60-Day Notice

amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES

12806

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2018 / Notices

name, character, or use test in making a
substantial transformation determination. See
Ran-Paige Co., Inc. v. United States, 35 Fed.
Cl. 117, 121 (1996); Belcrest Linens, 741 F.2d
at 1371; Uniroyal, 3 C.I.T. at 226, 542 F.
Supp. at 1031. The court has sometimes
compared the degree of operations in pre
versus post-importation processing to
evaluate whether a substantial transformation
occurred. For example, in Nat’l Hand Tool,
the court contrasted the pre-importation
processing of cold forming and hot-forging
and noted that it required more complicated
functions than post-importation processing,
which included heat treatment and
electroplating. 16 C.I.T. at 311; see also
Uniroyal, 3 C.I.T. at 224-227, 542 F.Supp. at
1029-31 (comparing a post-importation
‘‘minor manufacturing or combining process’’
in which imported shoe uppers were
attached to outsoles with ‘‘complex
manufacturing processes’’ that occurred preimportation when the imported uppers were
produced). In such cases, CBP has focused on
the importance of other components to make
an origin determination.
For example, in HQ H018467, dated
January 4, 2008, CBP was asked to consider
two manufacturing scenarios for multifunction printers. In one scenario,
manufacturing took place in two countries; in
the other, it took place in three countries. In
the two-country scenario, 18 units were
manufactured in the Philippines from
components produced in various countries.
The units were sent to Japan where the
system control board, engine control board,
OPC drum unit, and the toner reservoir were
manufactured and incorporated into the
units. The control boards were programmed
in Japan with Japanese firmware that
controlled the user interface, imaging,
memories, and the mechanics of the
machines. The machines were then inspected
and adjusted as necessary. CBP found that
the manufacturing operations in Japan
substantially transformed the Philippine
units such that Japan was the country of
origin of the multifunctional machines. In
making the determination (and in addition to
the finding that operations performed in
Japan were meaningful and complex and
resulted in an article of commerce with a
new name, character and use), CBP took into
consideration the fact that the system control
board, the engine control board, and the
firmware, which were very important to the
functionality of the machines, were
manufactured in Japan.
Similarly, in HQ W563491, dated February
8, 2007, CBP was asked to consider a twocountry scenario where all of the
subassemblies of the multifunction machine
were made in China, with the exception of
the controller unit subassembly, application
specific integrated circuits and firmware,
which were made in Japan. In that case, the
final assembly, testing, and the final
inspection were done in Japan. Although
CBP stated that the product assembly in
Japan was also complex and meaningful, CBP
focused on the origin of key components in
finding that the country of origin was Japan.
See also HQ H020516, dated November 7,
2008 (CBP considered Sharp Andromeda II J
models composed of eight main

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:54 Mar 22, 2018

Jkt 244001

subassemblies, two of which involved
processing in Japan. All the engineering,
development, design, and artwork were
developed in Japan. The multifunctional
printer control unit was described as the
brain of the model. While some of the
components were installed on the control
printer board in China, the flash read-only
memory which included firmware developed
in Japan, was manufactured in Japan. The
other unit that involved production in Japan
was the process unit, that housed a drum
produced in Japan. The process unit was
assembled in China. The other subassemblies
were assembled in China but certain key
components of the subassemblies originated
in Japan. The final assembly was performed
in Japan. Based on the totality of the
circumstances discussed in this ruling, CBP
agreed that the Jupiter II J-models were
considered a product of Japan).
Similar to HQ H018467, HQ W563491, and
HQ H020516, in this case, the main PCB
assembly is the motherboard of the printers,
which communicates with the PC, houses the
memory in the printer, and forms the image
printed on the page. It also includes key
functional circuits, including mechanical
control and printing data processing.
Additionally, the overall structure and each
functional circuit of the ASIC, the main
component of PCB, will be designed in Japan
and manufactured by third-party suppliers in
Japan. The firmware itself provides the
control program for the printers and enables
the main PCB assembly to function as the
electronic ‘‘brains’’ of the printers by
controlling all printer functions. The main
PCB assembly (consisting of approximately
1,028 components) and the firmware,
produced in Japan, a TAA-designated
country, account for a significant percentage
of the total subassembly cost. Together, the
firmware and the main PCB, which serve
major functions and are high in value,
constitute the essential character of the
printers. We note that in the three rulings
referenced above, the key components and
the firmware were manufactured and
developed in the same country in which the
final assembly took place. This is not the case
here. However, considering that the
production of the printer occurs in three
countries, we find the last substantial
transformation to occur in Japan, given that
the essential character of the printer is made
in Japan. Accordingly, we find that Japan is
the country of origin of the monochrome
laser printers.
Replacement toner cartridges:
Finally, counsel argues that Japan is the
country of origin for the Brother replacement
toner cartridges. Several CBP rulings are
cited in counsel’s submission. HQ H251592,
dated June 24, 2014, describes an AIO
cartridge with three main components: 1)
toner powder; 2) developer unit; and, 3)
cleaning unit. In HQ H251592, CBP
determined that the processing in Japan
substantially transformed the non-Japanese
components. We find that a similar rationale
can be applied to Brother’s replacement
cartridges. Therefore, it is the opinion of this
office that the country of origin of the
replacement toner cartridges will be Japan.

PO 00000

Frm 00093

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

HOLDING:
Based on the facts provided, the imported
fully assembled printer subassemblies from
Japan and Vietnam will not be substantially
transformed into finished monochrome laser
printers by the processes that take place in
the United States. However, the finished
monochrome laser printers will be
considered a product of Japan for purposes
of U.S. Government procurement. With
respect to the Brother replacement toner
cartridges, the country of origin will be
Japan.
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,
Monika R. Brenner
for
Alice A. Kipel, Executive Director
Regulations and Rulings
Office of Trade
[FR Doc. 2018–05964 Filed 3–22–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–14–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR–7007–N–03]

60-Day Notice of Proposed Information
Collection: Pre-Purchase
Homeownership Counseling
Demonstration and Impact Evaluation
Office of Policy Development
and Research, HUD.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:

The Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) is
seeking approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for the
information collection described below.
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act, HUD is requesting
comment from all interested parties on
the proposed collection of information.
The purpose of this notice is to allow for
60 days of public comment.
DATES: Comments Due Date: May 22,
2018.
SUMMARY:

Interested persons are
invited to submit comments regarding
this proposal. Comments should refer to
the proposal by name and/or OMB
Control Number and should be sent to:
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management
Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, 451 7th Street

ADDRESSES:

E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM

23MRN1

12807

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2018 / Notices
SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC
20410–5000; telephone (202) 402–5534
(this is not a toll-free number) or email
at [email protected] for a copy of
the proposed forms or other available
information. Persons with hearing or
speech impairments may access this
number through TTY by calling the tollfree Federal Relay Service at (800) 877–
8339.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management
Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, 451 7th Street
SW, Washington, DC 20410–5000; email
Anna P. Guido at Anna.P.Guido@
hud.gov or telephone (202) 402–5535
(this is not a toll-free number). Persons
with hearing or speech impairments
may access this number through TTY by
calling the toll-free Federal Relay
Service at (800) 877–8339. Copies of
available documents submitted to OMB
may be obtained from Ms. Guido.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
Notice informs the public that HUD is
seeking approval from OMB for the
proposed collection of information
described in Section A.
A. Overview of Information Collection
Title of Information Collection:
Impact Evaluation of the Pre-Purchase
Housing Counseling Demonstration.
OMB Approval Number: 2528–0293.
Type of Request: Revision.
Form Number: None.
Description of the Need for the
Information and Proposed Use: The U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) is conducting a
national study on the effectiveness of

Information collection

pre-purchase homeownership
counseling services. This request covers
four data collection activities: (1)
Administering a final follow-up survey
to study participants; (2) extending
OMB approval #2528–0293 so that the
study can continue to collect updated
tracking information from study
participants; and (3) extending OMB
approval #2528–0293 so that the study
can continue to collect consent from the
co-borrowers of study participants; and
(4) extending OMB approval #2528–
0293 so that the study can continue to
collect loan origination and servicing
data from lenders. The final follow-up
survey will be administered to study
participants approximately 48 months
after they completed the baseline
survey. The final survey will provide a
comparison of study participants’
characteristics from the baseline survey
and allow the study to better
understand, document, and explain the
impacts of first-time homebuyer
education and counseling. As part of
OMB approval #2528–0293, the study
collects updated study participant
contact information to locate study
participants for the final follow-up
survey. Maintaining contact with study
participants over time is critical to
minimizing attrition and ensuring high
response rates to the follow-up surveys.
Additionally, the collection of consent
from study participants’ co-borrowers is
necessary to allow the study to collect
data related to the characteristics and
performance of study participants’
mortgage loans. Lastly, as part of OMB
approval #2528–0293, the study collects
study participants’ loan origination and

Burden
hours per
response
(mins)

Annual
burden
hours

Hourly
cost per
response

Number of
respondents

Frequency
of response

5,854
5,854
1,000

1
2
1

5,854
11,708
1,000

30
5
5

2,927
976
83

* $27.70
* 27.70
* 27.70

$81,078
27,045
2,310

3
12,711

2
....................

6
....................

60
....................

6
3,992

* 35
....................

210
110,643

Final Follow-up Survey ............................
Tracking Letter .........................................
Co-borrower Consent Form .....................
Loan origination and performance data:
Lenders .................................................
Total ..................................................

Responses
per annum

service tracking data from the study’s
three participating lenders.
Respondents (i.e. affected public): Up
to 5,854 study participants;
approximately 1,000 co-borrowers; and,
staff at 3 lenders.
The average time per study
participant (up to 5,854 study
participants) to complete the final
follow-up survey is 30 minutes. The
study mails study participant tracking
letters twice per year. The average time
for study participants’ review of the
letters and return of the tracking form is
5 minutes. The collection of coborrower consent involves including the
co-borrower consent form in the study’s
regular tracking letters, along with a
request for the co-borrower to review,
sign, and return the written consent
form. For co-borrowers who do not
return the written form, the study will
collect consent verbally at the time of
the interim survey. The study estimates
that approximately 1,000 study
participants will have co-borrowers. The
co-borrowers’ review of the co-borrower
consent information and completion of
the consent process is estimated to
require approximately 5 minutes per coborrower. The average time for lenders
to prepare study participants’ loan
origination and performance data for the
study team is 60 minutes. The study
team will ask for this data semiannually from each lender during the
next 3 years from each lender. The total
burden for the study is 3,992 hours:
3,903 hours for study participants, 83
hours for co-borrowers, and 6 hours for
lenders.

Annual cost

* The average income that our study participants received in the last 12 months is $57,811. This estimate of average income is based on responses to the Short-Term Follow-Up Survey and was weighted to represent the full study sample using sample weights that adjust for follow-up
survey nonresponse. Thus, the hourly rate for our study participants is estimated at $27.70 (using the U.S. Office of Personnel’s national standard of 2,087 hours per year for a full-time employee).

amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES

B. Solicitation of Public Comment
This notice solicits comments from
members of the public and affected
parties concerning the collection of
information described in Section A on
the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:54 Mar 22, 2018

Jkt 244001

the agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on those

PO 00000

Frm 00094

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

who are to respond, including the use
of appropriate automated collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. HUD
encourages interested parties to submit
comment in response to these questions.
Authority: Section 3507 of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44
U.S.C. Chapter 35.

E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM

23MRN1

12808

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2018 / Notices

Dated: March 12, 2018.
Todd M. Richardson,
Acting General Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Policy Development and Research.
[FR Doc. 2018–05946 Filed 3–22–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–HQ–ES–2018–N019;
FXHC11220900000–167–FF09E33000; OMB
Control Number 1018–0148]

Agency Information Collection
Activities; Submission to the Office of
Management and Budget for Review
and Approval; Land-Based Wind
Energy Guidelines
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of information collection;
request for comment.
AGENCY:

In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are
proposing to revise an existing
information collection.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on or before April 23,
2018.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments on
this information collection request (ICR)
to the Office of Management and
Budget’s Desk Officer for the
Department of the Interior by email at
[email protected]; or via
facsimile to (202) 395–5806. Please
provide a copy of your comments to the
Service Information Collection
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–
3803 (mail); or by email to Info_Coll@
fws.gov. Please reference OMB Control
Number 1018–0148 in the subject line of
your comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
request additional information about
this ICR, contact Madonna L. Baucum,
Service Information Collection
Clearance Officer, by email at Info_
[email protected], or by telephone at (703)
358–2503. You may also view the ICR
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAMain.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the
general public and other Federal
agencies with an opportunity to
comment on new, proposed, revised,
and continuing collections of
information. This helps us assess the
impact of our information collection

amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:54 Mar 22, 2018

Jkt 244001

requirements and minimize the public’s
reporting burden. It also helps the
public understand our information
collection requirements and provide the
requested data in the desired format.
A Federal Register notice with a 60day public comment period soliciting
comments on this collection of
information was published on October
10, 2017 (82 FR 47021). The following
comment was received:
Comment #1: Received from Michael
Speerschneider, Senior Director,
Permitting Policy and Environmental
Affairs, and Gene Grace, Senior
Counsel, American Wind Energy
Association, on December 11, 2017, via
email.
The American Wind Energy
Association (AWEA) comments were
limited to the accuracy of the estimate
of the burden for the collection of
information detailed therein. They
provided the Service with an estimate of
the paperwork and respondent burden
required for the wind industry to collect
the data associated with the voluntary
Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines
(‘‘Guidelines’’) on a per project basis.
Based on a survey of their member
companies involved in the development
of wind energy facilities, they believe
the updated estimates are a more
accurate reflection of the work
necessary to adhere to the Guidelines,
and respectfully requested that the
Service utilize this estimate, combined
with other assumed costs (e.g.,
government agency costs) in this and
any other analysis of the Guidelines
going forward. Rather than have
individual companies submit their
respective data with respect to the
estimate burden hours related to the
Guidelines, AWEA submitted
aggregated data and, therefore, chose not
to include identifying information for
any of their members that supplied the
data.
FWS Response to Comment #1: The
Service thanks AWEA for the useful
comments that they provided on this
information collection, and specifically
on the estimate of the burden hours and
expenditures necessary to adhere to the
voluntary Guidelines. We used this
information to update the estimated
burden, noting that there are significant
differences between the Service’s
burden estimate developed several years
ago, and AWEA’s current estimate. We
assume that these differences are a
reflection of the wide range and
variability in the size and degree of
complexity of commercial-scale wind
energy projects, and that changes in cost
reflect that variability. We attempted to
obtain further clarification and feedback

PO 00000

Frm 00095

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

from AWEA on that presumption but
received no response.
We are again soliciting comments on
the proposed ICR that is described
below. We are especially interested in
public comment addressing the
following issues: (1) Is the collection
necessary to the proper functions of the
Service; (2) will this information be
processed and used in a timely manner;
(3) is the estimate of burden accurate;
(4) how might the Service enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (5) how
might the Service minimize the burden
of this collection on the respondents,
including through the use of
information technology.
Comments that you submit in
response to this notice are a matter of
public record. Before including your
address, phone number, email address,
or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you
should be aware that your entire
comment—including your personal
identifying information—may be made
publicly available at any time. While
you can ask us in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Abstract: As wind energy production
increased, both developers and wildlife
agencies recognized the need for a
system to evaluate and address the
potential negative impacts of wind
energy projects on species of concern.
As a result, the Service worked with the
wind energy industry, conservation
nongovernmental organizations, Federal
and State agencies, Tribes, and
academia to develop the voluntary
Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines
(Guidelines; http://www.fws.gov/
windenergy) to provide a structured,
scientific process for addressing wildlife
conservation concerns at all stages of
land-based wind energy development.
Released in 2012, the Guidelines
promote effective communication
among wind energy developers and
Federal, State, Tribal, and local
conservation agencies. When used in
concert with appropriate regulatory
tools, the Guidelines are the best
practical approach for conserving
species of concern.
The Guidelines discuss various risks
to species of concern from wind energy
projects, including collisions with wind
turbines and associated infrastructure;
loss and degradation of habitat from
turbines and infrastructure;
fragmentation of large habitat blocks
into smaller segments that may not
support sensitive species; displacement
and behavioral changes; and indirect

E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM

23MRN1