64320 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 

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 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 Legacy line of electric 

vehicles for purposes of U.S. 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 line of golf and 

recreational electric vehicles, specifically the 

Legacy Eco 2P, Legacy Eco 2P XR, Legacy Eco 

4P, Legacy Deluxe 2P, Legacy Deluxe XR 2P, 

Legacy Deluxe LTD 2P, Legacy Deluxe HP 2P, 

and the Legacy Transport, 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, 

Sandra L. Bell, Executive Director 

Regulations and Rulings 

Office of International Trade 

[FR Doc. 2010–26314 Filed 10–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA–1940– 

DR; Docket ID FEMA–2010–0002] 

Arizona; Major Disaster and Related 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the 

Presidential declaration of a major 

disaster for the State of Arizona (FEMA– 

1940–DR), dated October 4, 2010, and 

related determinations. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 4, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peggy Miller, Office of Response and 

Recovery, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that, in a letter dated 

October 4, 2010, the President issued a 

major disaster declaration under the 

authority of the Robert T. Stafford 

Disaster Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. 

(the ‘‘Stafford Act’’), as follows: 

I have determined that the damage in 

certain areas of the State of Arizona resulting 

from severe storms and flooding during the 

period of July 20 to August 7, 2010, is of 

sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant 

a major disaster declaration under the Robert 

T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the 

‘‘Stafford Act’’). Therefore, I declare that such 

a major disaster exists in the State of Arizona. 

In order to provide Federal assistance, you 

are hereby authorized to allocate from funds 

available for these purposes such amounts as 

you find necessary for Federal disaster 

assistance and administrative expenses. 

You are authorized to provide Public 

Assistance in the designated areas and 

Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. 

Consistent with the requirement that Federal 

assistance is supplemental, any Federal 

funds provided under the Stafford Act for 

Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will 

be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible 

costs. 

Further, you are authorized to make 

changes to this declaration for the approved 

assistance to the extent allowable under the 

Stafford Act. 

The Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that 

pursuant to the authority vested in the 

Administrator, under Executive Order 

12148, as amended, Sandy Coachman, 

of FEMA is appointed to act as the 

Federal Coordinating Officer for this 

major disaster. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices 64321 

The following areas of the State of 

Arizona have been designated as 

adversely affected by this major disaster: 

Coconino County for Public Assistance. 

All counties within the State of Arizona are 

eligible to apply for assistance under the 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. 

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used 

for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 

Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora 

Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 

97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, 

Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 

97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 

97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to 

Individuals and Households In Presidentially 

Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 

Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance— 

Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals 

and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 

Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals 

and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, 

Disaster Grants—Public Assistance 

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, 

Hazard Mitigation Grant.) 

W. Craig Fugate, 

Administrator, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26211 Filed 10–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–23–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–0212] 

Interagency Coordinating Committee 

on Oil Pollution Research (ICCOPR); 

Public Meeting 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Interagency Coordinating 

Committee on Oil Pollution Research 

(ICCOPR) will hold a public meeting in 

New Orleans, LA to hear comments on 

the priorities of oil pollution research, 

including projects related to the 

Deepwater Horizon incident and the 

Arctic environment. This meeting is 

designed to give the public an 

opportunity to provide statements as to 

where the ICCOPR, a federally 

mandated committee, should focus their 

efforts concerning oil pollution 

research. Public comment will then be 

used to augment the revision of the 1997 

Oil Pollution Research and Technology 

Plan. This meeting will be open to the 

public. 

DATES: The Committee will meet on 

Wednesday, November 17, 2010, from 9 

a.m. to 12 a.m. (noon). This meeting 

may close early if all business is 

finished. Written material (no more than 

2 full pages) and requests to make brief 

oral presentations should reach the 

Coast Guard on or before November 12, 

2010. Requests to have a copy of your 

material (no more than 2 full pages) 

distributed to each member of the 

committee should reach the Coast Guard 

on or before November 12, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: The Committee will meet in 

the Pisces Room at the Audubon 

Aquarium of the Americas, Canal Street 

at the River, #1 Canal Street, New 

Orleans, Louisiana 70130. Send written 

material (no more than 2 full pages) and 

requests to make brief oral presentations 

to Lieutenant Tracy Wirth, Assistant to 

the Chairman of the ICCOPR at 

Commandant (CG–533), Office of 

Incident Management and Preparedness, 

U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 2nd St., SW., 

STOP 7363, Washington, DC 20593– 

7363. The ICCOPR staff can also be 

contacted via e-mail at 

ICCOPR_staff@uscg.mil. This notice and 

documents identified in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section as 

being available in the docket, may be 

viewed in our online docket, USCG– 

2010–0212, at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this notice or the 

meeting, contact Lieutenant Tracy 

Wirth, Assistant to the Chairman of the 

ICCOPR, telephone 202–372–2236 or via 

e-mail at ICCOPR_staff@uscg.mil. 

If you have questions on viewing the 

docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background and Purpose 

Section 7001(a) of the Oil Pollution 

Act of 1990 (OPA 90) established the 

Interagency Coordinating Committee on 

Oil Pollution Research. The purpose of 

the Interagency Committee is twofold: 

(1) To prepare a comprehensive, 

coordinated Federal oil pollution 

research and development (R&D) plan; 

and (2) to promote cooperation with 

industry, universities, research 

institutions, state governments, and 

other nations through information 

sharing, coordinated planning, and joint 

funding of projects. The Interagency 

Committee was commissioned with 13 

members and is chaired by the Coast 

Guard. Membership includes: 

—National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) 

—National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) 

—Department of Energy (DOE) 

—Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Regulation, and Enforcement 

(BOEMRE)—formally known as MMS 

—United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) 

—Maritime Administration (MARAD) 

—Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration (PHMSA) 

—United States Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) 

—United States Navy (USN) 

—Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) 

—National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) 

—United States Coast Guard (USCG) 

—Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA), United States Fire 

Administration (USFA) 

Section 7001(b) of the Oil Pollution 

Act of 1990 required the Interagency 

Committee to prepare an Oil Pollution 

Research and Technology Plan. The 

Interagency Committee prepared the 

original Oil Pollution Research and 

Development (R&D) Technology Plan to 

define the roles of each Federal agency 

involved in oil spill research and 

development. The plan was submitted 

to Congress in April 1992 and later 

reviewed by the National Research 

Council’s Committee on Oil Spill 

Research and Development under the 

auspices of the Marine Board. Using 

input from the Marine Board, the 

Committee revised the plan in May 1993 

to address spill prevention, human 

factors, and the field testing/ 

demonstration of developed response 

technologies. The current version of the 

plan, still based on Marine Board 

recommendations, is dated April 1997. 

The Interagency Committee is 

coordinating an update of the 

Technology Plan during the next two 

fiscal years. 

Tentative Meeting Agenda 

The agenda for the November 17, 

2010 Committee meeting is as follows: 

(1) 9 a.m.: Convene: Welcome and 

Opening Comments by the ICCOPR 

Chairman; Captain John Caplis, U.S. 

Coast Guard 

(2) 9:15 a.m.: ICCOPR Background 

and Overview Brief 

(3) 9:45 a.m.: Public Comment Period 

(4) 11:45 a.m.: Closing Remarks: 

Captain John Caplis, U.S. Coast Guard, 

Chairman 

(5) 12 a.m. (noon): Adjourn 

ICCOPR Biennial Report 

The Interagency Coordinating 

Committee on Oil Pollution Research 

Biennial Report for Fiscal Years 2008 

and 2009 and the 1997 Oil Pollution 

Research and Technology Plan 

documents, which will be discussed by 

the Committee, may be viewed in our 

online docket. Go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, enter the docket 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES