Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning the Fairplay Hoss and the Fairplay Eve Electric Vehicles, 78726-78729 [2010-31638]
Download as PDF
78726
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Notices
distribute this product to the public at
local boating events, during classroom
instruction, and during Vessel Safety
Checks. ($101,420).
Reimbursable Salaries: Funding was
provided to carry out the work as
prescribed in 46 U.S.C. 13106(c) and as
described herein. The first position was
that of a professional mathematician/
statistician to conduct necessary
national surveys and studies on
recreational boating activities as well as
to serve as a liaison to other Federal
agencies that are conducting boating
surveys so that we can pool our
resources and reduce costs. The second
position was that of Outreach
coordinator with responsibility of
overseeing and managing RBS projects
related to carbon monoxide poisoning,
propeller injury mitigation,
manufacturer compliance initiatives,
etc. ($320,518).
Of the $5.5 million made available to
the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2010,
$2,726,496 has been committed,
obligated, or expended and an
additional $1,630,723 of prior fiscal year
funds have been committed, obligated,
or expended, as of September 30, 2010.
Approximately $10.6 million has not
been committed, obligated, or expended
from previous years and is being
reserved for a multi-year national
boating survey.
This notice is issued under the
authority of 46 U.S.C. 13106(c)(4).
Dated: December 10, 2010.
Kevin S. Cook,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of
Prevention Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010–31558 Filed 12–15–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Agency Information Collection
Activities: North American Free Trade
Agreement Duty Deferral
U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP), Department of
Homeland Security.
ACTION: 60-Day notice and request for
comments; extension of an existing
collection of information: 1651–0071.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
As part of its continuing effort
to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, CBP invites the general public
and other Federal agencies to comment
on an information collection
requirement concerning the North
American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) Duty Deferral. This request for
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:00 Dec 15, 2010
Jkt 223001
comment is being made pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)).
DATES: Written comments should be
received on or before February 14, 2011,
to be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments
to U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
Attn: Tracey Denning, Regulations and
Rulings, Office of International Trade,
799 9th Street, NW., 5th Floor,
Washington, DC 20229–1177.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information
should be directed to Tracey Denning,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
Regulations and Rulings, Office of
International Trade, 799 9th Street,
NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20229–
1177, at 202–325–0265.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CBP
invites the general public and other
Federal agencies to comment on
proposed and/or continuing information
collections pursuant to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13;
44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). The comments
should address: (a) Whether the
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimates of the burden of the
collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected; (d)
ways to minimize the burden including
the use of automated collection
techniques or the use of other forms of
information technology; and (e) the
annual costs burden to respondents or
record keepers from the collection of
information (a total capital/startup costs
and operations and maintenance costs).
The comments that are submitted will
be summarized and included in the CBP
request for Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) approval. All comments
will become a matter of public record.
In this document CBP is soliciting
comments concerning the following
information collection:
Title: NAFTA Duty Deferral.
OMB Number: 1651–0071.
Abstract: The provisions of North
American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) were adopted by the U.S. with
the enactment of the North American
Free Trade Agreement Implementation
Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103–182). The
objectives of NAFTA are to eliminate
barriers between countries, to facilitate
conditions of fair competition within
the free trade area, and to liberalize
conditions for investments with the free
trade area.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19 CFR 181.53 sets forth procedures
and documentation required for those
seeking a reduction in duties when
merchandise is withdrawn from a U.S.
duty deferral program for exportation to
another NAFTA country. Claimants
must provide this information to CBP so
a determination can be made to reduce
or waive duties on imported
merchandise. Information on how to file
claims under NAFTA duty deferral can
be found at: https://www.cbp.gov/xp/
cgov/trade/trade_programs/
international_agreements/free_trade/
nafta/duty_deferral/.
Current Actions: CBP proposes to
extend the expiration date of this
information collection with no change
to the burden hours or to the
information being collected.
Type of Review: Extension (without
change).
Affected Public: Businesses.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
50.
Estimated Number of Annual
Responses per Respondent: 28.
Estimated Number of Total Annual
Responses: 1,400.
Estimated Time per Response: 12
minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 280.
Dated: December 13, 2010.
Tracey Denning,
Agency Clearance Officer, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection.
[FR Doc. 2010–31636 Filed 12–15–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–14–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Notice of Issuance of Final
Determination Concerning the Fairplay
Hoss and the Fairplay Eve Electric
Vehicles
U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice of final determination.
AGENCY:
This document provides
notice that U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) has issued a final
determination concerning the country of
origin of the Fairplay Hoss and the
Fairplay Eve lines of electric vehicles.
Based upon the facts presented, CBP has
concluded in the final determination
that the United States is the country of
origin of the Fairplay Hoss and Eve lines
of electric vehicles for purposes of U.S.
Government procurement.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\16DEN1.SGM
16DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Notices
The final determination was
issued on December 9, 2010. A copy of
the final determination is attached. Any
party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR
§ 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of
this final determination on or before
January 18, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Heather K. Pinnock, Valuation and
Special Programs Branch: (202) 325–
0034.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given that on December 9, 2010,
pursuant to subpart B of part 177,
Customs and Border Protection
Regulations (19 CFR part 177, subpart
B), CBP issued a final determination
concerning the country of origin of the
Fairplay Hoss and Eve lines of electric
vehicles which may be offered to the
U.S. Government under an
undesignated government procurement
contract. This final determination, in
HQ H133455, was issued at the request
of Fairplay Electric Cars, LLC
(‘‘Fairplay’’), under procedures set forth
at 19 CFR Part 177, subpart B, which
implements Title III of the Trade
Agreements Act of 1979, as amended
(19 U.S.C. 2511–18). In the final
determination, CBP concluded that,
based upon the facts presented, the
Fairplay Hoss and Eve lines of electric
vehicles, assembled to completion in
the United States from parts made in
non-TAA countries and TAA countries
and/or the United States, are
substantially transformed in the United
States, such that the United States is the
country of origin of the finished articles
for purposes of U.S. Government
procurement.
Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19
CFR 177.29), provides that a notice of
final determination shall be published
in the Federal Register within 60 days
of the date the final determination is
issued. Section 177.30, CBP Regulations
(19 CFR 177.30), provides that any
party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR
177.22(d), may seek judicial review of a
final determination within 30 days of
publication of such determination in the
Federal Register.
DATES:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Dated: December 9, 2010.
Harold Singer,
Acting Executive Director, Regulations and
Rulings, Office of International Trade.
Attachment
HQ H133455
December 9, 2010
CLA–2 OT:RR:CT:VS H133455 HkP
CATEGORY: Marking
Mr. Keith Andrews, President
Fairplay Electric Cars
743 Horizon Ct., Suite 333
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:00 Dec 15, 2010
Jkt 223001
Grand Junction, CO 81506
RE: Government Procurement; Country
of Origin of Fairplay ‘‘Hoss’’ and ‘‘Eve’’
Electric Vehicles; Substantial
Transformation
Dear Mr. Andrews:
This is in response to your letter
dated July 20, 2010, requesting a final
determination on behalf of Fairplay
Electric Cars, LLC (‘‘Fairplay’’), pursuant
to subpart B of part 177 of the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection
Regulations (19 CFR Part 177).
Under these regulations, which
implement Title III of the Trade
Agreements Act of 1979 (TAA), as
amended (19 U.S.C. § 2511 et seq.), CBP
issues country of origin advisory rulings
and final determinations as to whether
an article is or would be a product of a
designated country or instrumentality
for the purposes of granting waivers of
certain ‘‘Buy American’’ restrictions in
U.S. law or practice for products offered
for sale to the U.S. Government.
This final determination concerns the
country of origin of the Fairplay Hoss
line of industrial and commercial
vehicles and the Fairplay Eve line of
low speed vehicles. We note that as a
U.S. importer and manufacturer,
Fairplay is a party-at-interest within the
meaning of 19 CFR § 177.22(d)(1) and is
entitled to request this final
determination. In reaching our decision,
we have taken into account additional
information submitted to this office on
August 31, 2010.
FACTS:
For the Hoss line, the models of
vehicles at issue are the following: Hoss
LD, Hoss XD, and Hoss Quad. For the
Eve line, the models of vehicles at issue
are the Eve Deluxe 2P, Eve Deluxe XR
2P, Eve Deluxe LTD 2P, Eve Deluxe 4P,
Eve Eco 2P, and the Eve Eco XR 2P.
According to the information
submitted, Fairplay imports parts for
both these lines of vehicles from China.
These include chassis, plastic body
parts and various miscellaneous pieces
of plastic trim, which are assembled
together in the United States with U.S.made battery packs, motors, electronics,
wiring assemblies, seats, and chargers.
For the Hoss line of vehicles, the bill
of materials (BOM) submitted with the
request indicates that, depending on the
model, a vehicle may have between
approximately 50 and 72 inputs, when
items such as logos/decals, and
warranty registration cards are counted
along with the parts. Of these, between
11 and 15 inputs are of U.S. origin or
are performed in the U.S. Between
48.1% and 58.9% of actual
manufacturing costs are attributed to
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
78727
U.S. or TAA country manufacturing
operations.
For the Eve line of vehicles, the bill
of materials (BOM) submitted with the
request indicates that, depending on the
model, a vehicle may have between
approximately 67 and 78 inputs, when
items such as logos/decals, and
warranty registration cards are counted
along with the parts. Of these, between
21 and 27 inputs are of U.S. origin or
are performed in the U.S. Between
52.2% and 64.8% of actual
manufacturing costs are attributed to
U.S. or TAA country manufacturing
operations.
For both the Hoss and Eve lines of
vehicles, assembly in the U.S. takes
place at five different stations, the
operations performed at each station
being described as follows:
Station 0: The electronic controller plate
is assembled and tested.
Station 1: The chassis is unloaded and
given a vehicle identification number.
Wheels, tires, and the steering column
are installed on the chassis using rivets,
nuts, bolts, screws, and plastic push-ins.
Station 2: The batteries, motor,
controller, solenoid, wiring harness and
other crucial electronic parts are
installed using rivets, nuts, bolts, and
screws or special Molex connectors and
plastic push-ins that must be soldered.
Station 3: The plastic front and rear
body, bumpers and dashboard are
installed over the chassis and electronic
assembly, which gives the vehicle its
finished appearance. Parts are attached
with rivets, nuts and bolts. The vehicle
is then removed from the assembly rack.
Station 4: The deep cycle batteries,
upright canopy supports, canopy top,
seat bottom and back, seat belts, lights,
reflectors, decals, logos and final wiring
are installed and tested. The parts are
installed using rivets, Molex connectors,
nuts, bolts, screws, and/or plastic pushins, as required.
Testing of the fully assembled vehicle
lasts between 90 and 195 minutes,
depending on the vehicle. In addition,
quality control inspections are
performed at each station as well as
randomly. Packing and shipping
operations last between 30 and 45
minutes. The Standard Operating
Procedures to assemble the vehicles are
designed by staff engineers, who also
select, approve and advise on the
appropriate parts to be used for the
manufacture of the vehicles.
ISSUE:
What is the country of origin of the
Fairplay Hoss line of industrial and
commercial electric vehicles and of the
Eve line of low speed vehicles for
E:\FR\FM\16DEN1.SGM
16DEN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
78728
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Notices
purposes of U.S. Government
procurement?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Pursuant to Subpart B of Part 177, 19
CFR § 177.21 et seq., which implements
Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of
1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2511 et
seq.), CBP issues country of origin
advisory rulings and final
determinations as to whether an article
is or would be a product of a designated
country or instrumentality for the
purposes of granting waivers of certain
‘‘Buy American’’ restrictions in U.S. law
or practice for products offered for sale
to the U.S. Government.
Under the rule of origin set forth
under 19 U.S.C. § 2518(4)(B):
An article is a product of a country or
instrumentality only if (i) it is wholly
the growth, product, or manufacture of
that country or instrumentality, or (ii) in
the case of an article which consists in
whole or in part of materials from
another country or instrumentality, it
has been substantially transformed into
a new and different article of commerce
with a name, character, or use distinct
from that of the article or articles from
which it was so transformed.
See also 19 C.F.R. § 177.22(a).
In rendering advisory rulings and
final determinations for purposes of
U.S. Government procurement, CBP
applies the provisions of subpart B of
Part 177 consistent with the Federal
Procurement Regulations. See 19 C.F.R.
§ 177.21. In this regard, CBP recognizes
that the Federal Procurement
Regulations restrict the U.S.
Government’s purchase of products to
U.S.-made or designated country end
products for acquisitions subject to the
TAA. See 48 C.F.R. § 25.403(c)(1). The
Federal Procurement Regulations define
‘‘U.S.-made end product’’ as:
[A]n article that is mined, produces,
or manufactured in the United States or
that is substantially transformed in the
United States into a new and different
article of commerce with a name,
character, or use distinct from that of
the article or articles from which it was
transformed.
In determining whether the
combining of parts or materials
constitutes a substantial transformation,
the determinative issue is the extent of
operations performed and whether the
parts lose their identity and become an
integral part of the new article. Belcrest
Linens v. United States, 573 F. Supp.
1149 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1983), aff’d, 741
F.2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Assembly
operations that are minimal or simple,
as opposed to complex or meaningful,
will generally not result in a substantial
transformation. See C.S.D. 80–111,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:00 Dec 15, 2010
Jkt 223001
C.S.D. 89–110, C.S.D. 89–118, C.S.D.
90–51, and C.S.D. 90–97. By contrast, in
C.S.D. 85–25, 19 Cust. Bull. 844 (1985),
CBP held that for purposes of the
Generalized System of Preferences
(‘‘GSP’’), the assembly of a large number
of fabricated components onto a printed
circuit board in a process involving a
considerable amount of time and skill
resulted in a substantial transformation.
In that case, in excess of 50 discrete
fabricated components (such as
resistors, capacitors, diodes, integrated
circuits, sockets, and connectors) were
assembled. Whether an operation is
complex and meaningful depends on
the nature of the operation, including
the number of components assembled,
number of different operations, time,
skill level required, attention to detail,
quality control, the value added to the
article, and the overall employment
generated by the manufacturing process.
In order to determine whether a
substantial transformation occurs when
components of various origins are
assembled into completed products,
CBP considers the totality of the
circumstances and makes such
determinations on a case-by-case basis.
The country of origin of the item’s
components, extent of the processing
that occurs within a country, and
whether such processing renders a
product with a new name, character,
and use are primary considerations in
such cases. Additionally, factors such as
the resources expended on product
design and development, the extent and
nature of post-assembly inspection and
testing procedures, and worker skill
required during the actual
manufacturing process will be
considered when determining whether a
substantial transformation has occurred.
No one factor is determinative.
You believe that the assembly
operations that take place in the U.S.
result in a substantial transformation of
the imported parts. You note that these
parts, by themselves, cannot function
and must be assembled with the U.S.made parts to constitute a working
electric self-propelled vehicle. Given
these considerations, you argue that the
U.S. content along with the fact that
100% of the assembly operations takes
place in the U.S. warrants a
determination that the U.S. is the
country of origin of the vehicles. In
support of your argument, you cite
Headquarters Ruling Letter (‘‘HQ’’)
H022169 (May 2, 2008) and HQ 558919
(Mar. 20, 1995).
In HQ H022169, CBP found that an
imported mini-truck glider was
substantially transformed as a result of
assembly operations performed in the
United States to produce an electric
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
mini-truck. Our decision was based on
the fact that, under the described
assembly process, the imported glider
lost its individual identity and became
an integral part of a new article
possessing a new name, character and
use. In addition, a substantial number of
the components added to the imported
glider were of U.S. origin.
In HQ 558919, a country of origin
marking case relied upon in HQ
H022169, U.S. Customs (now CBP) held
that an extruder assembly manufactured
in England was substantially
transformed in the United States when
it was wired and combined with U.S.
components (motor, electric controls
and extruder screw) to create a vertical
extruder. In reaching that decision,
Customs emphasized that the imported
extruder subassembly and the U.S.
components each had important
attributes that were functionally
necessary to the operation of the
extruder. Consequently, we found that
the imported subassemblies should be
excepted from individual marking,
provided that the cartons in which the
U.S. manufacturer received them were
properly marked with their country of
origin.
In both HQ 558919 and HQ H022169,
CBP found that assembly of the
imported parts together with the U.S.
made components were ‘‘functionally
necessary’’ to the operation of the
finished product. The same is true in
this situation. None of the imported
parts, on their own, can function as an
electric vehicle but must be assembled
with other necessary U.S. components,
such as the battery pack, motor,
electronics, wiring assemblies and
charger. Moreover, given the complexity
and duration of the U.S. manufacturing
process, we consider those operations to
be more than mere assembly.
Based on the information before us,
and consistent with the CBP rulings
cited above, we find that the Chineseorigin chassis, plastic body parts and
plastic pieces of trim are substantially
transformed by the assembly operations
performed in the United States to
produce both the Hoss and Eve lines of
electric vehicles. Under the described
assembly process, the imported parts
lose their individual identities and
become integral parts of a new article
possessing a new name, character and
use. Further, components crucial to the
making of an electric vehicle (the
battery pack, motor, electronics, wiring
assemblies, and charger) are of U.S.
origin. We conclude, based upon these
specific facts, that the country of origin
of the Fairplay Hoss and Eve lines of
electric vehicles for purposes of U.S.
E:\FR\FM\16DEN1.SGM
16DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Notices
Government procurement is the United
States.
HOLDING:
The chassis, plastic body parts and
plastic pieces of trim imported from
China are substantially transformed
when they are assembled in the United
States with domestic components. As a
result, the country of origin of Fairplay’s
Hoss line of industrial and commercial
electric vehicles, specifically the Hoss
LD, Hoss XD, and Hoss Quad, for
purposes of U.S. Government
procurement is the United States. The
country of origin of Fairplay’s Eve line
of low speed electric vehicles,
specifically the Eve Deluxe 2P, Eve
Deluxe XR 2P, Eve Deluxe LTD 2P, Eve
Deluxe 4P, Eve Eco 2P, and the Eve Eco
XR 2P, for purposes of U.S. Government
procurement is the United States.
Notice of this final determination will
be given in the Federal Register, as
required by 19 C.F.R. § 177.29. Any
party-at-interest other than the party
which requested this final
determination may request, pursuant to
19 C.F.R. § 177.31, that CBP reexamine
the matter anew and issue a new final
determination. Pursuant to 19 C.F.R.
§ 177.30, any party-at-interest may,
within 30 days of publication of the
Federal Register Notice referenced
above, seek judicial review of this final
determination before the Court of
International Trade.
Sincerely,
Harold Singer
Acting Executive Director
Regulations and Rulings
Office of International Trade
[FR Doc. 2010–31638 Filed 12–15–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–14–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR–5443–N–02]
Notice of Availability of a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for
the Sunset Area Community Planned
Action, City of Renton, WA
Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Community Planning and
Development, HUD.
ACTION: Notice.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
The Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) gives
this notice to the public, agencies and
Indian Tribes on the availability for
public review and comment of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (Draft
EIS) for the redevelopment of the Sunset
Terrace public housing community in
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:00 Dec 15, 2010
Jkt 223001
Renton, WA. HUD gives this notice on
behalf of the City of Renton acting as the
Responsible Entity for compliance with
the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Pursuant to the authority
granted by section 26 of the U.S.
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437x)
in connection with projects assisted
under section 9 of that Act (42 U.S.C.
1437g), the City of Renton has assumed
responsibility for compliance with
NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321) in accordance
with 24 CFR 58.1 and 58.4, and is the
lead agency for compliance with the
Washington State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA, RCW 43.21C). The Draft EIS
is a joint NEPA and SEPA document
intended to satisfy requirements of
Federal and State environmental
statutes. This notice is given in
accordance with the Council on
Environmental Quality regulations at 40
CFR parts 1500–1508.
Notice is also given that the City of
Renton as Responsible Entity has
decided to combine the National
Historic Preservation Act, Section 106
process with the NEPA Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance
with 36 CFR 800.8(c). Comments are
also being requested on the Section 106
information presented in the Draft EIS
as well as on the Section 106 process
itself.
DATES: Written comments on the Draft
EIS must be received January 31, 2011.
Written comments should be addressed
to the individual named below under
the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Public Hearing: A public hearing will
be held for the public to provide verbal
or written comment on the Draft EIS as
well as on the proposed planned action
ordinance. The public hearing will be
held on January 5, 2011, at 6 p.m. before
the Renton Planning Commission. The
meeting will be held at the Council
Chambers, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton,
WA 98057.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Erika Conkling, AICP, Senior Planner,
City of Renton Department of
Community and Economic
Development, 1055 S. Grady Way,
Renton, WA 98057, 425–430–6578
(voice) 425–430–7300 (fax), or e-mail:
econkling@rentonwa.gov.
Copies of the Draft EIS are available
at the above address for reference, and
copies may be purchased for the cost of
reproduction. The Draft EIS is also
available on the Internet and can be
viewed or downloaded at: https://
rentonwa.gov/business/
default.aspx?id=2060.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
proposal includes redevelopment of the
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
78729
Renton Housing Authority’s (RHA’s)
Sunset Terrace public housing
community, a 7.3-acre property with
100 existing units contained in 27
buildings that are 50-year-old, two-story
structures, located at the intersection of
NE. Sunset Boulevard and Harrington
Avenue, NE. RHA also owns additional
vacant land (approximately 3 acres with
two dwelling units) along Edmonds
Avenue, NE., Glenwood Avenue, NE.,
and Sunset Lane, NE., and intends to
purchase additional property adjacent to
Sunset Terrace, along Harrington
Avenue, NE. (which contains about 8
dwellings); RHA plans to incorporate
these additional properties into the
Sunset Terrace redevelopment for
housing and associated services. The
Sunset Terrace public housing
community units, facilities, and
infrastructure are antiquated and the
project is dilapidated.
Conceptual plans propose
redevelopment of Sunset Terrace and
adjacent properties with mixed-income,
mixed-use residential and commercial
space and public amenities. The
redevelopment would include a 1-to-1
unit replacement for all 100 existing
public housing units. All existing public
housing units will be replaced either onsite or off-site, at locations within the
existing Sunset Terrace site, and the
Planned Action Study Area within the
City; no net loss of low income housing
units would occur. The project will
require relocation of all existing
residents and RHA is developing a
relocation plan. It is expected that, with
the Sunset Terrace property and
associated properties owned or
purchased by RHA, up to 479 additional
new units could be constructed with a
portion of the total units being public,
affordable, and market rate. Public
amenities would be integrated with the
residential development and could
include the following: A community
gathering space or ‘‘third place;’’ civic
facilities such as a community center,
senior center, and/or public library
space; a new park/open space; retail
shopping and commercial space; and
green infrastructure.
Sunset Terrace’s redevelopment
provides the opportunity to evaluate the
neighborhood as a whole and determine
what future land use redevelopment is
possible and what public service and
infrastructure improvements should be
made in order to make this a more
vibrant and attractive community for
residents, businesses and property
owners. The Draft EIS addresses the
primary proposal of the Sunset Terrace
area redevelopment as well as evaluate
secondary proposals such as
neighborhood redevelopment and
E:\FR\FM\16DEN1.SGM
16DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 241 (Thursday, December 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78726-78729]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31638]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning the Fairplay
Hoss and the Fairplay Eve Electric Vehicles
AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice of final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document provides notice that U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') has issued a final determination concerning the
country of origin of the Fairplay Hoss and the Fairplay Eve lines of
electric vehicles. Based upon the facts presented, CBP has concluded in
the final determination that the United States is the country of origin
of the Fairplay Hoss and Eve lines of electric vehicles for purposes of
U.S. Government procurement.
[[Page 78727]]
DATES: The final determination was issued on December 9, 2010. A copy
of the final determination is attached. Any party-at-interest, as
defined in 19 CFR Sec. 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of this
final determination on or before January 18, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather K. Pinnock, Valuation and
Special Programs Branch: (202) 325-0034.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that on December 9,
2010, pursuant to subpart B of part 177, Customs and Border Protection
Regulations (19 CFR part 177, subpart B), CBP issued a final
determination concerning the country of origin of the Fairplay Hoss and
Eve lines of electric vehicles which may be offered to the U.S.
Government under an undesignated government procurement contract. This
final determination, in HQ H133455, was issued at the request of
Fairplay Electric Cars, LLC (``Fairplay''), under procedures set forth
at 19 CFR Part 177, subpart B, which implements Title III of the Trade
Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511-18). In the final
determination, CBP concluded that, based upon the facts presented, the
Fairplay Hoss and Eve lines of electric vehicles, assembled to
completion in the United States from parts made in non-TAA countries
and TAA countries and/or the United States, are substantially
transformed in the United States, such that the United States is the
country of origin of the finished articles for purposes of U.S.
Government procurement.
Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.29), provides that a
notice of final determination shall be published in the Federal
Register within 60 days of the date the final determination is issued.
Section 177.30, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.30), provides that any
party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial
review of a final determination within 30 days of publication of such
determination in the Federal Register.
Dated: December 9, 2010.
Harold Singer,
Acting Executive Director, Regulations and Rulings, Office of
International Trade.
Attachment
HQ H133455
December 9, 2010
CLA-2 OT:RR:CT:VS H133455 HkP
CATEGORY: Marking
Mr. Keith Andrews, President
Fairplay Electric Cars
743 Horizon Ct., Suite 333
Grand Junction, CO 81506
RE: Government Procurement; Country of Origin of Fairplay ``Hoss'' and
``Eve'' Electric Vehicles; Substantial Transformation
Dear Mr. Andrews:
This is in response to your letter dated July 20, 2010, requesting
a final determination on behalf of Fairplay Electric Cars, LLC
(``Fairplay''), pursuant to subpart B of part 177 of the U.S. Customs
and Border Protection Regulations (19 CFR Part 177).
Under these regulations, which implement Title III of the Trade
Agreements Act of 1979 (TAA), as amended (19 U.S.C. Sec. 2511 et
seq.), CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final
determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of a
designated country or instrumentality for the purposes of granting
waivers of certain ``Buy American'' restrictions in U.S. law or
practice for products offered for sale to the U.S. Government.
This final determination concerns the country of origin of the
Fairplay Hoss line of industrial and commercial vehicles and the
Fairplay Eve line of low speed vehicles. We note that as a U.S.
importer and manufacturer, Fairplay is a party-at-interest within the
meaning of 19 CFR Sec. 177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this
final determination. In reaching our decision, we have taken into
account additional information submitted to this office on August 31,
2010.
FACTS:
For the Hoss line, the models of vehicles at issue are the
following: Hoss LD, Hoss XD, and Hoss Quad. For the Eve line, the
models of vehicles at issue are the Eve Deluxe 2P, Eve Deluxe XR 2P,
Eve Deluxe LTD 2P, Eve Deluxe 4P, Eve Eco 2P, and the Eve Eco XR 2P.
According to the information submitted, Fairplay imports parts for
both these lines of vehicles from China. These include chassis, plastic
body parts and various miscellaneous pieces of plastic trim, which are
assembled together in the United States with U.S.-made battery packs,
motors, electronics, wiring assemblies, seats, and chargers.
For the Hoss line of vehicles, the bill of materials (BOM)
submitted with the request indicates that, depending on the model, a
vehicle may have between approximately 50 and 72 inputs, when items
such as logos/decals, and warranty registration cards are counted along
with the parts. Of these, between 11 and 15 inputs are of U.S. origin
or are performed in the U.S. Between 48.1% and 58.9% of actual
manufacturing costs are attributed to U.S. or TAA country manufacturing
operations.
For the Eve line of vehicles, the bill of materials (BOM) submitted
with the request indicates that, depending on the model, a vehicle may
have between approximately 67 and 78 inputs, when items such as logos/
decals, and warranty registration cards are counted along with the
parts. Of these, between 21 and 27 inputs are of U.S. origin or are
performed in the U.S. Between 52.2% and 64.8% of actual manufacturing
costs are attributed to U.S. or TAA country manufacturing operations.
For both the Hoss and Eve lines of vehicles, assembly in the U.S.
takes place at five different stations, the operations performed at
each station being described as follows:
Station 0: The electronic controller plate is assembled and tested.
Station 1: The chassis is unloaded and given a vehicle identification
number. Wheels, tires, and the steering column are installed on the
chassis using rivets, nuts, bolts, screws, and plastic push-ins.
Station 2: The batteries, motor, controller, solenoid, wiring harness
and other crucial electronic parts are installed using rivets, nuts,
bolts, and screws or special Molex connectors and plastic push-ins that
must be soldered.
Station 3: The plastic front and rear body, bumpers and dashboard are
installed over the chassis and electronic assembly, which gives the
vehicle its finished appearance. Parts are attached with rivets, nuts
and bolts. The vehicle is then removed from the assembly rack.
Station 4: The deep cycle batteries, upright canopy supports, canopy
top, seat bottom and back, seat belts, lights, reflectors, decals,
logos and final wiring are installed and tested. The parts are
installed using rivets, Molex connectors, nuts, bolts, screws, and/or
plastic push-ins, as required.
Testing of the fully assembled vehicle lasts between 90 and 195
minutes, depending on the vehicle. In addition, quality control
inspections are performed at each station as well as randomly. Packing
and shipping operations last between 30 and 45 minutes. The Standard
Operating Procedures to assemble the vehicles are designed by staff
engineers, who also select, approve and advise on the appropriate parts
to be used for the manufacture of the vehicles.
ISSUE:
What is the country of origin of the Fairplay Hoss line of
industrial and commercial electric vehicles and of the Eve line of low
speed vehicles for
[[Page 78728]]
purposes of U.S. Government procurement?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Pursuant to Subpart B of Part 177, 19 CFR Sec. 177.21 et seq.,
which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as
amended (19 U.S.C. Sec. 2511 et seq.), CBP issues country of origin
advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is
or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for
the purposes of granting waivers of certain ``Buy American''
restrictions in U.S. law or practice for products offered for sale to
the U.S. Government.
Under the rule of origin set forth under 19 U.S.C. Sec.
2518(4)(B):
An article is a product of a country or instrumentality only if (i)
it is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of that country or
instrumentality, or (ii) in the case of an article which consists in
whole or in part of materials from another country or instrumentality,
it has been substantially transformed into a new and different article
of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the
article or articles from which it was so transformed.
See also 19 C.F.R. Sec. 177.22(a).
In rendering advisory rulings and final determinations for purposes
of U.S. Government procurement, CBP applies the provisions of subpart B
of Part 177 consistent with the Federal Procurement Regulations. See 19
C.F.R. Sec. 177.21. In this regard, CBP recognizes that the Federal
Procurement Regulations restrict the U.S. Government's purchase of
products to U.S.-made or designated country end products for
acquisitions subject to the TAA. See 48 C.F.R. Sec. 25.403(c)(1). The
Federal Procurement Regulations define ``U.S.-made end product'' as:
[A]n article that is mined, produces, or manufactured in the United
States or that is substantially transformed in the United States into a
new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use
distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was
transformed.
In determining whether the combining of parts or materials
constitutes a substantial transformation, the determinative issue is
the extent of operations performed and whether the parts lose their
identity and become an integral part of the new article. Belcrest
Linens v. United States, 573 F. Supp. 1149 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1983),
aff'd, 741 F.2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Assembly operations that are
minimal or simple, as opposed to complex or meaningful, will generally
not result in a substantial transformation. See C.S.D. 80-111, C.S.D.
89-110, C.S.D. 89-118, C.S.D. 90-51, and C.S.D. 90-97. By contrast, in
C.S.D. 85-25, 19 Cust. Bull. 844 (1985), CBP held that for purposes of
the Generalized System of Preferences (``GSP''), the assembly of a
large number of fabricated components onto a printed circuit board in a
process involving a considerable amount of time and skill resulted in a
substantial transformation. In that case, in excess of 50 discrete
fabricated components (such as resistors, capacitors, diodes,
integrated circuits, sockets, and connectors) were assembled. Whether
an operation is complex and meaningful depends on the nature of the
operation, including the number of components assembled, number of
different operations, time, skill level required, attention to detail,
quality control, the value added to the article, and the overall
employment generated by the manufacturing process.
In order to determine whether a substantial transformation occurs
when components of various origins are assembled into completed
products, CBP considers the totality of the circumstances and makes
such determinations on a case-by-case basis. The country of origin of
the item's components, extent of the processing that occurs within a
country, and whether such processing renders a product with a new name,
character, and use are primary considerations in such cases.
Additionally, factors such as the resources expended on product design
and development, the extent and nature of post-assembly inspection and
testing procedures, and worker skill required during the actual
manufacturing process will be considered when determining whether a
substantial transformation has occurred. No one factor is
determinative.
You believe that the assembly operations that take place in the
U.S. result in a substantial transformation of the imported parts. You
note that these parts, by themselves, cannot function and must be
assembled with the U.S.-made parts to constitute a working electric
self-propelled vehicle. Given these considerations, you argue that the
U.S. content along with the fact that 100% of the assembly operations
takes place in the U.S. warrants a determination that the U.S. is the
country of origin of the vehicles. In support of your argument, you
cite Headquarters Ruling Letter (``HQ'') H022169 (May 2, 2008) and HQ
558919 (Mar. 20, 1995).
In HQ H022169, CBP found that an imported mini-truck glider was
substantially transformed as a result of assembly operations performed
in the United States to produce an electric mini-truck. Our decision
was based on the fact that, under the described assembly process, the
imported glider lost its individual identity and became an integral
part of a new article possessing a new name, character and use. In
addition, a substantial number of the components added to the imported
glider were of U.S. origin.
In HQ 558919, a country of origin marking case relied upon in HQ
H022169, U.S. Customs (now CBP) held that an extruder assembly
manufactured in England was substantially transformed in the United
States when it was wired and combined with U.S. components (motor,
electric controls and extruder screw) to create a vertical extruder. In
reaching that decision, Customs emphasized that the imported extruder
subassembly and the U.S. components each had important attributes that
were functionally necessary to the operation of the extruder.
Consequently, we found that the imported subassemblies should be
excepted from individual marking, provided that the cartons in which
the U.S. manufacturer received them were properly marked with their
country of origin.
In both HQ 558919 and HQ H022169, CBP found that assembly of the
imported parts together with the U.S. made components were
``functionally necessary'' to the operation of the finished product.
The same is true in this situation. None of the imported parts, on
their own, can function as an electric vehicle but must be assembled
with other necessary U.S. components, such as the battery pack, motor,
electronics, wiring assemblies and charger. Moreover, given the
complexity and duration of the U.S. manufacturing process, we consider
those operations to be more than mere assembly.
Based on the information before us, and consistent with the CBP
rulings cited above, we find that the Chinese-origin chassis, plastic
body parts and plastic pieces of trim are substantially transformed by
the assembly operations performed in the United States to produce both
the Hoss and Eve lines of electric vehicles. Under the described
assembly process, the imported parts lose their individual identities
and become integral parts of a new article possessing a new name,
character and use. Further, components crucial to the making of an
electric vehicle (the battery pack, motor, electronics, wiring
assemblies, and charger) are of U.S. origin. We conclude, based upon
these specific facts, that the country of origin of the Fairplay Hoss
and Eve lines of electric vehicles for purposes of U.S.
[[Page 78729]]
Government procurement is the United States.
HOLDING:
The chassis, plastic body parts and plastic pieces of trim imported
from China are substantially transformed when they are assembled in the
United States with domestic components. As a result, the country of
origin of Fairplay's Hoss line of industrial and commercial electric
vehicles, specifically the Hoss LD, Hoss XD, and Hoss Quad, for
purposes of U.S. Government procurement is the United States. The
country of origin of Fairplay's Eve line of low speed electric
vehicles, specifically the Eve Deluxe 2P, Eve Deluxe XR 2P, Eve Deluxe
LTD 2P, Eve Deluxe 4P, Eve Eco 2P, and the Eve Eco XR 2P, for purposes
of U.S. Government procurement is the United States.
Notice of this final determination will be given in the Federal
Register, as required by 19 C.F.R. Sec. 177.29. Any party-at-interest
other than the party which requested this final determination may
request, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. Sec. 177.31, that CBP reexamine the
matter anew and issue a new final determination. Pursuant to 19 C.F.R.
Sec. 177.30, any party-at-interest may, within 30 days of publication
of the Federal Register Notice referenced above, seek judicial review
of this final determination before the Court of International Trade.
Sincerely,
Harold Singer
Acting Executive Director
Regulations and Rulings
Office of International Trade
[FR Doc. 2010-31638 Filed 12-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P