Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Notices 55811 

Federal funds provided under the Stafford 

Act for Public Assistance will be limited to 

75 percent of the total eligible costs. In order 

to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby 

authorized to allocate from funds available 

for these purposes such amounts as you find 

necessary for Federal emergency assistance 

and administrative expenses. 

Further, you are authorized to make 

changes to this declaration for the approved 

assistance to the extent allowable under the 

Stafford Act. 

The Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that 

pursuant to the authority vested in the 

Administrator, Department of Homeland 

Security, under Executive Order 12148, 

as amended, James N. Russo, of FEMA 

is appointed to act as the Federal 

Coordinating Officer for this declared 

emergency. 

The following areas of the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts have 

been designated as adversely affected by 

this declared emergency: 

Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, Essex, 

Middlesex, Nantucket, Norfolk, Plymouth, 

Suffolk, and Worcester Counties for 

emergency protective measures (Category B), 

including direct Federal assistance, under the 

Public Assistance program. 

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used 

for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 

Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora 

Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 

97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, 

Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 

97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 

97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to 

Individuals and Households In Presidentially 

Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 

Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance— 

Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals 

and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 

Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals 

and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, 

Disaster Grants—Public Assistance 

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, 

Hazard Mitigation Grant. 

W. Craig Fugate, 

Administrator, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22853 Filed 9–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–23–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

[Docket ID FEMA–2010–0002; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–3314–EM] 

North Carolina; Amendment No. 2 to 

Notice of an Emergency Declaration 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice 

of an emergency declaration for the 

State of North Carolina (FEMA–3314– 

EM), dated September 1, 2010, and 

related determinations. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 4, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peggy Miller, Office of Response and 

Recovery, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3886. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that the incident period for 

this emergency is closed effective 

September 4, 2010. 

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used 

for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 

Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora 

Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 

97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, 

Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 

97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 

97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to 

Individuals and Households In Presidentially 

Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 

Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance— 

Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals 

and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 

Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals 

and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, 

Disaster Grants—Public Assistance 

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, 

Hazard Mitigation Grant.) 

W. Craig Fugate, 

Administrator, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22852 Filed 9–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–23–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

[Docket ID FEMA–2010–0002; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–1933–DR] 

Wisconsin; Amendment No. 1 to Notice 

of a Major Disaster Declaration 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice 

of a major disaster declaration for the 

State of Wisconsin (FEMA–1933–DR), 

dated August 11, 2010, and related 

determinations. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 7, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate, 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20472, (202) 646–3886. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice 

of a major disaster declaration for the 

State of Wisconsin is hereby amended to 

include the following area among those 

areas determined to have been adversely 

affected by the event declared a major 

disaster by the President in his 

declaration of August 11, 2010. 

Calumet County for Public Assistance. 

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used 

for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 

Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora 

Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 

97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, 

Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 

97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 

97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to 

Individuals and Households In Presidentially 

Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 

Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance— 

Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals 

and Households; 97.050 Presidentially 

Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals 

and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, 

Disaster Grants—Public Assistance 

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, 

Hazard Mitigation Grant. 

W. Craig Fugate, 

Administrator, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22854 Filed 9–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–23–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Customs and Border Protection 

[Docket No. USCBP–2007–0099; CBP Dec. 

10–31] 

Testing Method of Pressed and 

Toughened (Specially Tempered) 

Glassware 

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, Department of Homeland 

Security. 

ACTION: Notice of method CBP uses to 

test pressed and toughened (specially 

tempered) glassware for tariff 

classification purposes. 

SUMMARY: This document adopts 

modifications to the test method 

currently applied by U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) for the testing 

of pressed and toughened (specially 

tempered) glassware, as set forth in 

Treasury Decision (T.D.) 94–26 which 

was published in the Federal Register 

on March 22, 1994. This document sets 

forth revised criteria for interpreting the 

results obtained from the cutting test for 

opaque glassware and provides an 

interpretation of breakage for that test. 

In addition, this document reinstates a 

previously used testing method, the 

center punch test, and provides a 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
55812 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Notices 

description of the center punch 

apparatus to be used for that test. The 

final CBP test method for pressed and 

toughened (specially tempered) 

glassware for tariff classification 

purposes is set forth in its entirety in 

this document. 

DATES: CBP will begin applying this 

revised test method on glassware 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption effective October 14, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Margaret Chinn, Office of Information 

and Technology, Laboratories and 

Scientific Services, (202) 344–1566; 

Stephen Cassata, Office of Information 

and Technology, Laboratories and 

Scientific Services, (202) 344–1309. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This document sets forth 

modifications to the criteria utilized by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) to test certain glassware articles 

to determine whether they are ‘‘pressed 

and toughened (specially tempered)’’ for 

tariff classification purposes under the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). The glassware 

articles subject to these testing 

procedures are generally imported into 

the United States under subheadings 

7013.28.05, 7013.37.05, 7013.42.10, 

7013.49.10, and 7013.99.20, HTSUS. 

Articles of ‘‘safety glass, consisting of 

toughened (tempered) or laminated 

glass’’ that are normally imported under 

heading 7007, HTSUS (e.g., 

architectural plate glass and vehicle 

windshields), are not within the 

purview of this final notice. 

Information regarding the apparatus 

used, glass sample preparation, and the 

methods employed by CBP to test 

glassware articles to determine whether 

they are pressed and toughened 

(specially tempered) was previously set 

forth in the Federal Register (59 FR 

13531, March 22, 1994; see also, 59 FR 

16895, April 8, 1994, correcting ‘‘T.D. 

94–25’’ to ‘‘T.D. 94–26’’). Under T.D. 94– 

26, photographic equipment, 

polariscopes, tile saws (or similar tablemounted circular saws), or other 

apparatus and supplies, such as 

calipers, ovens, and water baths, can be 

used to test subject glassware articles. 

With respect to sample preparation, T.D. 

94–26 states that a representative 

number of samples should be analyzed 

but recognizes the possibility that only 

one sample may be available for testing. 

The method to be used for the testing 

of pressed and toughened (specially 

tempered) glassware under T.D. 94–26 

consists of three tests. They are the 

‘‘macroscopic analysis,’’ ‘‘thermal shock 

test,’’ and ‘‘evaluation of temper.’’ The 

evaluation of temper test consists of a 

polariscopic examination for 

transparent or translucent glassware and 

a cutting test for opaque glassware. The 

proposed modification of the test 

method was limited to the cutting test 

for opaque glassware. 

Proposed Modifications 

On January 9, 2008, CBP published a 

notice in the Federal Register (73 FR 

1640) which proposed modifications to 

the method applied for the testing of 

pressed and toughened (specially 

tempered) glassware as set forth in T.D. 

94–26 and solicited public comments. 

The notice proposed modifications to 

the cutting test for opaque glassware but 

did not propose changes to the testing 

procedures used for the macroscopic 

analysis test, thermal shock test, and 

polariscopic examination aspect of the 

evaluation of temper test. The notice 

also proposed to reinstate the ‘‘center 

punch test’’ and provided a description 

of the center punch apparatus that 

would be used for the proposed test. 

Finally, the notice proposed to allow for 

the optional use of additional tests by 

CBP that would be used only to verify 

the results obtained from the other 

testing procedures. The modifications 

set forth in the January 9, 2008, notice 

are described in greater detail below. 

Proposed Changes to Cutting Test for 

Opaque Glassware 

The cutting test for opaque glassware 

is used for opaque glassware and 

translucent glassware that cannot be 

examined polariscopically because they 

do not transmit adequate polarized 

light. In the notice of January 9, 2008, 

it was proposed to revise the criteria 

used to interpret the results obtained 

from the cutting test for opaque 

glassware. In addition, it was proposed 

to add an interpretation of breakage in 

the test because the guidelines set forth 

in T.D. 94–26 did not clearly explain 

how breakage should be interpreted. 

Under the proposal, CBP would 

interpret the test such that the presence 

of ‘‘some’’ dicing or crazing would be 

sufficient to determine that a glass 

article has been specially tempered for 

tariff classification purposes. Under this 

standard, ‘‘some’’ would be considered 

to be any diced, crazed (gravel that 

remains tenuously in contact with 

neighboring pieces), or graveled 

(presence of small cubes of 

approximately equal dimensions on all 

six sides) fragment yielded from the cut 

sample that is more than just a fugitive 

diced, crazed, or graveled fragment. In 

addition, it was proposed to remove the 

references to tempered soda lime, 

borosilicate, and fluorosilicate glass that 

are currently in the test because the 

composition of the glass is not relevant 

for testing purposes. 

Proposal to Add Center Punch Test 

The notice of January 9, 2008, also 

proposed to reinstate the center punch 

test. It was noted in the proposal that it 

is dangerous for an analyst to perform 

the cutting test on a sample that is less 

than five inches in diameter or five 

inches wide and that it would be 

preferable to use the center punch test 

in these cases. The center punch 

apparatus to be used to perform the test 

would be a slender tool approximately 

8 to 12 inches in length with one end 

tapered to a point. The tool would be 

long enough to allow for its insertion 

into tall-form tumblers and other 

articles of similar shape while 

permitting the nonpointed end to 

extend above the rim. This would be 

necessary for handling and safety 

purposes when performing the center 

punch test. The pointed end of the 

center punch would not be so sharp so 

as to chip the glassware on contact 

without applying pressure. 

In order to perform the center punch 

test under the proposal, a sample would 

initially be set on a solid and level 

surface. An analyst would then place 

the pointed end of the center punch 

vertically against the inside center 

bottom or heel of the article. The analyst 

would strike the dull end of the punch 

with a hammer, using blows of 

gradually increasing severity until 

breakage occurs. The breakage pattern, 

approximate number, and relative shape 

and size of the fragments would then be 

noted. Thereafter, the breakage pattern 

and/or typical fragments would be 

photographed. It would only be 

necessary for the broken sample to 

exhibit ‘‘some’’ dicing, crazing, or 

graveling in order to be considered 

tempered for CBP’s classification 

purposes. ‘‘Some’’ would be considered 

to be any diced, crazed, or graveled 

fragments yielded by the broken sample 

that are more than just fugitive diced, 

crazed, or graveled fragments. 

Proposal to Add Option to Use 

Additional Tests 

In addition, the notice of January 9, 

2008, proposed to provide for the 

optional use of additional tests by CBP. 

The additional tests would be used by 

CBP only to verify the results obtained 

from the other testing procedures. It was 

stated that the additional tests would 

facilitate the overall testing process by 

ensuring that the results obtained from 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Notices 55813 

the other testing procedures are 

accurate. 

Discussion of Comments 

Comments were solicited in the notice 

of January 9, 2008, and the comment 

period closed on March 17, 2008. One 

commenter responded during this time 

period on behalf of two clients, a 

manufacturer and separate importer of 

tempered glassware. The commenter 

submitted two letters, a set of 

photographs, and a series of ten short 

videos. A description of the comments 

and other material in the submission, as 

well as CBP’s related analysis, follows. 

Comment: 

The commenter asserts that the 

standard proposed for the testing of 

pressed and toughened (specially 

tempered) glassware set forth in the 

notice of January 9, 2008, would 

produce erroneous results and would 

not meet certain parameters established 

by the courts for testing methodology. 

CBP’s Response: 

The commenter submitted 

photographs and videos in an attempt to 

demonstrate that CBP’s proposed testing 

method for the testing of pressed and 

toughened (specially tempered) 

glassware would produce erroneous 

results. As discussed further below, 

however, CBP does not find the 

commenter’s submission persuasive in 

this regard because the proposed 

modifications to the testing method 

would actually introduce a higher 

degree of accuracy into the testing 

process. In addition, CBP believes that 

this testing method would withstand 

judicial scrutiny because the generally 

accepted methods in the standard are 

accurate, testable, and have been subject 

to peer review and publication. 

Comment: 

The commenter states that the center 

punch test is not a useful or reliable test 

for tempered glassware and opposes its 

reinstatement by CBP. The commenter 

expressed its concern that CBP did not 

make clear in the notice of January 9, 

2008, whether the center punch test 

would be used in lieu of, or in addition 

to, the cutting test. Moreover, if the 

center punch is intended to be used in 

addition to the cutting test, the 

commenter questions the relative weight 

CBP will assign to each test in 

determining whether an item is 

considered tempered. 

CBP’s Response: 

CBP’s position is that the center 

punch test is useful and reliable, and 

CBP has determined that its 

reinstatement into the method for the 

testing of pressed and toughened 

(specially tempered) glassware is 

necessary. In support of this 

determination, CBP recognizes that the 

reinstatement of the center punch test 

will provide CBP analysts with a test 

that can be used in cases where the 

cutting test yields inconclusive results 

or when it would be dangerous to use 

the cutting test because of the 

dimensions of the sample. 

As noted above, one instance where 

the center punch test will be used is 

when the cutting test yields 

inconclusive results. In this situation, 

the results of the center punch test will 

be interpreted in conjunction with the 

results of the cutting test in order to 

make the correct classification 

determination. CBP believes this 

additional test is required because the 

CBP Laboratory occasionally tests 

samples that break into several large 

pieces when subjected to the cutting 

test. Without the benefit of a second test 

to confirm whether the tested glassware 

is actually pressed and toughened 

(specially tempered) in these cases, the 

analyst is constrained under the current 

standard to classify the article as 

‘‘tempered’’ even though there may be 

doubts as to whether the article is 

actually tempered. Accordingly, the 

revised standard set forth in this 

document will afford the CBP analyst 

with the opportunity to utilize the 

center punch test in cases where the 

results of the cutting test are 

inconclusive (i.e., if the sample breaks 

into several large pieces when subjected 

to the cutting test). 

The second instance where the center 

punch test will be employed under the 

proposed revised method is cases where 

an article is too small to safely analyze 

with the cutting test. CBP believes this 

is necessary because the integrity of a 

tempered glassware article can fail 

during a cutting test, potentially 

resulting in serious injury to the CBP 

analyst. Accordingly, the revised 

method will afford the analyst the 

opportunity to utilize the center punch 

test on articles considered ‘‘too small’’ to 

safely perform a cutting test. The 

revised method will make clear that 

glassware articles considered too small 

to analyze safely with a cutting test will 

be those that are smaller than five 

inches in diameter or five inches wide. 

If a glassware article is smaller than five 

inches in diameter or five inches wide 

and the analyst chooses to use the 

center punch test, a cutting test will not 

be performed on the article and the 

results obtained from the center punch 

test will be considered independently. 

Results obtained from the center punch 

test in these situations will be 

interpreted in the same manner as 

results obtained from the cutting test. 

Comment: 

The commenter states that the 

proposed breakage analysis for 

tempered glassware subjected to the 

cutting or center punch test (particularly 

fluorosilicate which has characteristics 

unique to its crystalline structure) is too 

subjective and in many instances would 

result in an erroneous conclusion that a 

tempered article is not tempered. With 

respect to the proposed breakage 

analysis, the commenter specifically 

states that both annealed and tempered 

fluorosilicate plates which are subjected 

to the center punch test break into small 

pizza-shaped pieces, the only real 

difference being that the tempered 

plates take more force to break and yield 

somewhat smaller pizza-shaped pieces. 

In addition, other types of articles may 

react differently when subjected to the 

center punch test. For example, a 

tempered mug which is subjected to the 

center punch test may break into 

irregular pieces smaller than those of an 

annealed mug. 

The commenter indicates that their 

client has performed repeated center 

punch tests on the full range of 

fluorosilicate articles which they 

manufacture and have confirmed that 

other than the differences in the 

appearance of the pieces noted above, 

they did not observe dicing or crazing 

of tempered fluorosilicate glass. The 

commenter submitted various 

photographs and ten short videos in 

order to demonstrate the difficulty 

associated with classifying glass as 

tempered or non-tempered based on 

breakage patterns. The commenter states 

that the photographs depict annealed 

and tempered fluorosilicate (opal) and 

soda lime plates subjected to the center 

punch test. The commenter indicates 

that of the ten videos submitted, two are 

of the center punch test performed on 

tempered fluorosilicate glass plates; two 

are of the center punch test performed 

on annealed fluorosilicate glass plates; 

one is of the center punch test 

performed on a tempered soda lime 

glass plate; one is of the center punch 

test performed on an annealed soda lime 

glass plate; one is of a hammer striking 

a tempered fluorosilicate plate; one is of 

a hammer striking an annealed 

fluorosilicate plate; one is of the center 

punch test performed on a tempered 

fluorosilicate mug; and one is of the 

center punch test performed on an 

annealed fluorosilicate mug. 

The commenter believes that the 

photographs and videos prove that the 

breakage differences resulting when the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
55814 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Notices 

center punch test is performed on 

tempered versus annealed glass can be 

so subtle as to be virtually non-existent. 

The commenter specifically notes that 

tempered fluorosilicate glass plates will 

not exhibit any dicing, graveling, or 

crazing when cut or center punched. In 

addition, the commenter states that 

dicing, crazing, or graveling are 

characteristics that are generally 

exhibited in heat-treated flat glass, not 

flat glassware. The commenter contends 

that because tempered dinnerware is 

very different in shape and thickness, 

dicing, crazing or graveling does not 

ordinarily occur in soda lime glass 

dinnerware and never occurs in 

tempered fluorosilicate glass 

dinnerware. Moreover, the commenter 

states that there is no evidence that glass 

dinnerware should dice, craze, or gravel 

when cut. 

CBP’s Response: 

CBP disagrees with the commenter’s 

statement that the analysis of breakage 

patterns for tempered glassware 

subjected to the cutting or center punch 

tests is too subjective to be deemed 

reliable. In addition, CBP notes that 

some degree of temper must be visually 

evident for a glassware article to be 

considered ‘‘toughened (specially 

tempered)’’ and also maintains that a 

tempered glassware article will craze, 

dice, or gravel when broken. 

CBP notes that the degree of temper 

in glassware is roughly equivalent to the 

strength increase of the glass produced 

by the compression on the outside of the 

article and that this increase in 

compression is compensated for by a 

greater amount of internal tension. 

CBP’s view is that, at some point, the 

appearance of dicing indicates a certain 

amount of achievement of strength 

through tempering and that 

progressively smaller fragments 

corresponds to even higher levels of 

temper. The factor affecting whether an 

interior crack branches into other 

fractures is principally the state of the 

stress at those interior points through 

which the crack propagates. CBP’s 

criterion for ‘‘toughened (specially 

tempered)’’ translates roughly into the 

requirement that the state of tensile 

strength in the interior of the article due 

to tempering should be high enough to 

produce this branching which is 

exhibited by visible dicing, crazing, or 

graveling during breakage through at 

least part of the article. In this respect, 

whether it is flat glass or dinner 

glassware, it is a common axiom that a 

tempered glassware article will craze, 

dice, or gravel when it breaks. 

With respect to the photographic and 

video evidence submitted by the 

commenter, CBP initially agrees that in 

some cases the tempered glassware 

depicted in the submissions does not 

appear to craze, dice, or gravel when 

impacted with a center punch. 

However, it is noted that no evidence 

was submitted to demonstrate that the 

glassware subjected to testing in the 

submissions was, in fact, tempered. In 

addition, CBP notes that the 

experiments were not technically 

accurate because only a hammer was 

used in some of the tests. Accordingly, 

the criteria for interpreting breakage for 

the cutting test for opaque glassware 

and the reinstated center punch test, as 

set forth in the January 9, 2008, notice, 

will not be eliminated from the revised 

method for the testing of pressed and 

toughened (specially tempered) 

glassware. 

Comment: 

The commenter states that CBP’s 

proposal to use additional tests to verify 

the results of the other tests is improper 

because tests that are never disclosed or 

described cannot be properly 

scrutinized. In addition, the commenter 

states that CBP has not explained what 

weight would be assigned to the 

additional tests for purposes of applying 

the testing methodology. 

CBP’s Response: 

CBP agrees that the verification of 

additional test results would be 

problematic for the reasons the 

commenter provides. Accordingly, 

additional tests will not be used to 

verify the results of the other tests, as 

reflected in the revised method to be 

applied for the testing of pressed and 

toughened (specially tempered) 

glassware which is set forth below. 

Conclusion 

After analyzing the comments and 

other material contained in the 

submission discussed above and further 

review of the matter, CBP has decided 

to adopt, except for the use of additional 

tests as discussed in the comment 

section above, the modifications to the 

test method used by CBP for the testing 

of pressed and toughened (specially 

tempered) glassware as proposed in the 

notice of January 9, 2008 (73 FR 1640) 

for the cutting test for opaque glassware 

and for the reinstatement of the center 

punch test for articles less than five 

inches in diameter and for inconclusive 

results from the cutting test. In addition, 

this document inserts a new section, 

‘‘Scope and Field of Application’’, into 

the test method. This new section 

merely clarifies that the method 

employs macroscopic analysis, thermal 

shock testing, and evaluation of temper. 

This new section also clarifies that 

pressed and toughened (specially 

tempered) glassware articles are 

normally imported under subheadings 

7013.28.05, 7013.37.05, 7013.42.10, 

7013.49.10, and 7013.99.20, HTSUS, 

and that articles normally imported 

under heading 7007, HTSUS, such as 

windshields, are not within the purview 

of the method. Finally, this document 

makes other minor editorial changes to 

the test method. The revised test 

method, set forth in its entirety below, 

will be employed by CBP on glassware 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after 30 days 

from the date of publication of this 

document in the Federal Register. 

TESTING METHOD OF PRESSED AND 

TOUGHENED (SPECIALLY 

TEMPERED) GLASSWARE 

SAFETY PRECAUTION: CERTAIN 

PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN THIS 

METHOD POSE A POTENTIAL 

HAZARD TO PERSONNEL FROM THE 

PROXIMITY TO OR HANDLING OF 

BREAKING OR BROKEN GLASS. THIS 

METHOD SHALL NOT BE 

UNDERTAKEN WITHOUT 

SUPERVISORY CONCURRENCE THAT 

ADEQUATE PRECAUTIONS FOR 

PERSONAL SAFETY HAVE BEEN 

IMPLEMENTED. 

SCOPE AND FIELD OF APPLICATION 

This method employs macroscopic 

analysis, thermal shock testing, and 

evaluation of temper to determine if a 

glassware item has been pressed and 

toughened (specially tempered) for U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP)’s 

tariff classification purposes. 

These glassware articles are normally 

imported under subheading numbers 

7013.28.05, 7013.37.05, 7013.42.10, 

7013.49.10, and 7013.99.20 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Articles of 

‘‘safety glass, consisting of toughened 

(tempered) * * * glass,’’ normally 

imported under heading 7007 of the 

HTSUS, (e.g., vehicle windshields) are 

not within the purview of this method. 

1. APPARATUS: 

Photographic Equipment: 

A camera (equipped with flash or 

supplemented by adequate lighting) is 

recommended for making a permanent 

record of unusual samples and test 

results. 

Polariscope: 

The basic instrument consists of a 

light source, a polarizer, and an 

analyzer. The addition of a full-wave 

retardation, or tint, plate permits 

observation of color-enhanced stress 

patterns. Ideally, the working space, or 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Notices 55815 

distance between the polarizer and the 

analyzer, should be large enough to 

accommodate samples ranging up to 

eight inches in height. 

Tile Saw (or Similar Table-Mounted 

Circular Saw): 

A tile saw having a cutting head 

which can be adjusted horizontally and 

vertically and which is equipped with 

an 8 to 12 inch diameter continuous rim 

diamond blade designed for wet cutting 

glass is adequate for testing opaque 

glassware articles. 

Center Punch: 

The center punch is a slender tool 

having one end tapered to a point. The 

tool should be approximately 8′′; to 12′′ 

in length to permit insertion into tallform tumblers and other articles of 

similar shape while the nonpointed end 

extends above the rim. This is necessary 

for ease of handling and for safety while 

performing the center punch test. The 

pointed end of the center punch should 

not be sufficiently sharp so as to chip 

the glassware on contact without the 

application of pressure. 

Other Apparatus and Supplies: 

The method requires various common 

laboratory articles such as a caliper or 

similar device for measuring the 

diameter of the opening and the 

maximum inside diameter of the 

sample, an oven, a water bath, and other 

equipment and supplies. Appropriate 

safety devices and personal protective 

equipment are also required. 

2. PREPARATION OF THE SAMPLE 

When available a representative 

number of samples should be analyzed. 

However, it is recognized that for any of 

several reasons, e.g., cost of the item, 

only a limited number of samples may 

be submitted for analysis. The 

possibility exists that only one sample 

may be available for testing. 

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURES 

The following procedures may be 

conducted in whatever order the analyst 

deems is appropriate for the particular 

sample being examined. The test 

protocol should be terminated at the 

point that a sample fails to meet any of 

the key criteria, i.e., ‘‘pressed’’, 

‘‘toughened’’, or ‘‘specially tempered.’’ 

Evaluation for Determination if an 

Article Has Been Pressed 

3.1 Macroscopic Analysis: 

3.1.1 Visual Inspection: 

Inspect the sample for the following: 

• Identifying marks, labels, sizes, etc., 

especially those that may have been 

caused by a push-up valve and a mold 

that have been pressed into the article; 

• The style (stemware, tumbler, bowl, 

plate, etc.); 

• The presence of ribs, handles, 

flutes, etc.; 

• The size of the rim or opening, if 

applicable; 

• The size of the most bulbous 

portion of the article; 

• Any other unusual characteristics 

(e.g., chips, cracks). 

Interpretation of Visual Inspection 

Results: Characteristics such as mold 

marks, ribs, handles, and flutes are often 

indicative of a pressed rather than 

blown glass article. 

3.1.2 Dimensional Measurement 

(Applies Only to Stemware, Tumblers, 

Bowls, etc.): 

Using a caliper or similar device, 

measure the minimum diameter of the 

mouth, opening, or upper rim of the 

sample. With the same device, measure 

the maximum inside diameter. Record 

both measurements. 

Interpretation of Dimensional 

Measurement Results: A sample having 

a maximum inside diameter greater than 

the minimum diameter of the mouth, 

opening, or upper rim is not likely to 

have been ‘‘pressed.’’ 

Interpretation of the Macroscopic 

Analysis Test: The analyst is advised to 

consider the overall features of the 

article and the dimensional analysis test 

results in determining that an article has 

been ‘‘pressed.’’ If the results show that 

the sample is not ‘‘pressed’’, the testing 

sequence for this sample should be 

terminated at this point. 

Evaluation for Determination if an 

Article Has Been Toughened (Specially 

Tempered) 

3.2 Thermal Shock Test: 

• Heat the sample(s) in an oven to 

160 °C for 30 minutes. 

• Remove one sample from the oven 

and immediately immerse it in a water 

bath set at 25 °C. This results in a 135 

°C difference in temperature. [Note: 

Reasonable alternate oven and water 

bath settings up to ± 10 °C are 

acceptable as long as the 135 °C 

difference in temperature is 

maintained.] 

Interpretation of Thermal Shock Test 

Results: Annealed glassware and 

inadequately or partially tempered 

glassware will generally not survive this 

test of durability or toughness. If 

breakage occurs, the sample is not 

‘‘toughened’’ for CBP purposes. Record 

the findings, and terminate the analysis. 

3.3 Evaluation of Temper: 

3.3.1 The Polariscopic Examination 

(For Transparent or Translucent 

Articles): 

This method for the qualitative 

evaluation of temper in glassware 

should be conducted only on 

transparent or translucent articles. This 

method is not applicable to opaque 

items or to articles which have been 

tempered by a process other than 

thermal tempering. In addition, some 

translucent articles will not transmit 

enough polarized light to permit the 

observation of stress patterns; these 

items should be evaluated for temper 

using the Cutting Test. 

• Place the full-wave retardation plate 

(tint plate) between the polarizer and 

the analyzer. The polarized light must 

pass through both the sample and the 

retardation plate for the color-enhanced 

polariscopic pattern to be observed 

through the analyzer. Position the 

retardation plate in direct contact with 

the polarizer or, alternatively, just in 

front of the analyzer. 

• Turn on the light source. 

• Evaluate the stress in the bottom of 

the intact article by placing its bottom 

surface in contact with the polarizer so 

that the polarized light passes 

perpendicularly through the bottom 

surface, or as close to perpendicularly as 

possible, depending upon the article’s 

shape. [This positioning does not work 

well with stemware because of color 

patterns caused by the stem itself. With 

these items, it will be necessary to hold 

the glass at a slight angle to view the 

base and the bowl separately.] 

• Evaluate the stress in the sides of 

the intact article, especially near the rim 

or edge, by positioning the article so 

that the polarized light passes 

perpendicularly through the sides near 

the rim, or as close to perpendicularly 

as possible, depending upon the 

article’s shape. Observation of the stress 

patterns in the sidewall and rim areas 

should be made while viewing through 

a single thickness of glass. For some 

items, especially stemware, tumblers, 

and mugs, this will require holding the 

article at a slight angle to the polarizer 

(open end raised slightly). 

Interpretation of the Polariscopic 

Examination: Thermal tempering of 

glassware involves heating to the 

softening point followed by rapid 

cooling. The surfaces cool first and 

reach a temperature where they become 

rigid. With further cooling, the interior 

or core tries to shrink but is prevented 

from doing so by the rigid surface 

layers. This results in the surfaces being 

locked into a state of high compression 

and the interior locked into 

compensating tension. 

When polarized light travels through 

a stressed material, they divide into 

slow and fast fronts. As a result of the 

difference in speed of the slow and fast 

rays, interferences occur and a pattern 

of colors is observed. These colors can 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
55816 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Notices 

be used to evaluate the stresses in the 

article. As the stress increases, the 

observed color changes to reflect the 

amount of stress. The color changes 

follow a rigorous sequence as the stressinduced retardation, or distance 

between the fast and slow rays, 

increases. In low-stress areas, black and 

shades of gray are seen. Evaluation of 

low stress is simplified by using a colorenhancing retardation or tint plate 

which adds a shift of one fringe order, 

or 565 nm, in the color pattern 

throughout the observed field. With the 

tint plate in place, even low and 

moderately stressed areas will exhibit a 

contrasting color effect. 

Annealed glassware will exhibit a 

uniform coloration of the polarized light 

passing through it; there will be 

essentially no change from the 

background. Tempered articles will 

exhibit non-uniform coloration of the 

polarized light on the bottom surface 

and sidewalls and bands of color 

parallel to the rim or lip. [Note: With 

highly colored articles, it may be helpful 

to conduct the polariscopic exam 

without the tint plate. There will be no 

color enhancement, but the gray to black 

interference patterns should be readily 

discernible in tempered articles.] 

If the sample passes the Thermal 

Shock Test and shows evidence of fullsurface tempering (as opposed to rimtempering or partial tempering) when 

examined polariscopically, the sample 

has been ‘‘toughened (specially 

tempered)’’ for CBP purposes. 

3.3.2 The Cutting Test for Opaque 

Glassware 

This test is applicable to opaque 

articles and to those translucent articles 

which cannot be examined 

polariscopically because of inadequate 

transmission of the polarized light. 

• Ensure that the saw is equipped 

with a continuous rim diamond blade 

designed for wet cutting glass. 

• Adjust the cutting head of the saw 

vertically and horizontally, as 

necessary, to accommodate the 

glassware article. 

• Be sure the water supply to both 

sides of the diamond-rimmed blade is 

adequate. 

• Turn on the saw. 

• While holding or otherwise 

securing the article to prevent twisting 

and binding during the cutting, slowly 

and gently move the article into contact 

with the blade. 

• Proceed with the cutting. 

• Note the breakage pattern, number, 

and relative shape and size of the 

fragments (indicate this without making 

an actual count). Photograph the 

breakage pattern and/or typical 

fragments, if indicated. 

Interpretation of the Cutting Test: 

Annealed (non-tempered) glassware will 

readily accept the diamond-rimmed 

blade and will be cleanly cut in half. 

Tempered glass, on the other hand, will 

break into pieces when cut. The broken 

pieces will need to exhibit some dicing, 

crazing (gravel remaining tenuously in 

contact with neighboring pieces) or 

graveling. ‘‘Some’’ will be considered to 

be any diced, crazed or graveled 

fragments yielded by the broken sample 

that is more than just a fugitive diced, 

crazed or graveled fragment. The word 

‘‘gravel’’ is intended to be synonymous 

with ‘‘diced pieces’’ and implies the 

presence of small cubes of roughly equal 

dimensions on all six sides. The extent 

of cutting needed to induce breakage 

may vary from item to item, but in no 

event will tempered articles be cleanly 

cut in half by the diamond-rimmed 

blade. 

3.3.3 Center Punch Test 

In the event that the Cutting Test is 

inconclusive (i.e., if the sample breaks 

into several large pieces when subjected 

to the cutting test) or if an article is too 

small (less than 5′′ in diameter) to be 

safely analyzed by the Cutting Test, the 

analyst has the option to apply the 

Center Punch Test to the article. The 

Center Punch Test should be performed 

as follows: 

• Set the sample to be tested on a 

solid, level surface. 

• Place an upended cardboard box 

over the item to be tested. The box 

should be of sufficient size so that the 

entire article is covered. The box should 

be altered such that there is a hole in the 

center which is large enough to admit 

the shank of a center punch. 

• Place the pointed end of the center 

punch, vertically, against the inside 

center bottom or heel. 

• Strike the dull end of the punch 

with a hammer, using blows of 

gradually increasing severity, until 

breakage occurs. 

• Note the breakage pattern, number, 

and relative shape and size of fragments 

(indicate this without making an actual 

count). Photograph the breakage pattern 

and/or typical fragments, if indicated. 

Interpretation of Center Punch Test 

Results: In order to be considered 

‘‘tempered’’ for CBP purposes, it is only 

necessary for the broken sample to 

exhibit some dicing, crazing or 

graveling. ‘‘Some’’ will be considered to 

be any diced, crazed or graveled 

fragments yielded by the broken sample 

that are more than just fugitive diced, 

crazed or graveled fragments. The word 

‘‘gravel’’ is intended to be synonymous 

with ‘‘diced pieces’’ and implies the 

presence of small cubes of roughly equal 

dimensions on all six sides. 

‘‘Toughened (specially tempered)’’ 

glassware will require considerably 

more force to break than ordinary 

glassware with the center punch test 

and, when it breaks, some graveling or 

crazing will be observed. Neither 

graveling nor crazing will be observed 

in ordinary glassware. 

Powder and splinters will 

occasionally be observed in samples of 

‘‘toughened (specially tempered)’’ 

glassware. Also, few, if any, of these 

samples will be reduced entirely to 

gravel; larger fragments will remain. 

However, these large fragments will 

seldom be exceptionally pointed or 

jagged and broken edges, especially on 

diced pieces, will be reasonably dull. 

The stem and base of the stemware 

styles seldom disintegrate. The most 

common breakage pattern for stemware 

is characterized by a tack-shaped 

fragment consisting of the base and a 

portion of the stem remaining intact. 

The tip of the stem portion should be 

reasonably dull. 

A sample that passes the Thermal 

Shock Test and shows evidence of 

tempering per the guidance given above 

for the Cutting Test and/or Center 

Punch Test has been ‘‘toughened 

(specially tempered)’’ for CBP’s tariff 

classification purposes. 

Dated: September 9, 2010. 

Ira S. Reese, 

Executive Director, Laboratories and 

Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22826 Filed 9–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Council of the Inspectors General on 

Integrity and Efficiency 

Senior Executive Service Performance 

Review Board Membership 

AGENCY: Council of the Inspectors 

General on Integrity and Efficiency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the 

names and titles of the current 

membership of the Council of the 

Inspectors General on Integrity and 

Efficiency (CIGIE) Performance Review 

Board as of October 1, 2010. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Individual Offices of Inspectors General 

at the telephone numbers listed below. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES