26132 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Notices 

Federal Regulations at section 111.51(a), 

the following individual Customs broker 

license and any and all permits have 

been cancelled due to the death of the 

broker: 

Name License # Port name 

Harris M. 

Steward.

09974 Mobile. 

Dated: April 29, 2008. 

Daniel Baldwin, 

Assistant Commissioner, Office of 

International Trade. 

[FR Doc. E8–10318 Filed 5–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Bureau of Customs and Border 

Protection 

Notice of Issuance of Final 

Determination Concerning Electric 

Mini-Trucks 

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, Department of Homeland 

Security. 

ACTION: Notice of final determination. 

SUMMARY: This document provides 

notice that the Bureau of Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) has issued a 

final determination concerning the 

country of origin of certain electric 

mini-trucks to be offered to the United 

States Government under an 

undesignated government procurement 

contract. Based on the facts presented, 

the final determination found that the 

United States is the country of origin of 

the electric mini-trucks for purposes of 

U.S. Government procurement. 

DATES: The final determination was 

issued on May 2, 2008. 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 within June 9, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Monika Brenner, Valuation and Special 

Programs Branch, Regulations and 

Rulings, Office of International Trade 

(202–572–8740). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that on May 2, 2008, 

pursuant to subpart B of part 177, 

Customs Regulations (19 CFR part 177, 

subpart B), CBP issued a final 

determination concerning the country of 

origin of certain electric mini-trucks to 

be offered to the United States 

Government under an undesignated 

government procurement contract. The 

CBP ruling number is H022169. This 

final determination was issued at the 

request of Global Electric Motorcars 

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). 

The final determination concluded 

that, based upon the facts presented, 

assembly in the United States of an 

imported mini-truck glider with a 

substantial number of components of 

U.S. and foreign origin substantially 

transforms the imported mini-truck 

glider into a product of the United 

States. Therefore, the country of origin 

of the resulting electric mini-truck is the 

United States for purposes of U.S. 

Government procurement. 

Section 177.29, Customs Regulations 

(19 CFR 177.29), provides that notice of 

final determinations shall be published 

in the Federal Register within 60 days 

of the date the final determination is 

issued. Section 177.30, CBP Regulations 

(19 CFR 177.30), states that any partyat-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: May 2, 2008. 

Sandra L. Bell, 

Executive Director, Office of Regulations and 

Rulings, Office of International Trade. 

H022169 

May 2, 2008 

OT:RR:CTF:VS H022169 GG 

CATEGORY: Marking 

Mr. Lawrence M. Friedman & Ms. 

Nicole A. Kehoskie 

Barnes, Richardson & Colburn 

1420 New York Avenue, NW., 

7th Floor 

Washington, DC 20005 

RE: U.S. Government Procurement; 

Final Determination; country of 

origin of electric mini-trucks; 

substantial transformation; 19 CFR 

part 177 

Dear Mr. Friedman & Ms. Kehoskie: 

This is in response to your letter 

dated December 20, 2007, requesting a 

final determination on behalf of Global 

Electric Motorcars (‘‘GEM’’) pursuant to 

subpart B of part 177, Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) Regulations 

(19 C.F.R. § 177.21 et seq.). Under these 

regulations, which implement Title III 

of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as 

amended (codified at 19 U.S.C. § 2511 et 

seq.), CBP issues country of origin 

advisory rulings and final 

determinations on whether an article is 

or would be a product of a designated 

country or instrumentality for the 

purpose 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 electric mini-trucks. 

We note that GEM is a party-at-interest 

within the meaning of 19 CFR 

§ 177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request 

this final determination. 

FACTS: 

GEMS imports a mini-truck glider 

from India. The glider consists of a 

frame, finished cab, axles, and wheels in 

one unit. The glider—so called because 

it can be rolled much like a dolly or 

scooter—does not include the normal 

critical components of an internalcombustion vehicle such as an engine, 

transmission, drive shaft, exhaust 

system, fuel system, or rear axle 

differential. It also does not have the 

critical components of an electric 

vehicle including the motor, battery 

pack, differential, or electronics 

necessary to control the electric vehicle. 

The brake assembly included with the 

glider will be removed and replaced 

with another after importation. The 

truck bed will be imported separate 

from the glider and installed after 

importation and upfitting as an electric 

vehicle. 

The glider is claimed to be nonfunctional and not intended for sale to 

retail motor vehicle purchasers in its 

imported state. Once in the United 

States, GEM manufactures an electric 

mini-truck from the glider and various 

other assemblies. GEM will fit the 

complete mini-truck with an electric 

motor to create an energy efficient, zero 

emissions mini-truck for sale to certain 

U.S. government agencies. 

As noted above, the glider is imported 

from India. According to GEM’s 

December 20, 2007 request, the glider is 

assembled with approximately 87 

different component parts, 68 of which 

are of U.S. origin. In response to a 

request from this office of a more 

detailed breakdown of the components, 

GEM submitted a costed bill of materials 

with country of origin for elective drive 

conversion components. This indicates 

that U.S. components amount to 

approximately 51% of the total 

component cost. The U.S. assembly 

process will require eight work stations, 

details of which are as follows: 

Station 0—The glider is unloaded, the 

wheels and tires are removed and the 

glider is put on the conveyor for 

assembly. 

Station 1—The rear axle and brake 

assembly shipped with the glider are 

removed and replaced with one that is 

compatible with the electric function of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Notices 26133 

the truck. The replacement gear box and 

axles are of U.S. origin, while the 

replacement brakes are of Indian origin. 

The motor of Canadian origin is 

attached onto the rear axle/gear box/ 

differential assembly of U.S. origin; the 

controller and charger of Canadian 

origin are also attached to the glider. 

Station 2—The wiring harnesses of 

U.S. origin are integrated. 

Station 3—The battery tray, batteries 

and cable of U.S. origin are assembled 

and incorporated. 

Station 4—The electronic driver 

information display of U.S. origin is 

incorporated. 

Station 5—The optional electric cab 

heater is installed. 

Station 6—The wheels and tires are 

reinstalled. 

Station 7—The fully assembled 

electric mini-truck is test run. 

Station 8—The electric mini-truck is 

unloaded and inspected for precision of 

assembly and operation. 

Quality control will occur at each of 

the eight work stations and at two more 

off-line stations. 

ISSUE: 

What is the country of origin of the 

electric mini-truck for purposes of U.S. 

Government procurement? 

LAW AND ANALYSIS: 

Pursuant to Subpart B of Part 177, 19 

C.F.R. § 177.21 et seq., which 

implements Title III of the Trade 

Agreements Act of 1979, as amended 

(19 U.S.C. § 2511 et seq.), CBP issues 

country of origin advisory rulings and 

final determinations on 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 CFR 

§ 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 CFR § 25.403(c)(1). The 

Federal Procurement Regulations define 

‘‘U.S.-made end product’’ as: 

...an article that is mined, produced, 

or manufactured in the United States or 

that is substantially transformed in the 

United States into a new and different 

article of commerce with a name, 

character, or use distinct from that of 

the article or articles from which it was 

transformed. 

48 CFR § 25.003. 

Therefore, the question presented in 

this final determination is whether, as a 

result of the operations performed in the 

United States, the glider is substantially 

transformed into a product of the United 

States. 

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, 6 Ct. Int’l Trade 

204, 573 F. Supp. 1149 (1983), aff’d, 741 

F.2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1984). If the 

manufacturing or combining process is 

a minor one which leaves the identity 

of the imported article intact, a 

substantial transformation has not 

occurred. Uniroyal Inc. v. United States, 

3 Ct. Int’l Trade 220, 542 F. Supp. 1026 

(1982). 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. 85–25, and C.S.D. 90–97. 

In order to determine whether a 

substantial transformation occurs when 

components of various origins are 

assembled to form completed articles, 

CBP considers the totality of the 

circumstances and makes such 

decisions on a case-by-case basis. The 

country of origin of the article’s 

components, the extent of the 

processing that occurs within a given 

country, and whether such processing 

renders a product with a new name, 

character, or use are primary 

considerations in such cases. 

Additionally, facts such as resources 

expended on product design and 

development, extent and nature of postassembly inspection procedures, and 

worker skill required during the actual 

manufacturing process will be 

considered when analyzing whether a 

substantial transformation has occurred; 

however, no one such factor is 

determinative. 

You assert that the electric motor 

(Canada), batteries (United States), 

charger (Canada), gear box (United 

States) and brakes (India) of the electric 

mini-truck form the heart of the minitruck, and are all installed in the United 

States, changing the identity of the 

imported glider from a body into a selfpropelled truck. These components 

allegedly provide the power source to 

the truck and enable it to carry out its 

intended use. Accordingly, it is argued, 

the U.S. components added and the 

assembly and testing performed in the 

U.S. are substantial. 

GEM cites to several Headquarters 

rulings (‘‘HQ’’) to support its analysis. 

Specifically, it refers to HQ 558919, 

dated March 20, 1995; HQ 559887, 

dated October 3, 1996; and HQ 562502, 

dated November 8, 2002. We find HQ 

558919 to be most analogous to the 

situation before us. There, CBP held that 

an extruder subassembly manufactured 

in England was substantially 

transformed in the United States when 

it was wired and combined with U.S. 

components (motor, electrical controls 

and extruder screw) to create a vertical 

extruder. In reaching that decision, CBP 

emphasized that the imported extruder 

subassembly and the U.S. components 

each had important attributes that were 

functionally necessary to the operation 

of the vertical extruder. Although HQ 

558919 may be distinguished because 

the components that were assembled 

with the imported extruder subassembly 

were exclusively of U.S. origin, the two 

cases are similar to the extent that the 

imported articles (extruder subassembly 

and glider) and certain of the other 

components with which the imported 

articles are combined are ‘‘functionally 

necessary’’ to the operation of the 

finished product. In GEM’s situation, 

the glider could not be used as an 

electric mini-truck on its own, but 

requires assembly with other, crucial 

components. 

We also take note of HQ 731076, 

dated November 1, 1988, which 

addressed country of origin marking 

requirements for an automobile 

assembled in Taiwan with components 

from Japan, the United States, and 

Taiwan. The U.S. components consisted 

of an oxygen sensor, a catalytic 

converter and two roll over valves. The 

Taiwanese components included trim 

pad assemblies, head linings, front and 

rear seats, glass, instrument panels, arm 

rests, support rod, leaf springs, heat 

protectors, carpet, brake pipes, fuel 

pipes, cable harnesses, battery cables, 

axle assemblies, tension rods, battery 

and tires. Associated materials such as 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

26134 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Notices 

glue, paint and coating were also 

procured in Taiwan. All other 

components were of Japanese origin. 

CBP held that the automobile 

components lost their separate identities 

and consequently were substantially 

transformed when they were assembled 

into vehicles in Taiwan. As a result, the 

country of origin of the imported 

automobiles for marking purposes was 

Taiwan, which precluded the various 

components from having to be 

separately marked with their original 

countries of origin. Customs indicated 

that it considered the manufacture of an 

automobile much more than a mere 

assembly operation and also considered 

it persuasive that the Taiwanese input 

to the final product contributed 38% of 

its value and took 33 hours to 

accomplish. 

Based upon the totality of the 

circumstances and consistent with the 

CPB rulings cited above, we find that 

the imported mini-truck glider is 

substantially transformed as a result of 

the assembly operations performed in 

the United States to produce an electric 

mini-truck. Under the described 

assembly process, the imported glider 

loses its individual identity and 

becomes an integral part of a new article 

possessing a new name, character and 

use. Further, we note a substantial 

number of the components added to the 

imported glider are of U.S. origin. 

Therefore, based upon the specific facts, 

the country of origin of the electric 

mini-truck for purposes of U.S. 

Government procurement is the United 

States. 

HOLDING: 

The imported mini-truck gliders are 

substantially transformed when they are 

assembled in the United States with 

other imported and domestic 

components. As a result, the country of 

origin of the electric mini-trucks 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. Any party-at-interest 

may, within 30 days after publication of 

the Federal Register notice referenced 

above, seek judicial review of this final 

determination before the Court of 

International Trade. 

Sincerely, 

Sandra L. Bell, 

Executive Director Office of International 

Trade 

[FR Doc. E8–10119 Filed 5–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–5188–N–05] 

Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection: Optional Relocation 

Payment Claim Forms; Comment 

Request 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Community Planning and 

Development, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The proposed information 

collection requirement described below 

will be submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review, as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. The Department is 

soliciting public comments on the 

subject proposal. 

DATES: Comments Due Date: July 7, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments regarding 

this proposal. Comments should refer to 

the proposal by name and/or OMB 

Control Number and should be sent to: 

Pamela Williams, Reports Liaison 

Officer, Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, 451 7th Street, 

SW., Room 7234, Washington, DC 

20410. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Janice Olu, Relocation Specialist, 

Relocation and Real Estate Division, 

DGHR, Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, 451 7th Street, 

SW., Room 7168, Washington, DC 

20410; e-mail Janice.P.Olu@hud.gov, 

(202) 708–2684. This is not a toll-free 

number. Copies of the proposed forms 

and other available documents 

submitted to OMB may be obtained 

from HUD’s Web site at http:// 

www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/library/ 

relocation/forms.cfm or from Ms. Olu. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Department is submitting the proposed 

information collection to OMB for 

review, as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35, as amended). 

This Notice is soliciting comments 

from members of the public and affected 

agencies concerning the proposed 

collection of information to: (1) Evaluate 

whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information; (3) Enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (4) 

Minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology, e.g., permitting electronic 

submission of responses. 

This Notice also lists the following 

information: 

Title of Proposal: Optional Relocation 

Payment Claim Forms. 

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 

2506–0016. 

Description of the need for the 

information and proposed use: 

Application for displacement/relocation 

assistance for persons (families, 

individuals, businesses, nonprofit 

organizations and farms) displaced by, 

or temporarily relocated for, certain 

HUD programs. No changes are being 

made for Forms HUD–40054, HUD–

40055, HUD–40056, HUD–40057, HUD–

40058, HUD–40061, and HUD–40072. 

A new form HUD–40030, ‘‘Claim for 

Temporary Relocation Expenses 

(Residential Moves)’’ has been added 

based on requests from HUD program 

participants for such a form to help 

them calculate payments. Revised 

government-wide URA regulations were 

published by the Department of 

Transportation on January 4, 2005 

(effective February 3, 2005). Under the 

regulations, agencies are required to 

reimburse residential occupants of a 

dwelling who will not be permanently 

displaced for all reasonable out-ofpocket expenses incurred in connection 

with temporary relocation. These 

expenses may include moving expenses 

and increased housing costs during the 

temporary relocation (49 CFR 

24.2(9)(ii)(D), Appendix A). 

Agency form numbers, if applicable: 

HUD–40030, HUD–40054, HUD–40055, 

HUD–40056, HUD–40057, HUD–40058, 

HUD–40061, and HUD–40072. 

Estimation of the total numbers of 

hours needed to prepare the information 

collection including number of 

respondents, frequency of response, and 

hours of response. 

Status of the proposed information 

collection: Revision. 

Number of Respondents: 37,800. 

Frequency of Response: 3. 

Hours per Response: .8. 

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 

91,000. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES