U.S. Seeks Industry Input on Standards that Create Trade Barriers When Exporting to India

On December 14, 2015, the U.S. Department of Commerce ("USDOC"), on behalf of the Administration, published a Federal Register ("FRN") notice, seeking public input to identify priority sectors in which the United States and India will pursue cooperative dialogues under the U.S.-India Strategic and Commercial Dialogue ("S&CD") to address standards-related trade barriers. The aim of the cooperative dialogues is for the private sector to produce concrete recommendations for the U.S. and Indian governments on breaking down barriers related to standards, regulatory, and conformity assessment practices to increase bilateral trade. Stakeholder input will be used by the USDOC, in consultation with its interagency partners, to identify those sectors where cooperative work will yield the most benefits for bilateral trade from a U.S. perspective. The USDOC will also use stakeholder input to seek agreement from its Indian government counterparts on the sectors in which to begin cooperative work.

Criteria for selection include: The nature of the existing standards-related barriers in the sector (medical devices, ICT products, oil and gas, etc.), including whether the standards related measures that are affecting bilateral trade are subject to regulatory discretion or have limited potential for adjustment due to legislated mandates; the relative estimated trade impact of eliminating the standards-related barriers in the sector; and whether private sector representatives from the sector—both U.S. and Indian—are committed to leading a cooperative dialogue to produce concrete recommendations for the U.S. and Indian governments on breaking down barriers in the sector. Selection will also take into account the willingness of U.S. and Indian regulators to become involved in this targeted work, as well as if another bilateral forum relevant to the suggested issue already exists.

Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection to Meet January 13th

The Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (COAC) will meet on January 13, 2016, in New Orleans, LA. The meeting will be open to the public.

Agenda

The Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (COAC) will discuss the Trade Efficiency Survey and hear from the following subcommittees on the topics listed below and then will review, deliberate, provide observations, and formulate recommendations on how to proceed on those topics:

1. The Trade Modernization Subcommittee will discuss the progress of the Centers of Excellence and Expertise Uniformity (``Centers'') Working Group. The subcommittee will provide an update on their review of the original COAC recommendations for Centers and what areas they have identified for Centers to develop uniform policies, processes and strategies, with consideration of an industry-focused and account-based approach. The subcommittee will also discuss the progress of the International Engagement and Trade Facilitation Working Group which is identifying examples of best practices in the U.S. and abroad that facilitate trade and could be applied globally. Additionally, the subcommittee will also discuss the formation of a Role of the Broker 2016 working group to provide updated recommendations for revising 19 CFR 111.

2. The Exports Subcommittee Manifest Working Group will discuss the upcoming Air Manifest Pilot and the refocusing/renewal of the Post Departure Filing Working Group (formally Option 4 workgroup).

3. The One U.S. Government Subcommittee will discuss progress of the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Single Window effort and the previous COAC recommendations related to this matter. The subcommittee will provide input on trade readiness and partner government agencies' readiness for the upcoming February 28, 2016, ACE implementation of the Single Window. There will also be an update from the North American Single Window Vision Working Group.

4. The Trade Enforcement and Revenue Collection Subcommittee will discuss the progress made on the Intellectual Property Rights Working Group and the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Working Group, and outline the plans for the Bond Working Group.

5. The Global Supply Chain Subcommittee will review and discuss recommendations related to the Pipeline Working Group and also provide an update on pilot discussions with industry.

6. The Trusted Trader Subcommittee will report on the status of the Trusted Trader Pilot, the next steps for implementation, and the vision of an enhanced Trusted Trader concept that includes engagement with CBP to include relevant partner government agencies with a potential for international interoperability.

Air Force Boot Contract Awarded

Belleville Shoe Co., Belleville, Illinois, has been awarded a maximum $29,871,013 firm-fixed-price contract for men's and women's temperate weather sage boots. This was a competitive acquisition with two responses received. This is a one-year base contract with four option periods. Locations of performance are Illinois and Arkansas, with a Dec. 24, 2020, performance completion date. Using military service is Air Force. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2016 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (SPEIC1-16-D-1023).

Request for Public Comments on Review of Employment Impact of the Trans-Pacific Partnership

SUMMARY: The Office of the United States Trade Representative ("USTR") and the Department of Labor ("DOL"), through the Trade Policy Staff Committee ("TPSC"), are initiating an employment impact review of the Trans-Pacific Partnership ("TPP") Agreement. USTR is seeking public comments on the impact of the TPP Agreement on U.S. employment, including labor markets.

DATES: Written comments are due by Wednesday, January 13, 2016.

Coleman FTZ Hearing Postponed to Until February 24th

On December 23, 2015, the Foreign Trade Zone Board published in the Federal Register (80 FR 79820) Application for Additional Production Authority; The Coleman Company, Inc., Subzone 119I (Textile-Based Personal Flotation Devices); Notice of Public Hearing and Extension of Comment Period

The public hearing on the application for additional production authority submitted by The Coleman Company, Inc., for activity within Subzone 119I in Sauk Rapids, Minnesota (see 80 FR 49986, August 18, 2015) that was previously postponed (see 80 FR 74754, November 30, 2015) has been rescheduled. The Commerce examiner will hold the public hearing on February 24, 2016, 9:30 a.m., at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Hoover Building, Room 3407, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Interested parties should indicate their intent to participate in the hearing and provide a summary of their remarks (submitted to ftz@trade.gov or the address indicated below) no later than February 19, 2016.

The comment period for the case referenced above will be extended through March 11, 2016. Rebuttal comments may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period, until March 28, 2016. Submissions (signed original and one electronic copy) shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at: Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 21013, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002.

For further information, contact Pierre Duy at Pierre.Duy@trade.gov or (202) 482-1378.

BACKGROUND.

On August 18, 2015, the Foreign Trade Zone Board published in the Federal Register (80 FR 49986) Application for Additional Production Authority; The Coleman Company, Inc.; Subzone 119I; (Textile-Based Personal Flotation Devices) Sauk Rapids, Minnesota.

An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones ("FTZ") Board by The Coleman Company, Inc. The Coleman facility (252 employees) is located at 1100 Stearns Drive, Sauk Rapids, Minnesota. The facility is used for the production of personal flotation devices and cushions constructed with textile fabrics. In May 2014 Coleman requested FTZ production authority in a notification proceeding). A notification proceeding is a streamlined application well-suited to applications that can be expected to have no domestic manufacturer opposition. It is unclear why Coleman, at that time, chose to use procedures that were unlikely to result in approval. The 2014 application was opposed by Milliken and Company and a coalition of three textile trade associations (AFMA, NCTO, and USIFI). The 2014 application was supported by U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann, Continental Press, Duro Textiles, LLC, Henderson Sewing Machine Company, M-Associates, Mitsubishi Electric Automation, Outdoor Industry Association, U.S. Representative Ed Perlmutter, U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo, Pregis Corporation, SPSI Inc., and T.J. Elias Sales and Service. After an initial review, the requested production authority was approved subject to a restriction that precludes inverted tariff benefits on foreign textile fabrics and cases/bags of textile materials used in production of personal flotation devices and cushions for U.S. consumption. In other words, Coleman got tariff relief comparable to duty drawback and exports and, in the case of goods entering the U.S. market, a deferral of duty during manufacturing a warehousing (with full duty payable when the articles enter U.S. commerce.

This new 2015 pending application seeks to remove the above-mentioned restriction and to add several new components to Coleman's scope of authority by requesting authority for Coleman to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to personal flotation devices (4.5%, 7.0%) and flotation cushions (6.0%) for the foreign status inputs noted below. This application was submitted under different procedures than the 2014 application, procedures which require Coleman to make a much fuller and stronger case than under the streamlined procedures. The request indicates that the savings from FTZ procedures would help improve the plant's international competitiveness.

Components and materials sourced from abroad (representing 16% of the value of the finished products) include: Water soluble sensing elements; plastic carry bags; nylon and polyester woven fabrics; webbing of man-made fibers; neoprene fabrics; and, knit polyester fleece fabrics (duty rate ranges from 5 to 20%).

Customs Proposed Change to Tariff Classification of Certain Flock Heat Transfers

In ruling letters NY J81335, of February 21, 2003, and ruling NY J80560, of February 13, 2003, both to Vanity Fair Intimates, L.P., Customs and Border Protection ("CBP" classified certain plastic flocked heat transfers in subheading 5601.30.00, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ("HTSUS"), which provides for “Wadding of textile materials and articles thereof; textile fibers, not exceeding 5 mm in length (flock), textile dust and mill neps: Textile flock and mill neps.” At the time the rate of duty was 0.5% In ruling letter NY E85712, of August 19, 1999, to Explan International Trade Inc, CBP classified certain textile/PVC material used to heat transfer images to fabric or other surfaces in subheading 5903.10.25, HTSUS, which provides for “Textile fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics, other than those of heading 5902: With poly(vinyl chloride): Of manmade fibers: Other: Other.” At the time the rate of duty was 8%.

CBP proposes to revoke NY J81335, NY J80560 and NY E85712, as well as any other ruling not specifically identified, to reflect the proper classification of the merchandise. CBP now holds that the subject merchandise is classified in subheading 4908.90.00, HTSUS, which provides for “Transfers (decalcomanias): Other.” The 2015 column one, general rate of duty is free.

Comments must be received on or before January 22, 2016.

The notice of proposed revocation is in Customs Bulletin Vol. 49 No. 51, beginning on page 50.

Customs Proposed Change to Tariff Classification of Certain Cotton Pillowcases

In ruling letter, NY N239270, of March 26, 2013, to Welspun USA Inc, Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") determined that certain pillowcases were classified under subheading 6302.31.90, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ("HTSUS"), which provides for “Bed linen, table linen, toilet linen and kitchen linen: Other bed linen: Of cotton: Other: Not napped.” The rate of duty was 6.7%.

It is now CBP’s position that the subject merchandise is properly classified under subheading 6302.31.70, HTSUS, which provides for “Bed linen, table linen, toilet linen and kitchen linen: Other bed linen: Of cotton: Other: Napped.” The rate of duty is 3.8%.

Comments must be received on or before January 22, 2016.

The notice of proposed revocation is in Customs Bulletin Vol. 49 No. 51, beginning on page 11.

Two Free TPP Webinars

The U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Textiles and Apparel is offing two free webinars on the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement--

• Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement Textile and Apparel Rules of Origin, Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 2:30 pm EST

• Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement Textile and Apparel Market Access Commitments, Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 2:30 pm EST

There is no cost to participate, but advance registration is required.

For more information, please contact Maria D’Andrea at (202) 482-1550 or Richard Stetson at (202) 482-2582.

USITC Institute Investigation of Certain Cotton and Polyester Sheets

The U.S. International Trade Commission ("USITC") has voted to institute an investigation of certain woven textile fabrics and products containing same. The products at issue in the investigation are high thread count cotton and polyester sheets and bedding products.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed by AAVN, Inc., of Richardson, Texas. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain woven textile fabrics and products containing same that infringe a patent asserted by AAVN or are the subject of false and misleading advertising. The complainant requests that the USITC issue a general exclusion order, or, alternatively, a limited exclusion order, and a cease and desist order.

The USITC has identified the following as respondents in this investigation:

• AQ Textiles, LLC, of Greensboro, NC;
• Creative Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. of Mumbai, Maharashtra, India;
• Indo Count Industries Ltd. of Mumbai, Maharashtra, India;
• Indo Count Global, Inc., of New York, NY;
• GHCL Ltd. of Pradesh, India;
• Grace Home Fashions LLC of New York, NY;
• E & E Company, Ltd., of Thane, Maharashtra, India;
• E & E Company, Ltd., d/b/a JLA Home, of Fremont, CA;
• Welspun Global Brands Ltd. of Gujarat, India;
• Welspun USA Inc. of New York, NY;
• Elite Home Products, Inc., of Saddle Brook, NJ;
• Pradip Overseas Ltd. of Ahmedabad, India;
• Pacific Coast Textiles, Inc., of Garden Grove, CA;
• Amrapur Overseas, Inc., of Garden Grove, CA; and
• Westport Linens, Inc., of New York, NY.

Watch Textiles and Trade for a more detailed analysis of this action in the coming days.

Defense Textile and Footwear Contracts Awarded

Wolverine World Wide, Inc. Rockford, Michigan, has been awarded a maximum $15,291,717 firm-fixed-price contract for temperate weather tan boots. This was a competitive acquisition with three responses received. This is a one-year contract with no option periods. Location of performance is Michigan, with an Oct. 22, 2016, performance completion date. Using military service is Army, and Afghan army and police. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2016 through fiscal 2017 foreign military sales program. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, (SPE1C1-16-C-0007).

UPDATE: Federal-Fabrics-Fibers Inc., Lowell, Massachusetts (SPE1C1-16-D-1018), has been added as an awardee to the multiple award contract issued against solicitation SPM1C1-12-R-0031 announced March 12, 2012.

Federal Offices to Close Early on Christmas Eve

President Barack Obama has directed federal offices to close early on December 24, making it a half-day.

Textilización Program - Textiles Sciences

Anyone who has tried to use the free trade agreements the U.S. has with our Spanish-speaking neighbors in the Western Hemisphere knows that one great difficultly is the lack of a good source for Spanish-language technical terms and information relating to textiles and apparel. In a recent trip to Bogata, Colombia, I had the pleasure of meeting Francisco Mejia-A, a graduate of Philadelphia University and textile designer. His blog, Textilización Program, is an online, and ever growing, course on textile sciences in Spanish. Gracias!

Army and Air Force Flame Resistant Uniform Contract Awarded

Aurora Industries LLC, Camuy, Puerto Rico, has been awarded a maximum $12,118,776 modification (P00021) exercising the third one-year option period of a one-year base contract (SPE1C1-14-D-1068) with three one-year option periods for flame resistant uniforms. This is a firm-fixed-price contract. Location of performance is Puerto Rico, with a Dec. 28, 2016, performance completion date. Using military services are Army and Air Force. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2016 through fiscal 2017 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The Hotel Monaco

The Hotel Monaco is a boutique hotel located in an up and coming area of Washington DC on F Street between the International Spy Museum and the National Shakespeare Company.  The building the Hotel Monaco is housed in was originally built in 1793 and was known as Blodgett’s Hotel.  The building was part of a lottery scheme conceived of by Mr. Blodgett in the hopes of staying out of debtor’s prison.  The plan worked about as you would expect.  Despite its name, Blodgett’s Hotel did not operate as a hotel.  The United States Theater, the first theater company in Washington DC, occupied the building in 1800.  During the War of 1812, Blodgett’s Hotel was the only building left standing after Washington was burned.  It is said that the British spared the building at the request of Dr. William Thornton who was building a musical instrument in the building.  

So what does all this have to do with patents? 

In 1836, the US Patent Office and the US Post Office were both housed in Blodgett’s Hotel.  At the time, the US Post Office was under investigation for corruption regarding awarded contracts.  On December 15^th, 1836, a fire of mysterious origin broke out in Blodgett’s Hotel destroying all the contents.  While suspicions regarding the cause of the fire immediately fell upon the employees of the US Post Office, these accusations turned out to be unfounded – the incriminating records had previously been removed from the building and were later found by the authorities.  Eventually it was determined that ashes/embers stored too closely to stored firewood was the cause of the fire.

All patent office records were lost in the fire.  This included records for 9957 patents, 7000 models, and approximately 9,000 drawings.  The records for only 2845 patents were recovered.  Items lost in the fire included a folio of color patent drawings that were hand drawn by Robert Fulton and the first known patent for an internal combustion engine. 

After the fire, it was decided that the US Patent Office would be moved to a fire proof building across the street from Blodgett’s hotel (now known as the Smithsonian Museum’s Reynolds Center).  In a dazzling display of government efficiency, construction on the building was started in 1836 but wasn’t completed until 1867. 

Ten years later, the new building was destroyed by fire. 

Jim Carson is a principal of RB Consulting, Inc and a registered patent agent.  He has over 30 years of experience across multiple industries including the biotechnology, textile, computer, telecommunications, and energy sectors.  RB Consulting, Inc specializes in providing management, prototyping, and IP services to small and start-up businesses.  He can be reached via email at jim@rbconsulting.us or by phone at (803) 792-2183.

Major Retailers Hit with $1.3 Million Fee for False Claims of "Bamboo" Fiber

The Federal Trade Commission announced complaints and proposed court orders barring four national retailers from mislabeling and advertising rayon textiles as made of “bamboo,” and requiring them to pay civil penalties totaling $1.3 million.

Under the court orders settling the FTC’s charges, Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. will pay $500,000; Nordstrom, Inc. will pay $360,000; J.C. Penney Company, Inc. will pay $290,000; and Backcountry.com LLC will pay $150,000 for allegedly violating the FTC Act and the agency’s Textile Rules.

“It’s misleading to call bamboo that has been chemically processed into rayon simply ‘bamboo,’” said Jessica Rich, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection. “With consumers in the midst of their holiday shopping, it’s important for them to know that textiles marketed as environmentally friendly alternatives may not be as ‘green’ as they were led to believe.”

The complaints announced today allege the four companies broke the law by continuing to misrepresent or mislabel rayon products as “bamboo” despite receiving warning letters from the FTC in 2010 and a synopsis of previous litigated cases against marketers for deceptively labeling rayon products as bamboo. The Commission charged the companies with violating the Textile Act and the Textile Rules and with violating Section 5(m)(1)(B) of the FTC Act by falsely and deceptively selling the mislabeled products, despite knowing that doing so was illegal and could subject them to civil penalties.

Specifically, Bed Bath & Beyond’s mislabeled items, also sold through its subsidiary buybuy BABY, included dozens of “bamboo” textiles, including “Aden + Anais Bamboo 3-Pack Muslin Swaddles” and “Bamboo Blend Napkins.”

Nordstrom sold similar products online and in its stores, including a “Gypsy 05 Bamboo Racerback Hi-Lo Dress” and “Degree Six Clothing The Bamboo Long Sleeve Tee.”

J.C. Penney sold numerous “bamboo” products in its stores and online, including “Muk Luks 4-pk Men’s Bamboo Socks.” It also falsely claimed “bamboo” gave the products antimicrobial properties.

Similarly, Backcountry.com sold “bamboo” textiles, such as “Bridgedale Bamboo Crew Sock – Men’s.” Backcountry also made anti-microbial claims for its “bamboo” products.

The proposed orders settling the FTC’s charges are identical, aside from the civil penalty amounts. They prohibit the companies from violating the FTC’s Textile Act and Rules by failing to properly identify the fiber content when labeling and advertising any textiles containing manufactured fibers.

The FTC press release is available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/12/nordstrom-bed-bath-beyond-backcountrycom-jc-penny-pay-penalties?utm_source=govdelivery

Short Supply Requests Filed Relating to Woven Fabric of Rayon and Warp Knit Fabric for Swimwear

1. A request from American Eagle Outfitters ("AEO") that the United States and Morocco consider revising the rules of origin for women’s and girls’ woven garments to address availability of supply of 100% rayon woven fabric of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ("HTSUS") subheading 5408, which AEO alleges cannot be supplied by the U.S. and Moroccan industries in commercial quantities in a timely manner; and

2. A request from the Swimsuit Commission Corporation ("SCC"), that the United States and Morocco consider revising the rules of origin for certain women’s and girls’ swimwear to address availability of supply of certain printed and piece-dyed warp knit fabrics of polyester or nylon fibers classified under HTSUS subheading 6004.10 containing between 3 percent and 41 percent elastomeric yarns, in which the elastomeric yarns were engineered for chlorine resistance, which the SCC alleges cannot be supplied by the U.S. and Moroccan industries in commercial quantities in a timely manner.

Comments must be received by January 6, 2016.

Twenty Years Ago Friday

Twenty years ago this Friday, December 11th, fire broke out at Malden Mills Industries, Inc. The cause was a boiler explosion, which knocked out the sprinkler system. The fire continued well into the next day. About 30 people were injured. Malden's commitment to safety issues and evacuation training yielded excellent results, as there were no fatalities in the huge conflagration.

I had just started my second year working for a trade association that represented American textile mills. Malden Mills was one of our members. Malden Mills employed more than 1,500 workers at the 2 million square foot facility, which straddled the Methuen-Lawrence city line in the Merrimac Valley region of Massachusetts. Everyone assumed that Malden's president, Aaron Feuerstein, would take the insurance money and that would be the end of the company, at least as a manufacturer in Massachusetts. If he rebuilt at all, it was assumed it would be elsewhere, perhaps in China.

Feuerstein shocked the business world by declaring, immediately after the fire that he would rebuild, rebuild in Lawrence, and that he would use the insurance money to pay the workers while rebuilding and that they would have jobs. For this he became known as the "Mensch of Malden Mills."

He kept his word. A new Malden Mills, with the latest in new technology, rose on the site where the 19th century mill had stood. The workers were paid. And, to the extent that he could, their jobs were waiting for them when the new plant opened (not all 1,500 jobs, as he was forced to recognize that the only way the company could survive was as a smaller operation).

In an interview on CBS's 60 Minutes program, Feuerstein explained that in doing what he did he was simply following the teachings of the Torah --

"You are not permitted to oppress the working man, because he's poor and he's needy, amongst your brethren and amongst the non-Jew in your community."

Aaron Feuerstein did all he could to save the business and those jobs. Unfortunately, he couldn't do it all. By 2001 the company was bankrupt and he was forced out. The company survived, now re-named Polartec, after its best-known product.

Later this month Feuerstein will turn 90 years of age. He said recently to a Boston Glove reporter: "I go on living with gratitude and humility. I'm happy with my life. I do the best I can."

IWTO is currently recruiting for a new Secretary General.

The International Wool Textile Organisation ("IWTO") Secretary General is responsible for the general administration and daily management of the organisation, the organisation’s functions and managing its professional staff members and consultants. The Secretary General reports to the IWTO President and the Executive Committee. View the full job profile and apply by clicking here.

The deadline for applications is 4 January 2016.

The selected candidate will be expected to take up the position in May 2016, or as soon as possible thereafter. It is expected that the Secretary General will live in Brussels and will work full-time for IWTO. If not a national of the EU/EEA, candidates must be eligible to work in Belgium and hold a valid work permit.

Opportunities for U.S. Textiles and Apparel in TPP

The U.S. Department of Commerce has published a report on export opportunities for the U.S. textile and apparel sectors in the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement.

The Report Cites Key Market Access Benefits--

• Japan will eliminate import taxes on 99.2% of U.S. textiles and apparel products exports immediately
• Vietnam will eliminate import taxes on 98.4% of U.S. textiles and apparel exports immediately and 100% within 4 years
• Malaysia will eliminate import taxes on 79.2% of U.S. textiles and apparel exports immediately
• New Zealand will eliminate import taxes on 50.0% of U.S. textiles and apparel exports immediately and 100% within 7 years

Read the full report at http://www.trade.gov/fta/tpp/industries/textile.asp

It Was All So Different Before Nothing Changed

Well I was confused.  The Intellectual Property protections of the Trans-Pacific Partnership had been published and these radical new agreements were going to: 1) disrupt commerce and end innovation throughout the world; and 2) strip nations of their sovereignty and deprive millions of people of access to their basic necessities.  Apparently, it depends on whether you listen to Fox News or MSNBC. 

And so, in one of the worst personal decisions I had made since I traded a Land Rover for a dog and a cat, I decided to actually read Chapter 18 of the TPP to see what was going on. 

The short version:  not much.   

The longer version is provided below. 

Administrative Process  

The parties agree to:  1) respond to requests for IP protection with written decisions that include legal justifications and reasoning for these decisions; 2) provide the applicant with the opportunity to respond to a decision; 3) provide a written response to the applicant’s response that includes legal justifications and reasoning for the decisions provided in the written response; 4) provide an opportunity to appeal decisions described in point 3); and, 5) provide a written decision regarding the appeal that includes legal justifications and reasoning for the decisions provided in the appeal decision. 

Trade Secrets 

The parties will put in place legal remedies to protect against the loss of trade secrets through fraudulent action, unauthorized access, or misappropriation.

Trademarks and Geographic Indications 

The parties will recognize Geographic Indications and treat them like trademarks.

Internet Service Providers

Each party will establish laws that require internet service providers to cooperate with right holders to remove protected materials from the internet.  Each party will also establish laws that provide internet service providers with safe harbor protections if they unknowingly or inadvertently distribute protected materials.

Patents 

The standards for determining the patent eligibility of an invention will follow reasonably closely to USPTO practices with the exceptions that:  1) diagnostic, surgical, and therapeutic methods do not have to be patentable; 2) plants do not have to be patentable; and, 3) biological processes do not have to be patentable. 

The parties agree to make publically available information about patents and patent applications the maps fairly closely the practices of the USPTO.  This is a fairly consistent practice across most countries.

Protection of Proprietary Data by Regulatory Agencies

When seeking marketing approval for an Agricultural Chemical, Pharmaceutical or Biologic product, each party will not permit the use of undisclosed or proprietary data that was used for the marketing approval of a previously submitted Agricultural Chemical, Pharmaceutical or Biologic product that is the same or a similar product unless the same right holder owns both products.  Each party also agrees not to use such undisclosed or proprietary data received from other countries or other entities whether or not the other country or other entity is a part of the TPP agreement. 

For Agricultural Chemicals, this protection will expire ten years after the marketing approval of the Agricultural Chemical product. 

For Pharmaceuticals, this protection will expire five years after the marketing approval of the Pharmaceutical product.  Clinical trial data for pharmaceuticals is protected for three years. 

For Biologics, this protection will expire eight years after the marketing approval of the Biologic.  There is a provision within the biologics to reduce this protection to five years if the reducing party compensates the right holder in a manner that creates a comparable market outcome.  I think the intent is clearly that a party can force a right holder of Biologic products to accept a buy out for the last three years.  This is a pretty fuzzy section of the chapter and, unfortunately, the devil will be in the implementation details. 

The definition of a pharmaceutical product is a product that does not contain a chemical entity that has been previously approved.  I am assuming that the definition of an agricultural chemical product is similar.  The definition of a biologic product is a protein made using biotechnology methods that is intended for use in humans.  If these definitions are not met by a product seeking marketing approval, the above protections will not apply.

The above protections will be provided by a party to Agricultural Chemical products, Pharmaceutical products or Biologic products whether or not the products have patent protections from the party. 

The Australia and Chile “Exemption” Claim

There has been some noise made that Australia and Chile are claiming that the five year biologic rule means they do not have to change their laws.  This sounds worse than it actually is because Australia and Chile have already changed their laws.  Australia and Chile already have trade agreements with the US that are considered to be generally consistent with Chapter 18.  In addition, the US has already reached agreements with both Chile and Australia that work out which sections of Chapter 18 will replace the existing agreements. 

Patent Term Extension

The parties agreed to patent term adjustment if the approval process for a patent application takes longer than five years.  The parties also agreed to extend the patent term for Pharmaceutical products that faced unreasonable or unnecessary delays in the market approval process.  This extension does not appear to apply to Agricultural Chemical products or Biologic products which is a little surprising to me.  The language of this section is a little vague. 

Copyrights

The actual copyright section was fairly straight forward.  It is the enforcement section where things got interesting in this area. 

In general, the normal copyright protections apply.  In addition, the parties agree to legally protect the use of Technology Protection Measures and Rights Management Information techniques and technologies.  There will be civil and criminal legal remedies for people and entities who knowingly bypass these techniques and technologies.  The parties also agreed to make it illegal to make or sell equipment to get around Technology Protection Measures, Rights Management Information, or satellite decryption technologies involving programmed content. 

Libraries, museums, archives, educational institutions, and non-commercial broadcasting entities can be exempted from criminal penalties. 

Enforcement

Each party agrees to put in place the laws and enforcement mechanisms to enforce the agreements in this chapter.  This includes judicial procedures that provide the judicial system with the authority to order injunctive relief, restitution, and damage payments.  In addition, the judicial system will be given the authority to order payment of bonds or to suspend the release of counterfeit, misleadingly labeled, or pirated goods based on prima facie evidence of an intellectual property rights violation.  The chapter goes into a lot of detail about what this means and what appropriate relief measures should be.  The chapter also goes into a lot of detail regarding what constitutes criminal activity and the appropriate criminal remedies.   

Final Observations

In interpreting all of this, I am going to avoid addressing the argument that the US could have cut a better deal because I can’t speak to that point. 

What I would point out is that in many respects, this section of the TPP is pretty consistent with, if somewhat less generous than, existing United States laws and procedures in most of the major intellectual property protection areas.  In trademarks we got protection of geographic indicators.  While the copyright section is updated to accommodate new technologies and the internet, the basic copy right protections are essentially the same as they have been since the 1950s.  From what I can see, no changes in US law will be required to accommodate the patent protections and industrial design protections called for in the TPP.  I was surprised to see that trade secrets were even addressed because, by definition, trade secrets are secret and will not generally be registered with a government. 

Even the differences between US law and the TPP were predictable.  For example, within the patent community opinions are divided regarding the appropriateness of patenting medical methods and biological processes and practices vary by country.  The result that the agreement does not require patents for these sorts of innovations should not have been unexpected. 

In reading the popular press, one seemingly controversial point that I hear coming from the mainstream media is the idea that the administrative process described in the TPP will infringe on the national sovereignty of the parties.  This seems misguided to me.  The administrative processes described in Chapter 18 seem reasonable and are consistent with the standard procedures of many, if not most, countries.  Unless you hold the opinion that disagreeing with the administrative decisions of a government is an infringement of national sovereignty, I don’t really see an issue here. 

I would point out is that the proprietary data protections and the patent term extensions that were agreed to are unusual.  These types of protections are rare especially beyond the first world countries.  In my mind, these are not valueless concessions for the protection of Agricultural Chemical products, Pharmaceutical products or Biologic products.  Even if these protections are flawed, if I were betting I would think these industries would rather have these weaker protections than to not have the protections at all.

At David’s request, I have published an article by article summary of the intellectual property agreements that were made in Chapter 18 of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.  This summary has been put up on the Agathon Associates website. 

And yes – I still have the dog and the cat J

Jim Carson is a principal of RB Consulting, Inc and a registered patent agent.  He has over 30 years of experience across multiple industries including the biotechnology, textile, computer, telecommunications, and energy sectors.  RB Consulting, Inc specializes in providing management, prototyping, and IP services to small and start-up businesses.  He can be reached via email at jim@rbconsulting.us or by phone at (803) 792-2183.

Coleman FTZ Hearing Postponed to Until January

On November 30, 2015, the Foreign Trade Zone Board published in the Federal Register (80 FR 74754) Application for Additional Production Authority; The Coleman Company, Inc.; Subzone 119I; (Textile-Based Personal Flotation Devices) Notice of Postponement of Public Hearing

At the request of the applicant, a public hearing was scheduled to be held for the case referenced above on December 3, 2015 (see 80 FR 68504, November 5, 2015). At the request of a party who may be materially affected by the zone activity in question, that hearing is now being postponed. Once a new date and time have been set for the hearing, notice will be given in the Federal Register. The open comment period for the case (currently scheduled to close on January 4, 2016) will be extended through a new date which will fall no less than 15 days after the hearing is held.

For further information, contact Pierre Duy at Pierre.Duy@trade.govor (202) 482-1378.

BACKGROUND.

On August 18, 2015, the Foreign Trade Zone Board published in the Federal Register (80 FR 49986) Application for Additional Production Authority; The Coleman Company, Inc.; Subzone 119I; (Textile-Based Personal Flotation Devices) Sauk Rapids, Minnesota.

An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones ("FTZ") Board by The Coleman Company, Inc. The Coleman facility (252 employees) is located at 1100 Stearns Drive, Sauk Rapids, Minnesota. The facility is used for the production of personal flotation devices and cushions constructed with textile fabrics. In May 2014 Coleman requested FTZ production authority in a notification proceeding). A notification proceeding is a streamlined application well-suited to applications that can be expected to have no domestic manufacturer opposition. It is unclear why Coleman, at that time, chose to use procedures that were unlikely to result in approval. The 2014 application was opposed by Milliken and Company and a coalition of three textile trade associations (AFMA, NCTO, and USIFI). The 2014 application was supported by U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann, Continental Press, Duro Textiles, LLC, Henderson Sewing Machine Company, M-Associates, Mitsubishi Electric Automation, Outdoor Industry Association, U.S. Representative Ed Perlmutter, U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo, Pregis Corporation, SPSI Inc., and T.J. Elias Sales and Service. After an initial review, the requested production authority was approved subject to a restriction that precludes inverted tariff benefits on foreign textile fabrics and cases/bags of textile materials used in production of personal flotation devices and cushions for U.S. consumption. In other words, Coleman got tariff relief comparable to duty drawback and exports and, in the case of goods entering the U.S. market, a deferral of duty during manufacturing a warehousing (with full duty payable when the articles enter U.S. commerce.

This new 2015 pending application seeks to remove the above-mentioned restriction and to add several new components to Coleman's scope of authority by requesting authority for Coleman to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to personal flotation devices (4.5%, 7.0%) and flotation cushions (6.0%) for the foreign status inputs noted below. This application was submitted under different procedures than the 2014 application, procedures which require Coleman to make a much fuller and stronger case than under the streamlined procedures. The request indicates that the savings from FTZ procedures would help improve the plant's international competitiveness.

Components and materials sourced from abroad (representing 16% of the value of the finished products) include: Water soluble sensing elements; plastic carry bags; nylon and polyester woven fabrics; webbing of man-made fibers; neoprene fabrics; and, knit polyester fleece fabrics (duty rate ranges from 5 to 20%).

Analysis of Intellectual Property Chapter of TPP

Jim Carson, of RB Consulting, Inc., has prepared for Agathon Associates a detailed summary of Chapter 18 of TPP, Intellectual Property. Subscribers to Agathon Associates' Trade Advisor Service may see it at http://agathonassociates.com/textile-pri/tpp/ip.htm. You will need to enter your username and password. If you do not know your username and password email David Trumbull at david@agathonassociates.com.

Army Boot Contract Awarded

The Original Footwear Co., Morristown, Tennessee, has been awarded a maximum $10,148,631 modification (P00118) exercising the third one-year option of a one-year base contract (SPM1C1-13-D-1018) with four one-year option years for hot weather combat boots. This is a firm-fixed-price contract. Location of performance is Tennessee, with a Nov. 9, 2016, performance completion date. Using military service is Army. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2016 through fiscal 2017 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Military Uniform Contracts Awarded

Bethel Industries Inc., Jersey City, New Jersey, has been awarded a maximum $14,253,665 modification (P00110) exercising the third one-year option of a one-year base contract (SPM1C1-13-D-1015), with four one-year option years for various uniform trousers. This is a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-quantity contract. Locations of performance are New Jersey and Mississippi, with a Dec. 4, 2016, performance completion date. Using military service is Marine Corps. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2016 through fiscal 2017 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Short Bark Industries Inc., Vonore, Tennessee, has been awarded a maximum $11,158,749 modification (P00108) exercising the third one-year option of a one-year base contract (SPM1C1-13-D-1005) with four one-year option years for various uniform blouses. This is a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-quantity contract. Locations of performance are Tennessee, Puerto Rico, and Mississippi, with a Dec. 3, 2016, performance completion date. Using military service is Marine Corps, and Afghan National Army. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2016 through fiscal 2017 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Agathon Associates Wishes You a Happy Thanksgiving.

Agathon Associates, will be closed Thursday, November 26th, in celebration of Thanksgiving Day, a major holiday in the United States.

“Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor…I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be…”
—George Washington, 1789 (from the first National Thanksgiving Day Presidential Proclamation)

The Pilgrims, Puritans, Huguenots, Quakers, Anabaptists, Lutherans, Jews, Catholics, deists, and atheists who came to America in the colonial period found here freedom not possible in the lands of the Old World where an established church was the norm. Their descendants founded the United States on a radical and untried principle -- no religious establishment and no government interference with religion. What a surprise then to find that the very first Presidential Proclamation issued was Washington’s Thanksgiving Day call to prayer to Almighty God.

Indeed, the only distinctly American holiday is the fourth Thursday in November, which we set aside to thank God for our blessings. Think about it. Christmas is celebrated worldwide, even in lands where Christians are a small minority. Every nation celebrates New Year’s Day and the various national holidays commemorating great leaders, important battles, and the date of national founding.

Our distinctly American national holiday is a re-enactment -- and re-interpretation for contemporary multi-ethnic and multi-religious American culture -- of that first Thanksgiving in Plymouth, Massachusetts, celebrated by survivors of the Mayflower passage. And, yet, the story is not narrowly the tale of the Pilgrims. Few Americans are literally Mayflower descendants. Most of us do not trace our roots to East Anglia. Most of us do no follow their reformed Calvinist religion. Nevertheless, their story is the American story. It is the story of families that left their homeland for a better life in America.

Did your people come here on sailing ships in the 17th, 18th, or 19th century? Or were they part of the big steamship migration of the late 19th and early 20th century that filled Boston with Irish and Italians? Or perhaps you are a more recent immigrant. Whenever your people came here and by whatever means, they, and you, are part of the narrative we re-tell every Thanksgiving.

U.S. Department of Commerce and the Industrial Fabrics Association International to Host First-Ever Smart Fabrics Summit

The U.S. Department of Commerce has announced it will partner with the Industrial Fabrics Association International ("IFAI") to host the first-ever Smart Fabrics Summit on April 4, 2016 in Washington, D.C. The Summit will provide a forum for public and private sector leaders in technology, apparel, and textiles to highlight recent developments in the smart fabrics industry, identify opportunities for collaboration, and discuss key industry challenges.

Recent advances in technology have brought together the apparel, technology, and textile industries to develop new capabilities in fabrics with the potential to change how athletes, patients, soldiers, first responders, and everyday consumers interact with their clothes and other textile products. Known as ‘smart fabrics’, these new high-tech products have the capability to interact with their user or environment, including tracking and communicating data about their wearer or environment to other devices through embedded sensors and conductive yarns. The applications for this new technology are broad, with most smart fabric product development seen in the fields of defense, fitness, health, and public safety.

In the upcoming years, the smart fabrics industry will continue to make technological advances and expand into new, untapped markets. The world market for smart clothing is projected to grow from a base of $17.2 million in 2013 to approximately $600 million by 2020, according to research firm Tractica LLC.

The Industrial Fabrics Association International is the leading trade organization representing the advanced textiles industry. Founded in 1912, IFAI represents over 1500 member companies including manufacturers and suppliers of smart fabrics, shade fabrics and other specialty textiles.

For more information about attending or sponsoring the Summit, please visit: www.smartfabricssummit.com.

More Details of Trans-Pacific Partnership

Agathon Associates has added to its analysis of the Trans-Pacific Partnership ("TPP") new pages relating to --

• Cotton on the Short Supply List,

• Rules of Origin and Tariff Phase Out Schedule for Cotton, and

• Strech Knits on the Short Supply List.

This information is available to clients of Agathon Associates, subscribers to Agathon Associates' Trade Advisor Service, and students in David Trumbull's TMD 433 course at the University of Rhode Island. You will need to enter your username and password. If you do not know your username and password email David Trumbull at david@agathonassociates.com.

Customized reports are available upon request

Federal Preemption Legislation Regarding "Made in U.S.A." Advances in Senate

On November 18th the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation ordered to be reported favorably, a bill, S.1518, Reinforcing American-Made Products Act of 2015, sponsored by Senator Mike Lee [Rep., Utah] and co-sponsored by senators Shelley Moore Capito [Rep., W.V.], Susan M Collins [Rep., Maine], Deb Fischer [Rep., Nebraska], and Angus S. King [Ind., Maine]. The bill would supersede any provisions of the law of any State relating to the extent to which a product is introduced, delivered for introduction, sold, advertised, or offered for sale in interstate or foreign commerce with a "Made in the U.S.A." or "Made in America" label. The bill, if passed, would put an end the the confusion that has existed due to the State of California having a different legal standard for "Made in U.S.A." claims than has the federal laws administered by the Federal Trade Commission.

America’s Oldest Hat Maker, Bollman Hat Company to Bring Iconic Kangol 504 Hat Production to Adamstown from China, Create 41 Jobs

Adamstown, Penn. November 19, 2015 - World famous headwear brand Kangol—worn by some of the world’s top celebrities including Brad Pitt, Bill Murray, Gwen Stefani, Samuel L. Jackson, and Miley Cyrus—is making a move to bring the manufacturing of their iconic 504 style stateside with the Bollman Hat Company.

With this bold move, Kangol and Bollman Hat Company will create 41 new, full-time American jobs and retain 176 currently held positions over the next three years. Bollman is America’s oldest hat maker, and its Pennsylvania factory has continuously made hats since 1868.

In 2001, Bollman Hat Company acquired the global license to design, produce, and distribute Kangol headwear. Prior to the acquisition, the decision by previous ownership had already been put in motion to move all manufacturing to China in order to stay competitive. The factory in China was purchased in 2006 by a Chinese hat maker who has now decided to close its doors, opening the door for Kangol to bring even more of its production to the United States.

The unique knitting machinery used to make the wool 504 was built exclusively for Kangol in the 1930s and 1940s. There are currently 80 machines in China that need to be transported to the US. Bollman has already moved ten of the machines over and made necessary electrical conversions of the equipment. The total cost of the endeavor will exceed $600,000 USD.

Bollman has already committed more than $350,000 and will receive an incentive from the PA DCED (Department of Community and Economic Development), who awarded Bollman a $60,000 Pennsylvania First Program grant.

What Will TPP Mean for Technical and Industrial Textiles?

For an overview of what TPP will mean for technical and industrial textiles (along with details on rules of origin and U. S. tariff phase out) see my column which appears today in Steve Warner's BeaverLake6 Report.

TPP Rules of Origin and Tariff Phase Outs, in One Page and Easy to Read

Agathon Asociates has posted two new reports on the Trans-Pacific Partnership ("TPP").

ROO and Market Access Report Series 600 shows, for man-made fiber yarn, woven fabrics, apparel, home textiles, and other textile products--

• The current rate of duty.
• The rules of origin ("ROO") to qualify for TPP and
• The U.S. tariff phase out schedule ("Market Access").
• Sorted by 3-digit multifiber arrangement category and 10-digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. classification.

ROO and Market Access Report Series 400 shows, for wool fiber yarn, woven fabrics, apparel, home textiles, and other textile products--

• The current rate of duty.
• The rules of origin ("ROO") to qualify for TPP and
• The U.S. tariff phase out schedule ("Market Access").
• Sorted by 3-digit multifiber arrangement category and 10-digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. classification.

This information is available to clients of Agathon Associates, subscribers to Agathon Associates' Trade Advisor Service, and students in David Trumbull's TMD 433 course at the University of Rhode Island. You will need to enter your username and password. If you do not know your username and password email David Trumbull at david@agathonassociates.com.

Customized reports are available upon request.

USITC Launches Study of Likely Impact of TPP

The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has instituted an investigation to assess the likely impact of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement that the President has announced he intends to enter into with Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam.

The investigation, Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: Likely Impact on the U.S. Economy and on Specific Industry Sectors, was requested by the U.S. Trade Representative in a letter received on November 5, 2015.

The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 requires the USITC to prepare a report that assesses the likely impact of the Agreement on the U.S. economy as a whole and on specific industry sectors and the interests of U.S. consumers. The USITC’s report, which will be public, is due to the President and the Congress no more than 105 days after the President signs the Agreement, which he can do 90 days after he notifies Congress of his intent to do so. The President notified Congress on November 5, 2015, of his intent to enter into the Agreement.

The USITC will hold a public hearing in connection with the investigation beginning at 9:30 a.m. on January 13, 2016. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed no later than 5:15 p.m. on December 22, 2015, with the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. For further information, call 202-205-2000.

The USITC also welcomes written submissions for the record. Written submissions should be addressed to the Secretary of the Commission at the above address and should be submitted at the earliest practical date but no later than 5:15 p.m. on February 15, 2016. All written submissions, except for confidential business information, will be available for public inspection.

Further information on the scope of the investigation and the procedures for written submissions is available in the USITC’s notice of investigation, dated November 17, 2015, which can be obtained from the USITC web site (www.usitc.gov) or by contacting the Office of the Secretary at the above address or 202-205-2000.

American Made Matters Day: A Call-to-Action for Consumers

November 18, 2015, ADAMSTOWN, P.A. - American Made Matters, an organization dedicated to educating consumers on the importance of buying American-made products, is holding the 3rd annual American Made Matters Day on November 19th. The purpose of the event is for consumers to buy at least one U.S.-made product on this day, and to encourage consumers to buy made-in-USA products throughout the upcoming holiday season to show their support for US manufacturing.

November 19th has been declared American Made Matters Day not just because of the positive impact that manufacturing has on jobs, but also on local communities, the U.S. economy, product safety, the environment, and the future of America. A resolution has been passed in Pennsylvania and Colorado declaring November 19th as American Made Matters Day.

To celebrate American Made Matters Day, events will be held in thirty locations throughout the United States. These events will show the two American Made Matters videos, provide information to consumers, and give consumers the ability to buy U.S.-made products. Some locations will offer food and music. Over forty American Made Matters members, including Todd Shelton, Carole S. Miller Handbags, hats.com, K’NEX, and Ball and Buck, will be offering online sales and specials. Bollman Hat Company will again conduct tours in their historic Adamstown, PA factory, the oldest hat factory in America, as well as launch a Kickstarter campaign to bring the iconic Kangol 504 hat production from China to Adamstown, creating 41 new jobs in Pennsylvania. Simplicity Vacuums will be offering an open house, tours, food, and door prizes at their factory in Fenton, MI. Joy Petty, Director of Marketing for Simplicity, said, “ “.

Don Rongione, President and Founder of American Made Matters, says, “Buying American made products creates jobs, stronger communities, independence and security for our country, an improved national economy, safer products, and a more environmentally friendly planet. Each of us can make a difference every time we make a purchase. American Made Matters Day was created as a call to action to use our individual purchasing power on November 19 and during the holiday shopping season to make a difference for our future.”

The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that every $1 spent on American-made goods invests an additional $1.32 in the U.S. economy. If Americans dedicated just a small portion of their holiday shopping budget to buying American-made goods, it could have a very positive impact on our economy. In fact, according to ABCNews, if each American family spent just an extra $49.95 on American-made goods, the spending would generate 150,000 American jobs.

Aout American Made Matters®: American Made Matters® was launched on July 4, 2009 by the Bollman Hat Company, America’s oldest hat manufacturer. It is the only organization committed to promoting American-made goods that is run solely by manufacturers. It has over 375 member companies located in 45 states of the 50 US states. For more information, visit http://www.americanmadematters.com, or like them on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/AmericanMadeMatters.

CPSC Meets with Green Science Policy Inst. on Furniture Flammability

On Monday, November 16, 2015, the Office of Chairman Elliot F. Kaye of the Consumer Product Safety Commission was scheduled to meet with representatives from the Green Science Policy Institute: Dr. Arlene Blum, Executive Director; Avery Lindeman, Deputy Director; Matt Vinci, Director of Education of the International Association of Fire Fighters, to discuss furniture flammability standards, disposal of furniture foam that have been treated with flame retardants, and chemical classes of concern.

Government Trade Stats and Other Web Service will be Unavailable Friday, November 13th

Due to a planned power outage, Dataweb and all other USITC web services will be unavailable beginning at 6:30 pm ET on Friday, November 13. Services will be restored as early as possible during the day on Saturday, November 14.

The TPP, What Does It Mean for Your Textile or Apparel Business?

On Thursday, November 5th, the Office of the United States Trade Representative ("USTR") published the text of the Trans-Pacific Partner Ship ("TPP") free trade agreement. This text is still subject to review and correction but only of a technical nature (I spotted a couple of typos). The final text can be expected to not deviate in any substantial way.

I have annotated the parts most relevant to textile and apparel interests and posted them on the Agathon Associates website at http://agathonassociates.com/textile-pri/tpp/index.htm

Among the documents on the Agathon Associates site are --

1. Full text of Chapter 4 - Textiles and Apparel:

• as a PDF published by USTR,
• as an individual HTML webpage for each Article, with links in the Articles to related concepts, and
• accompanied by a table of contents for easy of locating relevant Articles.

2. Market Access (U.S. Tariff Phase Out Schedule:

• as an extremely difficult to read PDF published by USTR,
• as an easy to navigate spreadsheet with all tariff lines likely to be of interest to the textile and apparel industries, and
• as a formatted report showing the U.S. tariff phase out schedule for Vietnam, arranged by Multifiber Arrangement ("MFA") category and tariff classification number, and with the USTR codes for the phase out stages decoded.

NOTE, Agathon Associates has the entire U.S. Tariff Phase Out Schedule in an Access database and can quickly produce customized reports for clients.

3. Short Supply List:

• the PDF published by USTR,
• the entire textile and apparel short supply list conveniently formatted as an HTML webpage,
• for wool products on the short supply list, a webpage of just the wool products, along with an easy to read summary of all the short supply provisions relating to wool, and
• for knit products on the short supply list, a webpage of just the knit provisions in short supply.

4. Annex A - Textile and Apparel Specific Rules of Origin:

• the PDF published by USTR,
• the rules of origin rendered in HTML as an easy to read webpage complete with explanations of meanings of the tariff classification numbers so it is no longer necessary to read the rules in conjunction with the bulky and cumbersome Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ("HTSUS"),
• Plain English explanation of every rule and every deviation from the rules, and
• Comments relating to differences between TPP and other recent U.S. trade agreements.

5. Earned Import Credit Program:

• as PDF published by USTR and
• formatted for the internet.

This information is available to clients of Agathon Associates, subscribers to Agathon Associates' Trade Advisor Service, and students in David Trumbull's TMD 433 course at the University of Rhode Island. You will need to enter your username and password. If you do not know your username and password email David Trumbull at david@agathonassociates.com.

Veterans Day, 2015

Wednesday, November 11, 2015, is Veterans Day, a federal holiday in the United States. National, state, and local government offices will be closed in commemoration. Most businesses will be open.

Do you pause for a moment of silence at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month? I remember, decades ago, in grade school, we all did so in observance of Armistice Day, even though the name of the commemoration had been official changed to Veterans Day way back in 1954.

In Flanders fields the poppies grow
Between the crosses, row on row
That mark our place: and in the sky
The larks still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The Torch: be yours to hold it high!
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

—John McCrae (1872-1918)

In November 1919, President Wilson proclaimed November 11 as the first commemoration of Armistice Day. In 1926 Congress officially encouraged the observance of the day throughout the nation, but in was not until 1938 that Armistice Day became a legal federal holiday.

In 1954, November 11th became a day to honor American veterans of all wars and President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued the first Veterans Day Proclamation. Subsequent Presidents have continued the practice of issuing such proclamations.

By the way, Veterans Day is always on November 11th, which this year is a Tuesday. In 1968 the Uniform Holiday Bill removed several federal holidays from their traditional dates, placing them on Mondays in order to create three-day weekends. But many were not pleased with this tinkering with Veterans Day and in 1975 President Gerald R. Ford signed the law which returned the annual observance of Veterans Day to its original date of November 11, beginning in 1978. This action supported the desires of the overwhelming majority of state legislatures, all major veterans service organizations and the American people.

For more information on the celebration of Veterans Day, see http://www1.va.gov/opa/vetsday/

God Bless the United States of America!

Textile industry trivia. Many of the flocked Remembrance Poppies worn in Canada and throughout the Commonwealth of Nations are made in Leominster, Massachusetts, at Spectro Coating Corp.

Belle Investment Recalls Richie House Boys’ Jackets Due to Entanglement Hazard

http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/2016/Belle-Investment-Recalls-Richie-House-Boys-Jackets/

Name of Product: Boys’ Jackets

Hazard: The jackets have drawstrings in the hood and at the bottom, which pose an entrapment hazard to children. Drawstrings can become entangled or caught on playground slides, hand rails, school bus doors or other moving objects, posing a significant strangulation and/or entanglement hazard to children. In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines about drawstrings in children's upper outerwear. In 1997, those guidelines were incorporated into a voluntary standard. Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines and voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation. CPSC's actions demonstrate a commitment to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

Remedy: Refund. Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the hood and the bottom of the recalled jackets to eliminate the hazard and contact Richie House for instructions to receive a full refund.

Consumer Contact: Richie House toll-free at 844-742-1303 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or online at www.richiehouse.com and click on “Recall Safety Information” on the top bar or at the bottom of the page, or email info@richiehouse.com for more information.

Units: About 40

Description: This recall involves two styles of Richie House boys’ hooded jackets. The striped red and purple jacket comes with a drawstring in the hood, and has a crest-shaped emblem sewn onto the front of it. It was sold in sizes: 4-7 and 9-10. The model number is RH1045C. The polyester and cotton padded jackets were sold in brown, dark green and red, and have a white drawstring located at the bottom. The jackets have a round emblem sewn onto the front and were sold in sizes 2T-5. The model number is RH1332-B or RH1332-C and is printed on the care label. “Richie House” is also printed on a label sewn into the neck of the coat.

Incidents/Injuries: None reported

Sold at: Online at www.Zulily.com and www.Richiehouse.com from April 2015 through October 2015 for about $20.

Importer/Distributor/Manufacturer: Belle Investment Corporation, of Irvine, Calif.

Manufactured in: China

Coleman FTZ Application Moves Forward to Public Hearing

On November 5, 2015, the Foreign Trade Zone Board published in the Federal Register (80 FR 68504) Application for Additional Production Authority; The Coleman Company, Inc., Subzone 119I, (Textile-Based Personal Flotation Devices); Notice of Public Hearing and Extension of Comment Period.

At the request of the applicant, a public hearing will be held on the application for additional production authority submitted by The Coleman Company, Inc., for activity within Subzone 119I in Sauk Rapids, Minnesota (80 FR 49986, 8-18-2015). The Commerce examiner will hold the public hearing on December 3, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Hoover Building, Room 3407, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Interested parties should indicate their intent to participate in the hearing and provide a summary of their remarks (submitted to ftz@trade.gov or the address indicated below) no later than November 30, 2015.

The comment period for the case referenced above will be extended through January 4, 2016. Rebuttal comments may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period, until January 19, 2016. Submissions (signed original and one electronic copy) shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at: Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 21013, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002.

For further information, contact Pierre Duy at Pierre.Duy@trade.gov or (202) 482-1378.

BACKGROUND.

On August 18, 2015, the Foreign Trade Zone Board published in the Federal Register (80 FR 49986) Application for Additional Production Authority; The Coleman Company, Inc.; Subzone 119I; (Textile-Based Personal Flotation Devices) Sauk Rapids, Minnesota.

An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones ("FTZ") Board by The Coleman Company, Inc. The Coleman facility (252 employees) is located at 1100 Stearns Drive, Sauk Rapids, Minnesota. The facility is used for the production of personal flotation devices and cushions constructed with textile fabrics. In May 2014 Coleman requested FTZ production authority in a notification proceeding). A notification proceeding is a streamlined application well-suited to applications that can be expected to have no domestic manufacturer opposition. It is unclear why Coleman, at that time, chose to use procedures that were unlikely to result in approval. The 2014 application was opposed by Milliken and Company and a coalition of three textile trade associations (AFMA, NCTO, and USIFI). The 2014 application was supported by U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann, Continental Press, Duro Textiles, LLC, Henderson Sewing Machine Company, M-Associates, Mitsubishi Electric Automation, Outdoor Industry Association, U.S. Representative Ed Perlmutter, U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo, Pregis Corporation, SPSI Inc., and T.J. Elias Sales and Service. After an initial review, the requested production authority was approved subject to a restriction that precludes inverted tariff benefits on foreign textile fabrics and cases/bags of textile materials used in production of personal flotation devices and cushions for U.S. consumption. In other words, Coleman got tariff relief comparable to duty drawback and exports and, in the case of goods entering the U.S. market, a deferral of duty during manufacturing a warehousing (with full duty payable when the articles enter U.S. commerce.

This new 2015 pending application seeks to remove the above-mentioned restriction and to add several new components to Coleman's scope of authority by requesting authority for Coleman to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to personal flotation devices (4.5%, 7.0%) and flotation cushions (6.0%) for the foreign status inputs noted below. This application was submitted under different procedures than the 2014 application, procedures which require Coleman to make a much fuller and stronger case than under the streamlined procedures. The request indicates that the savings from FTZ procedures would help improve the plant's international competitiveness.

Components and materials sourced from abroad (representing 16% of the value of the finished products) include: Water soluble sensing elements; plastic carry bags; nylon and polyester woven fabrics; webbing of man-made fibers; neoprene fabrics; and, knit polyester fleece fabrics (duty rate ranges from 5 to 20%).

Importer Uses Little-Understood Provision to Reduce Duty on Women's Coat from 27.7% to 7.1%.

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection: "Two of the most frequently misunderstood areas in the classification of wearing apparel under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) are the coated and the water resistant provisions."

Harmonized System Heading 6210 provides for "Garments made up of fabrics of heading 5602, 5603, 5903, 5906 or 5907." In the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ("HTSUS") garments classified under 6210 are generally assessed a lower rate of duty than would be the case were the garment not made of one of those fabrics.

On October 19, 2015, CBP ruled (NY N269125) that in the case of a woman's mid-thigh length coat constructed of 68% polyester, 19% rayon, 7% cotton, 5% nylon and 1% wool woven fabric with a visible coating on the inner surface the applicable subheading for will be 6210.30.5000 HTSUS which provides for "Garments, made up of fabrics of heading 5602, 5603, 5903, 5906 or 5907: Other garments, of the type described in subheadings 6202.11 to 6202.19: Of man-made fibers: Other." The rate of duty will be 7.1 percent ad valorem. Had the fabric not been coated the classification would likely have been 6202.13.40 HTSUS, "Women's or girls' overcoats, carcoats, capes, cloaks, and similar coats; Of man-made fiber; Other; Other. The rate of duty for 602.13.40 is 27.7%

In this case the ruling was requested by the law firm Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt LLP. They did not disclose the name of the client who will be the importer.

Agathon Associates has been called on frequently to assist clients with the proper tariff classification of coated fabrics and articles made of coated fabrics and has prepared with summary of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States provisions relating to coated textiles. This information is available to clients of Agathon Associates, subscribers to Agathon Associates' Trade Advisor Service, and students in David Trumbull's TMD 433 course at the University of Rhode Island. You will need to enter your username and password. If you do not know your username and password email David Trumbull at david@agathonassociates.com.

Made in USA Claims

Today, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") published on its blog FTC attorney Julia Ensor's answers to some common questions heard from businesses about "Made in USA" claims.

Q. Does my company have to disclose U.S. content on products we sell in the United States?

JULIA: It depends on the product. Under specific laws, U.S. content must be disclosed on automobiles and textile, wool, and fur products. Aside from that, there is no general legal requirement that companies must disclose the extent to which their products are made in the United States. That said, Section 5 of the FTC Act – the general prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts or practices – applies. Therefore, if you say your products are Made in USA, that has to be true. In 1997, the FTC issued an Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims to provide guidance to marketers. We also have a brochure, Complying with the Made in USA Standard, explaining it in more detail.

Q.So when can a company say a product is Made in USA?

JULIA: To make an unqualified Made in USA claim, your product must be “all or virtually all” made in the U.S. and you must have proof to support that claim before saying it on products, on packaging, or in advertising. According to the Enforcement Policy Statement, “all or virtually all” means that all significant parts and processing that go into the product must be of U.S. origin. The product should contain no – or negligible – foreign content. (A side note to explain what we mean by “unqualified” claims. In FTC parlance, an unqualified claim is a representation made without caveats or limitations.)

Q.What proof do I need before I can make a Made in US claim?

JULIA: Before making any objective representation, including a Made in USA claim, manufacturers or marketers must have a “reasonable basis” to support the claim. In the Made in USA context, that means you need competent and reliable evidence that all or virtually all of the product is made in the United States. Another important consideration is that advertisers can convey claims to consumers expressly and by implication. Depending on the context, U.S. symbols or geographic references (for example, U.S. flags, outlines of U.S. maps, or references to U.S. locations of headquarters or factories) may convey a Made in USA claim either by themselves or in conjunction with other phrases or images. Implying a false Made in USA claim is just as illegal as making a false claim flat-out, so exercise caution.

Q.Our product contains a lot of component parts. In that circumstance, how does the FTC apply the “all or virtually all” standard?

JULIA: First, to say your product is Made in USA, the final assembly or processing must take place in the United States. In addition, in keeping with U.S. Customs Service regulations, you need proof that your product was last substantially transformed in the United States. But that’s not all we look at. We’ll also consider factors like how much of the product’s total manufacturing costs can be assigned to U.S. parts and processing, how far removed any foreign content is from the finished product, and the importance of the foreign content or processing to the overall function of the product. Here are two contrasting fact patterns from Complying with the Made in USA Standard that may help explain that point:

Example. A company produces propane barbecue grills at a plant in Nevada. The product’s major components include the gas valve, burner and aluminum housing, each of which is made in the U.S. The grill’s knobs and tubing are imported from Mexico. An unqualified Made in USA claim is not likely to be deceptive because the knobs and tubing make up a negligible portion of the product’s total manufacturing costs and are insignificant parts of the final product.

Example. A table lamp is assembled in the U.S. from American-made brass, an American-made Tiffany-style lampshade, and an imported base. The base accounts for a small percent of the total cost of making the lamp. An unqualified Made in USA claim is deceptive for two reasons: The base is not far enough removed in the manufacturing process from the finished product to be of little consequence and it is a significant part of the final product.

Q.What about raw materials? How does the FTC factor them into the “all or virtually all” evaluation?

JULIA: We look at how much of the product’s cost the raw materials make up and how far removed from the finished product they are. As the FTC has noted, “even where a raw material is nonindigenous to the United States, if that imported material constitutes the whole or essence of the finished product . . . , it would likely mislead consumers to label the final product with an unqualified ‘Made in USA’ claim.” Here’s an example from Complying with the Made in USA Standard:

Example. If the gold in a gold ring is imported, an unqualified Made in USA claim for the ring is deceptive. That’s because of the significant value the gold is likely to represent relative to the finished product, and because the gold – an integral component – is only one step back from the finished article. By contrast, consider the plastic in the plastic case of a clock radio otherwise made in the U.S. of U.S.-made components. If the plastic case was made from imported petroleum, a Made in USA claim is likely to be appropriate because the petroleum is far enough removed from the finished product, and is an insignificant part of it as well.

Q.Our product doesn’t meet the “all or virtually all” standard. Even so, is there any way we can highlight how much of it is Made in the USA?

JULIA: If your product was last substantially transformed in the United States without further processing abroad, there may be a “qualified” – or limited – Made in USA claim you can make to highlight the work you’re doing in the United States without deceiving consumers. In appropriate circumstances, companies might be able to make claims like “60% U.S. content,” “Made in USA of U.S. and imported parts,” or “Couch assembled in USA from Italian Leather and Mexican Frame.” But manufacturers and marketers should use care when making claims like that. Avoid qualified claims unless the product has a significant amount of U.S. content or U.S. processing. And remember that like any other representation, a qualified Made in USA claim must be truthful and substantiated.

Q.What can I do if a competitor is violating the Made in USA standard?

JULIA: Email us at MUSA@ftc.gov or call us at 202-326-2996. We can’t tell you about ongoing investigations, but information from competitors can help law enforcers focus on companies whose practices warrant scrutiny. If you suspect import or export fraud – for example, removing a required foreign origin label before a product gets to the consumer – file an online complaint with the U.S. Customs Service. Another option is to contact your state Attorney General or to file a challenge with the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus. In addition, in certain instances, the Lanham Act may give a company the right to sue a competitor.

Federal Prison Industries Awarded Army Jacket Contract

UNICOR/Federal Prison Industries, Washington, District of Columbia, has been awarded a maximum $12,075,000 firm-fixed-price contract for physical fitness uniform jackets. This was a competitive acquisition with five response received. This is a one-year base contract with two one-year option periods. Location of performance is Washington, District of Columbia; Virginia; and Florida, with an Oct. 26, 2016, performance completion date. Using military service is Army. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2016 through fiscal 2017 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (SPE1C1-16-D-1008).

Maeli Rose Recalls Girls’ Hoodies Due to a Strangulation Hazard

More info at http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/2016/Maeli-Rose-Recalls-Girls-Hoodies/

Name of Product: Girl’s Hoodies

Hazard: The hoodies have a drawstring inside the lining of the hood that surrounds the face which poses a strangulation hazard to children. Drawstrings can become entangled or caught on playground slides, hand rails, school bus doors or other moving objects, posing a significant strangulation and/or entanglement hazard to children. In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines about drawstrings in children's upper outerwear. In 1997, those guidelines were incorporated into a voluntary standard. Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines and voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation. CPSC's actions demonstrate a commitment to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

Remedy: Refund. Consumers should immediately take the recalled hoodie away from children and remove the drawstring to eliminate the hazard or return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.

Consumer Contact: Maeli Rose at 626-701-7575 from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. PT Monday through Friday or online at www.maelirose.com and click on the Recall tab located at the top of the homepage for more information.

Units: About 1,200

Description: This recall involves the girls’ blush hoodie sizes 2T-6X, made of 62% polyester, 35% cotton and 3% spandex. The garment comes in blush/pink and has a lace decoration strip around the hood opening. There is a white drawstring inside the hood lining that surrounds the face. There is a zipper on the front with a pocket on each side. The pocket openings and sleeves are decorated with a lace strip. The name Just Fab Girls is sewn into the label of the neck. There is also a label sewn into the side seam that reads “RN #137339” and “Made in China.”

Incidents/Injuries: None reported

Sold at: Children’s boutiques and other specialty retail stores nationwide from July 2013 through December 2013 for about $20.

Distributor: Maeli Rose, of Arcadia, Calif.

Manufactured in: China.

Tariff Classification Ruling Relating to Flocked Window Blind

In a October 7, 2015, U.S. Customs Binding Ruling Letter (N268631) to addressed to Marc A. Romano Apogee Customs & Trade Consulting, Inc. of Cheektowaga, N.Y. 14225, relating to the tariff classification of a woven polyester flock-printed laminated window blind fabric from China, filed on behave of Louver-Lite (Canada), Limited, U.S. Customs and Border Protection ruled on the tariff classification of an assortment of window blind sample swatches in various colors

The sample, identified as Trade Name Marakesh (Marrakech), is a bonded fabric consisting of a woven face fabric laminated to a woven backing fabric. The face is characterized by a flock-printed geometric pattern, reminiscent of Moorish tiles. The fabric has been laminated with a vinyl acetate adhesive multi-layer film. However, this film not visible to the naked eye. According to the submission, visual examination and information previously provided, the face fabric is of plain weave construction and is composed of wholly of non-textured polyester filament yarns, while the woven backing fabric is composed of 70% polyester and 30% cotton. The spec sheet indicates that the face fabric weighs 130 g/m2, with a total fabric weight of 330 g/m2. This fabric will be imported in widths of 205 centimeters.

The applicable subheading for Trade Name Marakesh (Marrakech) will be 5407.61.9965, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for woven fabrics of synthetic filament yarn, including woven fabrics obtained from materials of heading 5404: other woven fabrics, containing 85 percent or more by weight of polyester filaments, containing 85 percent or more by weight of non-textured polyester filaments, other, other, printed, weighing not more than 170 g/m2, flat fabrics. The rate of duty will be 14.9 percent ad valorem.

Agathon Associates has been called on frequently to assist clients with the proper tariff classification of flock and flocked articles and has prepared with summary of the rules of tariff classification as they relate to flock. This information is available to clients of Agathon Associates, subscribers to Agathon Associates' Trade Advisor Service, and students in David Trumbull's TMD 433 course at the University of Rhode Island. You will need to enter your username and password. If you do not know your username and password email David Trumbull at david@agathonassociates.com.

Golden Horse Recalls Children’s Denim Pants Due to Choking Hazard; Sold Exclusively at Belk Stores

Golden Horse Recalls Children’s Denim Pants Due to Choking Hazard; Sold Exclusively at Belk Stores

Name of Product: Children’s denim pants

Hazard: The zipper pull can detach, posing a choking hazard to young children.

Remedy: Refund. Consumers should immediately stop using the denim pants and return them to a Belk store for a full refund.

Consumer Contact: Golden Horse toll-free at 844-594-3339 from 9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or online at www.Belk.com and click on the Customer Service tab at the bottom of the page for more information.

Photos available at http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/2016/Golden-Horse-Recalls-Childrens-Denim-Pants/

Units: About 8,300

Description: The recall involves “Nursery Rhyme Play” brand children’s five pocket 100% denim pants. The pants have a zipper fly, two front pockets with a coin pocket and two back pockets. The pants were sold in infant sizes 6/9M through 24M. The size label is sewn in on the back of the waistband. Only pants with style number 4122186 or 4122185 printed on a white tracking label sewn into the lower left inside seam are included in the recall. Manufacture date codes 0415 or 0515 are also printed on the tracking label.

Incidents/Injuries: None reported

Sold exclusively at: Belk stores nationwide and online at www.Belk.com from June 2015 through September 2015 for about $24.

Importer: Golden Horse Enterprise NY Inc., of New York, N.Y.

Manufactured in: China