1993 (programming blank
media (EEPROM) with instructions that
allow it to perform certain functions that
prevent piracy of software constitutes a
substantial transformation); and, HQ 734518,
dated June 28, 1993 (motherboards are not
substantially transformed by the implanting
of the central processing unit on the board
because, whereas in Data General use was
being assigned to the PROM, the use of the
motherboard had already been determined
when the importer imported it).
‘‘The term ‘character’ is defined as ‘one of
the essentials of structure, form, materials, or
function that together make up and usually
distinguish the individual.’ ’’ National Hand
Tool Corp. v. United States, 16 C.I.T. 308,
311 (1992) (citing Webster’s Third New
International Dictionary (1981)). In National
Juice Prods. Ass’n v. United States, the Court
of International Trade applied the ‘‘essence
test’’ and found that the fundamental
character of orange juice concentrate was not
changed by the addition of water, orange
essences, and oils to make frozen
concentrated orange juice, and hence, there
was no substantial transformation. 10 C.I.T.
48, 628 F. Supp. 978 (1986).
HQ H258960, dated May 19, 2016,
reviewed the country of origin of hardware
components of certain transceivers in two
scenarios that are instructive to the case at
issue here. The hardware components of the
transceivers were wholly manufactured in a
foreign country and imported into the United
States. In the first scenario, the transceivers
were ‘‘blanks’’ and completely nonfunctional and specialized proprietary
software was developed and downloaded in
the United States, making the transceivers
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
functional and compatible with the OEM
technology. In the second scenario, the
transceivers were preprogrammed with a
generic program that was replaced with
specialized proprietary software. It was
argued that in both scenarios, the imported
hardware was substantially transformed by
the development, configuration, and
downloading operations of the U.S. origin
software. In the first scenario, we found that
the non-functional transceivers were
substantially transformed as a result of
downloading performed in the United States,
with proprietary software developed in the
United States. However, in the second
scenario, it was determined that since the
transceivers had generic network
functionality, programming them merely to
customize their network compatibility would
not actually change the identity of the
imported transceivers. See also HQ H241177,
dated December 3, 2013. Accordingly, it was
determined that the country where the last
substantial transformation occurred was
China or another Asian country where the
hardware components were manufactured.
In this case, you contend that the deletion
of software and the installation of new
software performed in the United States
transform the generic tablet computers and
smartphones into medical devices. You
emphasize that the U.S. operations disable
the Android applications and install health
monitoring software, which, you argue,
creates an entirely new purpose for the
devices. You further stress the complexity
and number of steps taken to transform the
tablets and smartphones into devices that
may be used within the Tele-health System.
Therefore, you contend that this operation
substantially transforms the tablets and
smartphones into new medical devices with
distinct names, characters and uses.
In essence, what is being done by the
uninstallation and installation of software in
the United States, is to limit the original
capacity of the imported tablets and
smartphones for the purpose of facilitating
the reception, collection and transmission of
a patient’s medical data to VA clinicians for
their review. The out-of-box tablets and
smartphones have the ability to perform
these general functions, but in order to meet
the requirements outlined in the VA Request
for Procurement, the CareConsole Hub and
Mobile Hub are modified as discussed. In
other words, when the tablets and
smartphones are created, they have the
ability to receive, collect, and transmit data.
The installed software merely enables these
devices to receive and collect an individual
patient’s medical data from the peripheral
devices and transmit this medical data to the
clinicians at the VA.
It is clear that loading the specialized
software onto a tablet computer or
smartphone that remains fully functional as
such would be insufficient to constitute a
new and different article of commerce, since
all of the functionality of the original device
would be retained. In this case, however, in
addition to adding the software, we are being
asked to consider the effect of disabling the
general applications that have been
programmed onto the tablet and smartphone.
In our judgment, this added factor does not
E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM
02MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2018 / Notices
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
cause or require a different result. The
functions of the original tablet and
smartphone produced in the Republic of
Korea or China, necessary to receive and
transmit data are in essence still present on
the modified devices, as aided by the
software. While the tablet and smartphone
are no longer freely programmable machines,
we find the imposition of this limitation is
insufficient to constitute a substantial
transformation of the imported tablets and
smartphones.
Furthermore, we note that the converted
tablets and smartphones loaded with the
AMC CareConsole Application Software do
not actually measure any health related
functions, such as blood pressure, or oxygen
saturation levels, nor do they provide any
medical treatment to patients. Instead, the
devices function to receive medical data that
is obtained from other peripheral devices,
such as a blood pressure cuff or an oxygen
sensor, and to transmit that medical data to
a clinician for review. Therefore, it appears
that after the proprietary software is
downloaded onto the tablets and
smartphones, they function basically as a
type of communications device.
In reviewing the processing performed in
the United States on the imported tablets and
smartphones under consideration, we note
that it is analogous to the situation of the
transceivers described by the second scenario
of HQ H258960. The imported devices are
preprogrammed with a generic program,
which is the standard Android operating
system, prior to their importation. When they
are first imported, the tablets and
smartphones can perform all of their
standard functions of an android tablet or
smartphone, and can in their imported
condition be used for their intended purpose,
but are customized for use within the VA
Healthcare network. Accordingly, like the
transceivers described in the second scenario
of HQ H258960, we find that the name,
character, and use of the imported devices
remain the same. Therefore, we further find
that the imported devices are not
substantially transformed in the United
States by the downloading of the proprietary
software, which allows them to function with
the VA Healthcare network. After the AMC
CareConsole Application software is
downloaded, the country of origin of the
imported tablets and smartphones remains
the country where they were originally
manufactured, which in this case is the
Republic of Korea and China, respectively.
The Tele-health System
In this situation, you also present an
additional argument that the ‘‘end product’’
is an entire system that includes all hardware
and software components, because it is
defined as such in the VA contract. The
implication of this claim is that CBP should
consider the Tele-health System as a whole
in its substantial transformation analysis. The
VA’s determination on what is the ‘‘end
product’’ is based upon different criteria from
what CBP must consider in determining the
country of origin of a product using the
substantial transformation test. We note that
the components at issue do not lose their
individual identities and, therefore, are not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:10 Mar 01, 2018
Jkt 244001
substantially transformed into a new and
different article.
In HQ H125975, dated January 19, 2011,
which 1Vision cites in support of its
argument, the LSI Engenio 7900 Data Storage
System (‘‘7900 System’’) was under
consideration for government procurement
purposes. The 7900 System was assembled in
Mexico from components originating in
various other nations. These parts included
the Engenio Operating System, a controller
assembly, a mounting assembly, a set of hard
drives, a slot drive module assembly, and a
cabinet assembly. Further, the controller
assembly was reprogrammed with the EOS
software to impart the functional intelligence
to the 7900 System to allow for storage
management, access control and performance
monitoring. CBP found that as a result of the
assembly and programming operations that
took place in Mexico, the imported
components of various origins lost their
individual identities and were substantially
transformed into a new and different article,
that is, the 7900 System.
Although the CareConsole Hub, Mobile
Hub and servers are customized to the VA
contract specifications, the programming of
each component to function in coordination
with each other for a common purpose does
not lead to a substantial transformation
finding. As discussed above, the tablets and
phones are not substantially transformed by
the uninstallation and installation of
software. Similarly, we cannot find a
substantial transformation of the servers
because software is installed. Moreover, the
installation of the software onto the servers
would not affect the other components of
Tele-health System as they remain separate
articles of commerce. Unlike the situation in
H125975, all the devices and peripheral
equipment remain identifiable as separate
components. The peripheral medical devices,
such as the blood pressure cuffs, blood
glucose monitors etc., remain, as stated, ‘‘as
is’’ and without any customization; the
CareConsole Hub and Mobile Hub, as
explained above, remain and continue to
function as communication devices; the
servers remain and continue to function as
servers, etc. The fact that these devices are
programmed to function in conjunction with
each other for the purpose of receiving,
collecting and transmitting medical data does
not mean that a change of use or character
occurs. Since the components have not lost
their separate identities during assembly of
the Tele-health System and have not become
an integral part of a new and distinct item,
which is visibly different from any of the
individual components, we find there is no
substantial transformation.
HOLDING:
Based on the facts of this case, the
imported tablets and smartphones used with
the CareConsole Hub and Mobile Hub
platform are not substantially transformed by
the installation of the AMC CareConsole
Application. Therefore, the country of origin
of the tablets and smartphones will remain
the country where they were originally
manufactured. Additionally, all components
of the Tele-health System are not
substantially transformed through the
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
9019
creation and installation of that system in the
United States so as to make them a product
of the United States.
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
HQ H284617
February 21, 2018
OT:RR:CTF:VS: H284617 JMV
CATEGORY: Origin
David E. Fletcher, Esq.
Cooley LLP
1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 700
Washington, DC 20004–2400
RE: U.S. Government Procurement; Title III,
Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C.
§ 2511); Subpart B, Part 177, CBP
Regulations; Tablet Computers, Health
Mobile and Hub Platforms
Dear Mr. Fletcher,
This is in response to your letter of March
21, 2017, on behalf of Care Innovations
requesting a final determination concerning
the country of origin of a product that you
refer to as ‘‘the Hub Platform and the Mobile
Platform,’’ pursuant to subpart B of Part 177,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
Regulations (19 C.F.R. § 177.21, et seq.). You
state in your letter that this request is being
made pursuant to a letter from the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to Care
Innovations requiring the filing of a request
for a country of origin determination from
CBP.
As a domestic importer of merchandise,
Care Innovations 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:
The products at issue are referred to as the
Hub Platform and the Mobile Platform. The
Hub Platform is a home based platform that
operates via Plain Old Telephone Systems
(‘‘POTS’’), while the Mobile Platform is a
handheld platform with wireless
connectivity. Both platforms begin as iPad
tablet computers that are produced by Apple
in China, which are later encased with
protective cases that are also manufactured in
China. The tablet is designed for use by
patients at home to collect health data that
is measured by other peripheral devices such
as blood pressure monitors, spirometer etc.
These other devices are not imported with
the tablet.
After the tablets are imported into the
United States, Care Innovations performs
E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM
02MRN1
9020
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2018 / Notices
additional production steps in its Roseville,
California facility to create the Hub Platform
and Mobile Platform. Care Innovations
installs the Health Harmony Mobile software
on the tablet computers, adds a Subscriber
Identity Module (‘‘SIM’’) card supplied by
the cellular service provider, and packages
the tablets in the protective cases. For the
Hub Platform, which runs on POTS, Care
Innovations attaches a POTS modem and
router, manufactured in the United States
with imported components. For both the Hub
Platform and the Mobile Platform, Care
Innovations installs the Airwatch Mobile
Device Manager application, which removes
the functionality usually available on an
Apple iPad Mini tablet so that the user will
only be able to run the Health Harmony
Mobile software. The end result is a tablet
locked into ‘‘single app mode,’’ running only
the Health Harmony application
functionality and Bluetooth linked peripheral
screens.
Care Innovations also adds physical asset
tags to each tablet and registers them on Care
Innovation’s Mobile Device Management
server; registers component details in the
customer database; and verifies and
documents the testing of the image and
registered software. Care Innovations then
packages the Hub Platform and Mobile
Platform with the necessary licenses, privacy
notices, and quick start guides. Finally, Care
Innovations activates the platforms’ features
and prepares the platforms to be assigned to
a specific end user.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
ISSUE:
Whether the imported tablets are
substantially transformed by the installation
of Care Innovations’ software, so as to make
them a product of the United States.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
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, pursuant to subpart B of
Part 177, 19 C.F.R. § 177.21 et seq., which
implements Title III of the Trade Agreements
Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2511 et
seq.).
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 rendering final determinations for
purposes of U.S. Government procurement,
CBP applies the provisions of subpart B of
Part 177 consistent with the Federal
Procurement Regulations. See 19 C.F.R.
§ 177.21. In this regard, CBP recognizes that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:10 Mar 01, 2018
Jkt 244001
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 Trade
Agreements Act. See 48 C.F.R. § 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.’’ See 48 C.F.R § 25.003.
In Data General v. United States, 4 C.I.T.
182 (1982), the court determined that the
programming of a foreign PROM
(Programmable Read-Only Memory chip) in
the United States substantially transformed
the PROM into a U.S. article. In the United
States, the programming bestowed upon each
integrated circuit its electronic function, that
is, its ‘‘memory’’ which could be retrieved. A
distinct physical change was effected in the
PROM by the opening or closing of the fuses,
depending on the method of programming.
The essence of the article, its
interconnections or stored memory, was
established by programming. See also, Texas
Instruments v. United States, 681 F.2d 778,
782 (CCPA 1982) (stating the substantial
transformation issue is a ‘‘mixed question of
technology and customs law’’); HQ 735027,
dated September 7, 1993 (programming blank
media (EEPROM) with instructions that
allow it to perform certain functions that
prevent piracy of software constitutes a
substantial transformation); and HQ 734518,
dated June 28, 1993 (motherboards are not
substantially transformed by the implanting
of the central processing unit on the board
because, whereas in Data General use was
being assigned to the PROM, the use of the
motherboard had already been determined
when the importer imported it).
‘‘The term ‘character’ is defined as ‘one of
the essentials of structure, form, materials, or
function that together make up and usually
distinguish the individual.’ ’’ National Hand
Tool Corp. v. United States, 16 C.I.T. 308,
311 (1992) (citing Webster’s Third New
International Dictionary (1981)). In National
Juice Prods. Ass’n v. United States, the Court
of International Trade applied the ‘‘essence
test’’ and found that the fundamental
character of orange juice concentrate was not
changed by the addition of water, orange
essences, and oils to make frozen
concentrated orange juice, and hence, there
was no substantial transformation. 10 C.I.T.
48, 628 F. Supp. 978 (1986).
HQ H258960, dated May 19, 2016,
reviewed the country of origin of hardware
components of certain transceivers in two
scenarios that are instructive to the case at
issue here. The hardware components of the
transceivers were wholly manufactured in a
foreign country and imported into the United
States. In the first scenario, the transceivers
were ‘‘blanks’’ and completely nonfunctional and specialized proprietary
software was developed and downloaded in
the United States, making the transceivers
functional and compatible with the OEM
technology. In the second scenario, the
transceivers were preprogrammed with a
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
generic program that was replaced with
specialized proprietary software. It was
argued that in both scenarios, the imported
hardware was substantially transformed by
the development, configuration, and
downloading operations of the U.S. origin
software. In the first scenario, we found that
the non-functional transceivers were
substantially transformed as a result of
downloading performed in the United States,
with proprietary software developed in the
United States. However, in the second
scenario, it was determined that since the
transceivers had generic network
functionality, programming them merely to
customize their network compatibility would
not actually change the identity of the
imported transceivers. See also HQ H241177,
dated December 3, 2013. Accordingly, it was
determined that the country where the last
substantial transformation occurred was
China or another Asian country where the
hardware components were manufactured.
In this case, you assert that the software
downloading operations performed in the
United States transform the generic tablet
computers into medical devices. You further
argue that the tablets undergo a complex
production process performed by skilled
production associates at Care Innovations’
Roseville, California facility. You emphasize
that the U.S. operations disable the generic
Apple iPad applications and install health
monitoring software that cannot be undone
by third parties during the normal course of
operations. Therefore, you contend that this
operation substantially transforms the Apple
iPad tablet into a new medical device with
a distinct name, character and use.
In essence, what is being done by the
installation of the software in the United
States, is to limit the original capacity of the
imported tablets for the purpose of
facilitating the reception, collection and
transmission of a patient’s medical data to
VA clinicians for their review. The original
tablet has the ability to perform these
functions, but it was determined that in order
to meet FDA regulations, it is best to disable
the various functions of the tablet and to
replace them with one function via the
specialized software. In other words, when
the tablets are created, they have the ability
to receive, collect, and transmit data. The
installed software just enables the tablets to
receive and collect an individual patient’s
medical data from the peripheral devices and
transmit this medical data to the clinicians at
the VA.
It is clear that loading specialized software
onto the tablet computer that remains fully
functional as a computer would be
insufficient to constitute a new and different
article of commerce, since all of the
functionality of the original computer would
be retained. In this case, however, in addition
to adding the software, we are being asked to
consider the effect of disabling the general
applications that have been programmed
onto the tablet. In our judgment, this added
factor does not cause or require a different
result. The functions of the original tablet
produced in China that are necessary to
receive and transmit data are in essence still
present on the modified tablet, as aided by
the software. While the tablet is no longer a
E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM
02MRN1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2018 / Notices
freely programmable machine, we find the
imposition of this limitation is insufficient to
constitute a substantial transformation of the
imported tablets in the United States.
Furthermore, we note that the converted
tablets loaded with the Health Harmony
software do not actually measure any health
related functions, such as blood pressure, or
oxygen saturation levels, nor do they provide
any medical treatment to patients. Instead,
the converted tablets function to receive
medical data that is obtained from other
peripheral devices, such as a blood pressure
monitor or pulse oximeter, and to transmit
that medical data to a clinician for review.
Therefore, it appears that after the
proprietary software is downloaded onto the
tablets, the tablets continue to basically
function as a type of communications device.
It is also claimed that the FDA considers
the Hub Platform and the Mobile Platform to
be medical devices and that the IRS will tax
the Health Harmony system, including the
tablet, as a medical device. Thus, you
contend that CBP should also consider the
tablets loaded with the Health Harmony
software to be medical devices rather than
tablets. We note, however, that the IRS and
FDA’s determinations as to whether any
items are considered medical devices are
based upon different criteria from what CBP
must apply in determining the country of
origin of a product using the substantial
transformation test. In HQ H019436, dated
March 17, 2008, CBP considered the tariff
classification of a SONA Sleep Apnea
Avoidance Pillow imported from China. The
ruling noted that while the subject
merchandise was considered a Class II
therapeutic cervical pillow for snoring and
mild sleep apnea by the FDA, this
determination did not control tariff
classification. Similarly in this case, the IRS
and FDA’s determinations that the imported
tablets are medical devices and will be taxed
as such are of limited relevance to CBP’s
determination as to the country of origin of
the devices.
In reviewing the processing performed in
the United States on the imported tablets
under consideration, we note that it is
analogous to the situation of the transceivers
described by the second scenario of HQ
H258960. The imported tablets are
preprogrammed with a generic program,
which is the standard Apple iPad operating
system, prior to their importation. When they
are first imported, the tablets can perform all
of the standard functions of an Apple iPad
tablet, and can in their imported condition be
used in conjunction with the proprietary
software. Accordingly, like the transceivers
described in the second scenario of HQ
H258960, we find that the name, character,
and use of the imported tablet computers
remain the same. Therefore, we further find
that the imported tablets are not substantially
transformed in the United States by the
downloading of the proprietary software,
which allows them to function within the VA
Healthcare network. After the Health
Harmony software is downloaded, the
country of origin of the imported tablets
remains the country where they were
originally manufactured, which in this case
is China.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:10 Mar 01, 2018
Jkt 244001
Finally, you argue that since CBP
concluded that a predecessor of the Health
Harmony System, Stehekin, was considered
part of a patient monitoring system rather
than a standard computer in NY Ruling
N004877 dated January 26, 2007, it would be
inconsistent to conclude that Health
Harmony, as Stehekin’s descendant, is, for
purposes of government procurement, merely
a ‘‘standard computer’’ manufactured outside
the United States. You claim that Stehekin is
analogous to the tablet computer that Care
Innovations uses today because it included a
purpose-built computer, produced in China,
that was used to deliver remote patient
monitoring software and capability.
However, the issue decided in N004877 was
a question of tariff classification, not
substantial transformation, and is therefore,
not applicable.
HOLDING:
Based on the facts of this case, the
imported tablets used with the Mobile
Platform and the Hub platform are not
substantially transformed by the installation
of the proprietary Health Harmony software.
Therefore, the country of origin of the tablets
will remain the country where they were
originally manufactured.
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. 2018–04273 Filed 3–1–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–14–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–HQ–R–2018–N030;
FXGO1664091HCC0–FF09D00000–189]
International Wildlife Conservation
Council; Public Meeting
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
announces a public meeting of the
International Wildlife Conservation
Council (Council).
DATES: Friday, March 16, 2018, from
9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (Eastern Daylight
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
9021
Time). For deadlines and directions on
registering to attend, submitting written
material, and giving an oral
presentation, please see Public Input
under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in
the South Penthouse at the Main
Interior Building, 1849 C Street NW,
Washington, DC 20240.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joshua Winchell, Council Designated
Federal Officer, by U.S. mail at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Wildlife Refuge System, 5275 Leesburg
Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803; by
telephone at (703) 358–2639; or by
email at iwcc@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Council provides advice and
recommendations to the Secretary of the
Interior (Secretary), regarding the
benefits that result from United States
citizens traveling to foreign nations to
engage in hunting.
Background
Formed in December 2017, the
Council is an advisory body whose
duties include, but are not limited to:
(a) Developing a plan for public
engagement and education on the
benefits of international hunting.
(b) Reviewing and making
recommendations for changes, when
needed, on all Federal programs, and/or
regulations, to ensure support of
hunting as:
1. An enhancement to foreign wildlife
conservation and survival; and
2. An effective tool to combat illegal
trafficking and poaching.
(c) Recommending strategies to
benefit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service’s permit office in receiving
timely country data and information so
as to remove barriers that impact
consulting with range states.
(d) Recommending removal of barriers
to the importation into the United States
of legally hunted wildlife.
(e) Ongoing review of import
suspension/bans and providing
recommendations that seek to resume
the legal trade of those items, where
appropriate.
(f) Reviewing seizure and forfeiture
actions/practices, and providing
recommendations for regulations that
will lead to a reduction of unwarranted
actions.
(g) Reviewing the Endangered Species
Act’s foreign listed species and
interaction with the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, with
the goal of eliminating regulatory
duplications.
E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM
02MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9017-9021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04273]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Notice of Issuance of Final Determinations Concerning Country of
Origin of the Hub and Mobile Platforms, and the AMC Home Tele-Health
System
AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice of final determinations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document provides notice that U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') has issued two final determinations concerning the
country of origin of tablet computers and smart phones known as the Hub
and Mobile Platforms, and CareConsole Hub and Mobile Hub. CBP has
concluded in the final determinations that for purposes of U.S.
Government procurement the installation of proprietary software on
tablet computers or smart phones does not substantially transform the
imported tablet computers or smart phones.
DATES: The final determinations were issued on February 21, 2018.
Copies of the final determinations are attached. Any party-at-interest,
as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of these final
determinations within April 2, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy Marie Virga, Valuation and Special
Programs Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade (202-325-
1511).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that on February 21,
2018, CBP issued two final determinations concerning the country of
origin of tablet computers, smart phones, and systems, which may be
offered to the United States Government under an undesignated
government procurement contract. These final determinations, HQ H284834
and HQ H284617, were issued at the request of 1Vision, LLC and Care
Innovations, LLC, respectively, 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
determinations, CBP was asked to consider whether disabling the general
applications of a tablet computer or smart phone and loading
specialized software onto the device, enabling a patient to provide
medical information to the VA, constituted a substantial
transformation. In one final determination, CBP was further asked if
the integration of the altered tablets and smartphones into a larger
telehealth system constituted a substantial transformation. In the
final determinations, CBP concluded that these activities do not
constitute a substantial transformation and the origin of the tablet
computers, smart phones, and systems remains the original country of
manufacturing.
Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.29), provides that
notice of final determinations shall be published in the Federal
Register within 60 days of the date the final determination is issued.
Section 177.30, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.30), provides that any
party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial
review of a final determination within 30 days of publication of such
determination in the Federal Register.
Dated: February 21, 2018.
Alice A. Kipel,
Executive Director, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade.
HQ H284834
February 21, 2018
OT:RR:CTF:VS: H284834 JMV
CATEGORY: Origin
George W. Thompson, Esq. Thompson & Associates, PLLC 1250 Connecticut
Ave. NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC, 20036
RE: U.S. Government Procurement; Title III, Trade Agreements Act of
1979 (19 U.S.C. Sec. 2511); Subpart B, Part 177, CBP Regulations;
Tablet Computers, CareConsole Hub and Mobile Hub
Dear Mr. Thompson:
This is in response to your letter of March 20, 2017, on behalf
of 1Vision, LLC (``1Vision''), requesting a final determination
concerning the country origin of a product that you refer to as the
AMC Home Tele-health System (``Tele-health System'' or ``the
System''), pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) Regulations (19 C.F.R. Sec. 177.21, et
seq.). You state in your letter that this request is being made
pursuant to a contract with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
with 1Vision requiring the filing of a request for a country of
origin determination from CBP.
As a domestic producer, 1Vision 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:
The products at issue are the Tele-health System in its entirety
and the components, the CareConsole Hub and the Mobile Hub. The
CareConsole Hub and the Mobile Hub, respectively, begin as a tablet
computer and a smart phone. The CareConsole Hub is produced in the
Republic of Korea and the Mobile Hub is produced in China. Both
products are intended for purchase by the Veterans Health
Administration for use by patients at home. The CareConsole Hub and
the Mobile Hub are designed to collect health data that is measured
by other peripheral devices, such as blood pressure cuffs, blood
glucose monitors, etc. These other peripheral devices are not
imported with the tablet and could be used ``as is'' within the
1Vision ecosystem, without any changes.
In the United States, the tablet and smart phone go through a
number of software uninstallations and installations. The generic
Android functions originally included on the devices, such as
alarms, calculators and text messaging, are removed. In order to
enable the devices to function within the Tele-health System, other
functions, such as Bluetooth capability, are modified and additional
software is added. In addition, 1Vision also further processes the
devices to include additional security mechanisms and to enable them
to function in Plain Old Telephone Systems (``POTS''), an analog
telephone service that continues to be the basic form of home and
small business service connection to telephone networks.
Finally, the AMC CareConsole Mobile Application is installed on
both devices. According to the information provided, this software
was developed entirely in the United States. The software enables
the patient to provide vital sign data by connecting to the
peripheral devices via Bluetooth. The patient's information is then
forwarded to VA clinicians over the VA intranet. This application is
installed on the tablet to meet the VA's requirements for medical
devices, including patient confidentiality and interoperability with
VA systems and protocols. After the software installation is
completed, the tablets cannot run any other program and cannot be
reprogrammed to perform any other function.
The CareConsole Hub and Mobile Hub are then integrated into the
Tele-health System, which also includes servers, data storage,
networking, additional software, and health monitoring devices such
as blood pressure cuffs and glucose monitors. The integration
process consists of the CareConsole Hub or Mobile Hub contacting the
Tele-health System, hosted in the VA data centers, which then sends
an activation code and
[[Page 9018]]
configuration file to the CareConsole Hub or Mobile Hub. The
CareConsole Hub and Mobile Hub are then automatically configured to
the peripheral health monitoring devices.
All the components, other than the CareConsole Hub and Mobile
Hub, come from the United States, Mexico, Japan, Taiwan, Ireland, or
the Republic of Korea. These components are customized as necessary
to function in conjunction with each other. The CareConsole Hub and
Mobile Hub collect information from the patients in their homes and
transmit that data to the Tele-health System. The information is
then presented to the VA Care Coordinators through the web
application. The Tele-health System's various components are
installed at multiple locations, including in the patients' homes,
VA data centers and VA offices.
Like the Hub and Mobile Hub, the servers also cannot be used out
of the box and must be customized. The servers are acquired without
an operating system or software and are inoperable until software is
installed. The servers are first installed at the VA Facility. The
installation process takes five business days as it involves various
assembling, configuring and testing processes. The final step is to
load the AMC CareConsole software onto the servers.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the imported tablets and smart phones are
substantially transformed by the uninstallation and installation of
software in the United States, so as to make them a product of the
United States.
2. Whether all the components of the Tele-health System are
substantially transformed through the creation and installation of
that system in the United States so as to make them a product of the
United States.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
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,
pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, 19 C.F.R. Sec. 177.21 et seq.,
which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as
amended (19 U.S.C. Sec. 2511 et seq.).
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 rendering final determinations for purposes of U.S.
Government procurement, CBP applies the provisions of subpart B of
Part 177 consistent with the Federal Procurement Regulations. See 19
C.F.R. Sec. 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 Trade Agreements Act. See 48 C.F.R.
Sec. 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 name, character, or use distinct from that of the
article or articles from which it was transformed.'' See 48 C.F.R
Sec. 25.003.
In Data General v. United States, 4 C.I.T. 182 (1982), the court
determined that the programming of a foreign PROM (Programmable
Read-Only Memory chip) in the United States substantially
transformed the PROM into a U.S. article. In the United States, the
programming bestowed upon each integrated circuit its electronic
function, that is, its ``memory'' which could be retrieved. A
distinct physical change was effected in the PROM by the opening or
closing of the fuses, depending on the method of programming. The
essence of the article, its interconnections or stored memory, was
established by programming. See also, Texas Instruments v. United
States, 681 F.2d 778, 782 (CCPA 1982) (stating the substantial
transformation issue is a ``mixed question of technology and customs
law''); HQ 735027, dated September 7, 1993 (programming blank media
(EEPROM) with instructions that allow it to perform certain
functions that prevent piracy of software constitutes a substantial
transformation); and, HQ 734518, dated June 28, 1993 (motherboards
are not substantially transformed by the implanting of the central
processing unit on the board because, whereas in Data General use
was being assigned to the PROM, the use of the motherboard had
already been determined when the importer imported it).
``The term `character' is defined as `one of the essentials of
structure, form, materials, or function that together make up and
usually distinguish the individual.' '' National Hand Tool Corp. v.
United States, 16 C.I.T. 308, 311 (1992) (citing Webster's Third New
International Dictionary (1981)). In National Juice Prods. Ass'n v.
United States, the Court of International Trade applied the
``essence test'' and found that the fundamental character of orange
juice concentrate was not changed by the addition of water, orange
essences, and oils to make frozen concentrated orange juice, and
hence, there was no substantial transformation. 10 C.I.T. 48, 628 F.
Supp. 978 (1986).
HQ H258960, dated May 19, 2016, reviewed the country of origin
of hardware components of certain transceivers in two scenarios that
are instructive to the case at issue here. The hardware components
of the transceivers were wholly manufactured in a foreign country
and imported into the United States. In the first scenario, the
transceivers were ``blanks'' and completely non-functional and
specialized proprietary software was developed and downloaded in the
United States, making the transceivers functional and compatible
with the OEM technology. In the second scenario, the transceivers
were preprogrammed with a generic program that was replaced with
specialized proprietary software. It was argued that in both
scenarios, the imported hardware was substantially transformed by
the development, configuration, and downloading operations of the
U.S. origin software. In the first scenario, we found that the non-
functional transceivers were substantially transformed as a result
of downloading performed in the United States, with proprietary
software developed in the United States. However, in the second
scenario, it was determined that since the transceivers had generic
network functionality, programming them merely to customize their
network compatibility would not actually change the identity of the
imported transceivers. See also HQ H241177, dated December 3, 2013.
Accordingly, it was determined that the country where the last
substantial transformation occurred was China or another Asian
country where the hardware components were manufactured.
In this case, you contend that the deletion of software and the
installation of new software performed in the United States
transform the generic tablet computers and smartphones into medical
devices. You emphasize that the U.S. operations disable the Android
applications and install health monitoring software, which, you
argue, creates an entirely new purpose for the devices. You further
stress the complexity and number of steps taken to transform the
tablets and smartphones into devices that may be used within the
Tele-health System. Therefore, you contend that this operation
substantially transforms the tablets and smartphones into new
medical devices with distinct names, characters and uses.
In essence, what is being done by the uninstallation and
installation of software in the United States, is to limit the
original capacity of the imported tablets and smartphones for the
purpose of facilitating the reception, collection and transmission
of a patient's medical data to VA clinicians for their review. The
out-of-box tablets and smartphones have the ability to perform these
general functions, but in order to meet the requirements outlined in
the VA Request for Procurement, the CareConsole Hub and Mobile Hub
are modified as discussed. In other words, when the tablets and
smartphones are created, they have the ability to receive, collect,
and transmit data. The installed software merely enables these
devices to receive and collect an individual patient's medical data
from the peripheral devices and transmit this medical data to the
clinicians at the VA.
It is clear that loading the specialized software onto a tablet
computer or smartphone that remains fully functional as such would
be insufficient to constitute a new and different article of
commerce, since all of the functionality of the original device
would be retained. In this case, however, in addition to adding the
software, we are being asked to consider the effect of disabling the
general applications that have been programmed onto the tablet and
smartphone. In our judgment, this added factor does not
[[Page 9019]]
cause or require a different result. The functions of the original
tablet and smartphone produced in the Republic of Korea or China,
necessary to receive and transmit data are in essence still present
on the modified devices, as aided by the software. While the tablet
and smartphone are no longer freely programmable machines, we find
the imposition of this limitation is insufficient to constitute a
substantial transformation of the imported tablets and smartphones.
Furthermore, we note that the converted tablets and smartphones
loaded with the AMC CareConsole Application Software do not actually
measure any health related functions, such as blood pressure, or
oxygen saturation levels, nor do they provide any medical treatment
to patients. Instead, the devices function to receive medical data
that is obtained from other peripheral devices, such as a blood
pressure cuff or an oxygen sensor, and to transmit that medical data
to a clinician for review. Therefore, it appears that after the
proprietary software is downloaded onto the tablets and smartphones,
they function basically as a type of communications device.
In reviewing the processing performed in the United States on
the imported tablets and smartphones under consideration, we note
that it is analogous to the situation of the transceivers described
by the second scenario of HQ H258960. The imported devices are
preprogrammed with a generic program, which is the standard Android
operating system, prior to their importation. When they are first
imported, the tablets and smartphones can perform all of their
standard functions of an android tablet or smartphone, and can in
their imported condition be used for their intended purpose, but are
customized for use within the VA Healthcare network. Accordingly,
like the transceivers described in the second scenario of HQ
H258960, we find that the name, character, and use of the imported
devices remain the same. Therefore, we further find that the
imported devices are not substantially transformed in the United
States by the downloading of the proprietary software, which allows
them to function with the VA Healthcare network. After the AMC
CareConsole Application software is downloaded, the country of
origin of the imported tablets and smartphones remains the country
where they were originally manufactured, which in this case is the
Republic of Korea and China, respectively.
The Tele-health System
In this situation, you also present an additional argument that
the ``end product'' is an entire system that includes all hardware
and software components, because it is defined as such in the VA
contract. The implication of this claim is that CBP should consider
the Tele-health System as a whole in its substantial transformation
analysis. The VA's determination on what is the ``end product'' is
based upon different criteria from what CBP must consider in
determining the country of origin of a product using the substantial
transformation test. We note that the components at issue do not
lose their individual identities and, therefore, are not
substantially transformed into a new and different article.
In HQ H125975, dated January 19, 2011, which 1Vision cites in
support of its argument, the LSI Engenio 7900 Data Storage System
(``7900 System'') was under consideration for government procurement
purposes. The 7900 System was assembled in Mexico from components
originating in various other nations. These parts included the
Engenio Operating System, a controller assembly, a mounting
assembly, a set of hard drives, a slot drive module assembly, and a
cabinet assembly. Further, the controller assembly was reprogrammed
with the EOS software to impart the functional intelligence to the
7900 System to allow for storage management, access control and
performance monitoring. CBP found that as a result of the assembly
and programming operations that took place in Mexico, the imported
components of various origins lost their individual identities and
were substantially transformed into a new and different article,
that is, the 7900 System.
Although the CareConsole Hub, Mobile Hub and servers are
customized to the VA contract specifications, the programming of
each component to function in coordination with each other for a
common purpose does not lead to a substantial transformation
finding. As discussed above, the tablets and phones are not
substantially transformed by the uninstallation and installation of
software. Similarly, we cannot find a substantial transformation of
the servers because software is installed. Moreover, the
installation of the software onto the servers would not affect the
other components of Tele-health System as they remain separate
articles of commerce. Unlike the situation in H125975, all the
devices and peripheral equipment remain identifiable as separate
components. The peripheral medical devices, such as the blood
pressure cuffs, blood glucose monitors etc., remain, as stated, ``as
is'' and without any customization; the CareConsole Hub and Mobile
Hub, as explained above, remain and continue to function as
communication devices; the servers remain and continue to function
as servers, etc. The fact that these devices are programmed to
function in conjunction with each other for the purpose of
receiving, collecting and transmitting medical data does not mean
that a change of use or character occurs. Since the components have
not lost their separate identities during assembly of the Tele-
health System and have not become an integral part of a new and
distinct item, which is visibly different from any of the individual
components, we find there is no substantial transformation.
HOLDING:
Based on the facts of this case, the imported tablets and
smartphones used with the CareConsole Hub and Mobile Hub platform
are not substantially transformed by the installation of the AMC
CareConsole Application. Therefore, the country of origin of the
tablets and smartphones will remain the country where they were
originally manufactured. Additionally, all components of the Tele-
health System are not substantially transformed through the creation
and installation of that system in the United States so as to make
them a product of the United States.
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
HQ H284617
February 21, 2018
OT:RR:CTF:VS: H284617 JMV
CATEGORY: Origin
David E. Fletcher, Esq.
Cooley LLP
1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 700
Washington, DC 20004-2400
RE: U.S. Government Procurement; Title III, Trade Agreements Act of
1979 (19 U.S.C. Sec. 2511); Subpart B, Part 177, CBP Regulations;
Tablet Computers, Health Mobile and Hub Platforms
Dear Mr. Fletcher,
This is in response to your letter of March 21, 2017, on behalf
of Care Innovations requesting a final determination concerning the
country of origin of a product that you refer to as ``the Hub
Platform and the Mobile Platform,'' pursuant to subpart B of Part
177, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Regulations (19 C.F.R.
Sec. 177.21, et seq.). You state in your letter that this request
is being made pursuant to a letter from the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) to Care Innovations requiring the filing of a request
for a country of origin determination from CBP.
As a domestic importer of merchandise, Care Innovations 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:
The products at issue are referred to as the Hub Platform and
the Mobile Platform. The Hub Platform is a home based platform that
operates via Plain Old Telephone Systems (``POTS''), while the
Mobile Platform is a handheld platform with wireless connectivity.
Both platforms begin as iPad tablet computers that are produced by
Apple in China, which are later encased with protective cases that
are also manufactured in China. The tablet is designed for use by
patients at home to collect health data that is measured by other
peripheral devices such as blood pressure monitors, spirometer etc.
These other devices are not imported with the tablet.
After the tablets are imported into the United States, Care
Innovations performs
[[Page 9020]]
additional production steps in its Roseville, California facility to
create the Hub Platform and Mobile Platform. Care Innovations
installs the Health Harmony Mobile software on the tablet computers,
adds a Subscriber Identity Module (``SIM'') card supplied by the
cellular service provider, and packages the tablets in the
protective cases. For the Hub Platform, which runs on POTS, Care
Innovations attaches a POTS modem and router, manufactured in the
United States with imported components. For both the Hub Platform
and the Mobile Platform, Care Innovations installs the Airwatch
Mobile Device Manager application, which removes the functionality
usually available on an Apple iPad Mini tablet so that the user will
only be able to run the Health Harmony Mobile software. The end
result is a tablet locked into ``single app mode,'' running only the
Health Harmony application functionality and Bluetooth linked
peripheral screens.
Care Innovations also adds physical asset tags to each tablet
and registers them on Care Innovation's Mobile Device Management
server; registers component details in the customer database; and
verifies and documents the testing of the image and registered
software. Care Innovations then packages the Hub Platform and Mobile
Platform with the necessary licenses, privacy notices, and quick
start guides. Finally, Care Innovations activates the platforms'
features and prepares the platforms to be assigned to a specific end
user.
ISSUE:
Whether the imported tablets are substantially transformed by
the installation of Care Innovations' software, so as to make them a
product of the United States.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
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,
pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, 19 C.F.R. Sec. 177.21 et seq.,
which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as
amended (19 U.S.C. Sec. 2511 et seq.).
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 rendering final determinations for purposes of U.S.
Government procurement, CBP applies the provisions of subpart B of
Part 177 consistent with the Federal Procurement Regulations. See 19
C.F.R. Sec. 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 Trade Agreements Act. See 48 C.F.R.
Sec. 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.'' See 48 C.F.R
Sec. 25.003.
In Data General v. United States, 4 C.I.T. 182 (1982), the court
determined that the programming of a foreign PROM (Programmable
Read-Only Memory chip) in the United States substantially
transformed the PROM into a U.S. article. In the United States, the
programming bestowed upon each integrated circuit its electronic
function, that is, its ``memory'' which could be retrieved. A
distinct physical change was effected in the PROM by the opening or
closing of the fuses, depending on the method of programming. The
essence of the article, its interconnections or stored memory, was
established by programming. See also, Texas Instruments v. United
States, 681 F.2d 778, 782 (CCPA 1982) (stating the substantial
transformation issue is a ``mixed question of technology and customs
law''); HQ 735027, dated September 7, 1993 (programming blank media
(EEPROM) with instructions that allow it to perform certain
functions that prevent piracy of software constitutes a substantial
transformation); and HQ 734518, dated June 28, 1993 (motherboards
are not substantially transformed by the implanting of the central
processing unit on the board because, whereas in Data General use
was being assigned to the PROM, the use of the motherboard had
already been determined when the importer imported it).
``The term `character' is defined as `one of the essentials of
structure, form, materials, or function that together make up and
usually distinguish the individual.' '' National Hand Tool Corp. v.
United States, 16 C.I.T. 308, 311 (1992) (citing Webster's Third New
International Dictionary (1981)). In National Juice Prods. Ass'n v.
United States, the Court of International Trade applied the
``essence test'' and found that the fundamental character of orange
juice concentrate was not changed by the addition of water, orange
essences, and oils to make frozen concentrated orange juice, and
hence, there was no substantial transformation. 10 C.I.T. 48, 628 F.
Supp. 978 (1986).
HQ H258960, dated May 19, 2016, reviewed the country of origin
of hardware components of certain transceivers in two scenarios that
are instructive to the case at issue here. The hardware components
of the transceivers were wholly manufactured in a foreign country
and imported into the United States. In the first scenario, the
transceivers were ``blanks'' and completely non-functional and
specialized proprietary software was developed and downloaded in the
United States, making the transceivers functional and compatible
with the OEM technology. In the second scenario, the transceivers
were preprogrammed with a generic program that was replaced with
specialized proprietary software. It was argued that in both
scenarios, the imported hardware was substantially transformed by
the development, configuration, and downloading operations of the
U.S. origin software. In the first scenario, we found that the non-
functional transceivers were substantially transformed as a result
of downloading performed in the United States, with proprietary
software developed in the United States. However, in the second
scenario, it was determined that since the transceivers had generic
network functionality, programming them merely to customize their
network compatibility would not actually change the identity of the
imported transceivers. See also HQ H241177, dated December 3, 2013.
Accordingly, it was determined that the country where the last
substantial transformation occurred was China or another Asian
country where the hardware components were manufactured.
In this case, you assert that the software downloading
operations performed in the United States transform the generic
tablet computers into medical devices. You further argue that the
tablets undergo a complex production process performed by skilled
production associates at Care Innovations' Roseville, California
facility. You emphasize that the U.S. operations disable the generic
Apple iPad applications and install health monitoring software that
cannot be undone by third parties during the normal course of
operations. Therefore, you contend that this operation substantially
transforms the Apple iPad tablet into a new medical device with a
distinct name, character and use.
In essence, what is being done by the installation of the
software in the United States, is to limit the original capacity of
the imported tablets for the purpose of facilitating the reception,
collection and transmission of a patient's medical data to VA
clinicians for their review. The original tablet has the ability to
perform these functions, but it was determined that in order to meet
FDA regulations, it is best to disable the various functions of the
tablet and to replace them with one function via the specialized
software. In other words, when the tablets are created, they have
the ability to receive, collect, and transmit data. The installed
software just enables the tablets to receive and collect an
individual patient's medical data from the peripheral devices and
transmit this medical data to the clinicians at the VA.
It is clear that loading specialized software onto the tablet
computer that remains fully functional as a computer would be
insufficient to constitute a new and different article of commerce,
since all of the functionality of the original computer would be
retained. In this case, however, in addition to adding the software,
we are being asked to consider the effect of disabling the general
applications that have been programmed onto the tablet. In our
judgment, this added factor does not cause or require a different
result. The functions of the original tablet produced in China that
are necessary to receive and transmit data are in essence still
present on the modified tablet, as aided by the software. While the
tablet is no longer a
[[Page 9021]]
freely programmable machine, we find the imposition of this
limitation is insufficient to constitute a substantial
transformation of the imported tablets in the United States.
Furthermore, we note that the converted tablets loaded with the
Health Harmony software do not actually measure any health related
functions, such as blood pressure, or oxygen saturation levels, nor
do they provide any medical treatment to patients. Instead, the
converted tablets function to receive medical data that is obtained
from other peripheral devices, such as a blood pressure monitor or
pulse oximeter, and to transmit that medical data to a clinician for
review. Therefore, it appears that after the proprietary software is
downloaded onto the tablets, the tablets continue to basically
function as a type of communications device.
It is also claimed that the FDA considers the Hub Platform and
the Mobile Platform to be medical devices and that the IRS will tax
the Health Harmony system, including the tablet, as a medical
device. Thus, you contend that CBP should also consider the tablets
loaded with the Health Harmony software to be medical devices rather
than tablets. We note, however, that the IRS and FDA's
determinations as to whether any items are considered medical
devices are based upon different criteria from what CBP must apply
in determining the country of origin of a product using the
substantial transformation test. In HQ H019436, dated March 17,
2008, CBP considered the tariff classification of a SONA Sleep Apnea
Avoidance Pillow imported from China. The ruling noted that while
the subject merchandise was considered a Class II therapeutic
cervical pillow for snoring and mild sleep apnea by the FDA, this
determination did not control tariff classification. Similarly in
this case, the IRS and FDA's determinations that the imported
tablets are medical devices and will be taxed as such are of limited
relevance to CBP's determination as to the country of origin of the
devices.
In reviewing the processing performed in the United States on
the imported tablets under consideration, we note that it is
analogous to the situation of the transceivers described by the
second scenario of HQ H258960. The imported tablets are
preprogrammed with a generic program, which is the standard Apple
iPad operating system, prior to their importation. When they are
first imported, the tablets can perform all of the standard
functions of an Apple iPad tablet, and can in their imported
condition be used in conjunction with the proprietary software.
Accordingly, like the transceivers described in the second scenario
of HQ H258960, we find that the name, character, and use of the
imported tablet computers remain the same. Therefore, we further
find that the imported tablets are not substantially transformed in
the United States by the downloading of the proprietary software,
which allows them to function within the VA Healthcare network.
After the Health Harmony software is downloaded, the country of
origin of the imported tablets remains the country where they were
originally manufactured, which in this case is China.
Finally, you argue that since CBP concluded that a predecessor
of the Health Harmony System, Stehekin, was considered part of a
patient monitoring system rather than a standard computer in NY
Ruling N004877 dated January 26, 2007, it would be inconsistent to
conclude that Health Harmony, as Stehekin's descendant, is, for
purposes of government procurement, merely a ``standard computer''
manufactured outside the United States. You claim that Stehekin is
analogous to the tablet computer that Care Innovations uses today
because it included a purpose-built computer, produced in China,
that was used to deliver remote patient monitoring software and
capability. However, the issue decided in N004877 was a question of
tariff classification, not substantial transformation, and is
therefore, not applicable.
HOLDING:
Based on the facts of this case, the imported tablets used with
the Mobile Platform and the Hub platform are not substantially
transformed by the installation of the proprietary Health Harmony
software. Therefore, the country of origin of the tablets will
remain the country where they were originally manufactured.
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. 2018-04273 Filed 3-1-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P