Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2010 / Notices 65023 

272–8352 or via e-mail at 

rfs.regs@dhs.gov, and to the OMB USCIS 

Desk Officer via facsimile at 202–395– 

5806 or via e-mail at 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. When 

submitting comments by e-mail please 

make sure to add OMB Control Number 

1615–0038 in the subject box. Written 

comments and suggestions from the 

public and affected agencies should 

address one or more of the following 

four points: 

(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 

agencies estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

(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, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of This Information 

Collection 

(1) Type of Information Collection: 

Extension of a currently approved 

information collection. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 

Petition to Remove Conditions on 

Residence. 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of the 

Department of Homeland Security 

sponsoring the collection: Form I–751; 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (USCIS). 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: Individuals or 

Households. This form is used by USCIS 

to verify the petitioner’s status and 

determine whether the conditional 

resident is eligible to have his or her 

status removed. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: 183,000 responses at 3 hours 

and 20 minutes (3.333) per response. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: 609,939 annual burden 

hours. 

If you need a copy of the information 

collection instrument, please visit the 

Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov. 

We may also be contacted at: USCIS, 

Regulatory Products Division, 20 

Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20529–2020; 

Telephone 202–272–8377. 

Dated: October 18, 2010. 

Sunday Aigbe, 

Chief, Regulatory Products Division, U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services, 

Department of Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26511 Filed 10–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–97–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

Notice of Issuance of Final 

Determination Concerning Certain 

Heating Boilers 

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 certain heating boilers. Based 

upon the facts presented, CBP has 

concluded in the final determination 

that Canada is the country of origin of 

the heating boilers for purposes of U.S. 

Government procurement. 

DATES: The final determination was 

issued on October 13, 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 

November 22, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Barbara Kunzinger, Valuation and 

Special Programs Branch: (202) 325– 

0359. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that on October 13, 2010, 

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 heating boilers which may be 

offered to the U.S. Government under an 

undesignated procurement contract. 

This final determination, in HQ 

H119218, was issued at the request of 

Camus Hydronics Ltd. 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 

heating boilers, assembled in Canada 

from parts made in the United States, 

Canada, and France, are substantially 

transformed in Canada, such that 

Canada is the country of origin of the 

finished article 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, Customs 

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: October 13, 2010. 

Sandra L. Bell, 

Executive Director, Regulations and Rulings, 

Office of International Trade. 

Attachment 

HQ H119218 

October 13, 2010 

OT:RR:CTF:VS H119218 

Ms. Regina Vargo 

Greenberg Traurig, LLP 

2101 L Street NW, Suite 1000 

Washington, D.C. 20037 

Re: U.S. Government Procurement; Heating 

Boilers 

Dear Ms. Vargo: 

This is in response to your letter, dated 

August 3, 2010, requesting a final 

determination on behalf of Camus Hydronics 

Ltd. (Camus) of Ontario, Canada, pursuant to 

subpart B of 19 C.F.R. part 177. 

Under these regulations, which implement 

Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, 

as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.), U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (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 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 certain heating boilers. 

We note that Camus is a party-at-interest 

within the meaning of 19 C.F.R. 177.22(d)(1) 

and is entitled to request this final 

determination as the manufacturer of these 

boilers under 19 C.F.R. 177.23(a). 

FACTS: 

This case involves the Camus DynaFlame, 

DynaForce, and DynaMax heating boilers 

fabricated and assembled in Canada from 

sheet metal and components primarily of 

United States (U.S.), Canadian, and (in the 

case of the DynaMax) French origin. All three 

boilers go through both a sub-assembly stage 

and an assembly stage in Canada, as well as 

testing, quality control, and packaging. A bill 

of materials was submitted with your request. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
65024 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2010 / Notices 

DynaFlame Boilers 

The DynaFlame boiler is composed of 65 

separate components. Of these, 22 are 

fabricated in Canada from sheet metal 

imported from the U.S. Most of the finished 

components, including the burner, headers, 

and controls, are also of U.S. origin. The 

fabrication process includes, among other 

things, shearing the flat stock to the required 

size; utilizing punch presses, tools, and dies; 

bending and welding the steel; and painting 

the steel components. 

Four sub-assembly processes then occur in 

Canada; these include the assembly of the 

heat exchanger, the gas train, electronics and 

controls, and the combustion fan. Assembly 

of the heat exchanger requires, among other 

things, cutting copper finned tube to specific 

lengths, adjusting the tube to the required 

specifications, inserting the tubes into the 

headers, inserting and attaching a number of 

other components, and hydro testing the heat 

exchanger. The copper tubes used to make 

the heat exchanger are of U.S. origin. The gas 

train assembly requires fitting the 

components together by threading the 

components with nipples and fittings, and 

then painting all the pipe black. Assembly of 

the electronics and controls requires 

installing and wiring the components 

together, and programming certain aspects of 

the control box. The combustion fan is 

assembled by separating the fan housing, 

installing the components, and then 

reassembling the housing. 

The four sub-assemblies, along with the 

fabricated sheet metal parts and various other 

components, are then assembled into a 

finished DynaFlame boiler. Final assembly 

consists of, among other things, installing, 

wiring, and fastening the sub-assemblies to 

each other and the remaining components. 

DynaForce Boilers 

The DynaForce boiler contains almost 60 

separate components. Of these, 18 are 

fabricated in Canada from sheet metal 

imported from the U.S. The sheet metal 

fabrication process for the DynaForce is the 

same as that for the DynaFlame. The heat 

exchanger is purchased already assembled 

from a Canadian supplier, and is assembled 

in Canada from U.S. origin stainless steel 

plates and tubes. The burner, controls, and 

fan kit are some of the U.S. origin 

components. 

Like with the DynaFlame, the DynaForce 

goes through both a sub-assembly stage and 

an assembly stage. The sub-assembly stage 

has three processes: the gas train, electronics 

and controls, and the combustion fan. The 

assemblies of the gas train, electronics and 

controls, and the combustion fan for the 

DynaForce are very similar to those for the 

DynaFlame. 

The three sub-assemblies, the heat 

exchanger, the fabricated components of 

sheet metal, and the remaining parts are then 

assembled to create the finished DynaForce 

boiler. 

DynaMax Boilers 

The DynaMax boiler contains over 50 

separate components. Of those, 21 are 

fabricated in Canada from U.S. originating 

sheet metal. The fabrication process for the 

sheet metal is the same for the DynaMax as 

it is for the DynaFlame and DynaForce. The 

heat exchanger (along with the burner) is 

imported into Canada from France. The 

controls, sensors, fan, and pump are some of 

the components of U.S. origin. 

As with the other two boilers, the 

DynaMax has both a sub-assembly stage and 

an assembly stage. The sub-assembly stage is 

composed of three sub-assembly processes: 

the heat exchanger, electronics and controls, 

and the plate exchanger. Although the heat 

exchanger is imported from France, it 

undergoes additional assembly in Canada. 

The heat exchanger sub-assembly consists of, 

among other things, inspection, attaching the 

pump, installing the burner and ignition, and 

testing the heat exchanger. Assembly of the 

plate exchanger requires selecting the 

required plate exchanger, attaching the 

fittings and labeling the fittings. 

These three sub-assemblies are then 

assembled together with the fabricated 

components of sheet metal, the combustion 

fan, the gas train, and various other parts to 

become the finished DynaMax boiler. 

ISSUE: 

What is the country of origin of the subject 

boilers for the purpose 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 as to 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. 

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 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. 85–25, C.S.D. 89–110, C.S.D. 89– 

118, C.S.D. 90–51, and C.S.D. 90–97. 

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. 

The courts and CBP have also considered 

the essential character of the imported article 

in making these determinations. See 

Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 542 F. Supp. 

1026, 3 CIT 220, 224–225 (1982) (where it 

was determined that imported uppers were 

the essence of a completed shoe) and 

National Juice Products Association, et al v. 

United States, 628 F. Supp. 978, 10 CIT 48, 

61 (1986) (where the court addressed each of 

the factors (name, character, and use) in 

finding that no substantial transformation 

occurred in the production of retail juice 

products from manufacturing concentrate). 

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, extent and nature of postassembly 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. 

In Headquarters Ruling Letter (‘‘HRL’’) 

555532 (September 18, 1990), Customs held 

that electric and gas water heaters imported 

from Mexico were a product of Mexico. The 

Mexican manufacturer fabricated the shell 

with rolled steel from the U.S. and then 

assembled the fabricated shell with other 

components of the water heater, many of 

which were of U.S. origin. This is very 

similar to the process used by Camus in this 

case. Camus uses U.S. originating sheet metal 

to fabricate many parts, such as the boiler 

shell, and then assembles U.S., Canadian, 

and (in the case of the DynaMax) French 

originating components to create the 

completed boilers. 

In HRL 561450 (April 14, 2000), a home 

espresso machine assembled in Italy from 

over 60 components from both Spain and 

Italy was considered to be a product of Italian 

origin. The assembly of the components was 

found to be a substantial transformation 

resulting in a new commercial product with 

a new name, character and use. Similarly, the 

assembly of the U.S., Canadian, and French 

components for the boilers involves at least 

50 components. The assembly results in an 

article with a new name, character and use 

from that of the individual components—a 

boiler. 

All three boilers undergo a substantial 

amount of work in Canada, from the 

fabrication of the sheet metal into 

components, the assembly of parts into 

subassemblies, and the final assembly— 

combining the subassemblies and the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2010 / Notices 65025 

remaining components into the finished 

boilers. The number of components, the least 

of which being 50, is a meaningful assembly 

of individual components into the finished 

boilers. Although some of the more 

expensive parts are not of Canadian origin, 

no one part could function or run the boiler 

without the others. 

Therefore, based on the totality of the 

circumstances in this case, we find that the 

Canadian processing results in a substantial 

transformation of the components and that 

the DynaFlame, DynaForce, and DynaMax 

boilers should be considered products of 

Canada for the purpose of U.S. Government 

procurement. 

HOLDING: 

Based on the facts of this case, the country 

of origin of the Camus DynaFlame, 

DynaForce, and DynaMax heating boilers is 

Canada for purposes of U.S. Government 

procurement. 

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 

Office of Regulations and Rulings 

Office of International Trade 

[FR Doc. 2010–26649 Filed 10–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

[USCG–2010–0925] 

National Offshore Safety Advisory 

Committee 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The National Offshore Safety 

Advisory Committee (NOSAC) will meet 

to discuss items related to safety of 

operations and other matters affecting 

the oil and gas offshore industry. The 

purpose of this meeting is to review and 

discuss reports and recommendations 

received from the various NOSAC 

subcommittees. The Committee will 

then use this information to formulate 

recommendations to the agency. This 

meeting will be open to the public. 

DATES: The meeting will take place on 

Tuesday, November 9, 2010, from 9 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m. CST. This meeting may 

close early if all business is finished. 

Written material and requests to make 

oral presentations should reach the 

Coast Guard on or before October 25, 

2010. Requests to have a copy of your 

material distributed to each member of 

the committee should reach the Coast 

Guard on or before October 25, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: The Committee will meet at 

the Crowne Plaza Houston Northpoint, 

Grand Ballroom 1&2, 425 Sam Houston 

Parkway East, Houston, TX 77060, Tel. 

(281) 445–9000, on November 9, 2010. 

Public participation is welcome and 

members of the public wishing to 

participate may contact Commander 

P.W. Clark at 202–372–1410. Written 

comments should be sent to 

Commander P.W. Clark, Designated 

Federal Officer of NOSAC, Commandant 

(CG–5222), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 

Second Street, SW, Stop 7126, 

Washington, DC 20593–0001; or by fax 

to 202–372 1926, at least 15 days prior 

to the meeting. This notice is available 

in our online docket, USCG–2010–0925, 

at http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Commander P.W. Clark, Designated 

Federal Officer (DFO) of NOSAC, or Mr. 

Kevin Pekarek, Assistant Designated 

Federal Officer (ADFO), telephone 202– 

372–1386, fax 202–372–1926. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of 

this meeting is given under the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 

U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92–463). NOSAC 

provides advice and makes 

recommendations to the Coast Guard on 

safety and other concerns affecting the 

offshore oil and gas industry and assists 

the Coast Guard in formulating U.S. 

positions for discussion and 

presentation at the International 

Maritime Organization (IMO). 

Agenda of Meeting 

The agenda for the November 9, 2010, 

Committee meeting is as follows: 

(1) Roll call of committee members. 

(2) Approval of minutes from the 

September 29, 2010, meeting. 

(3) Presentation and discussion of 

reports, recommendations from the 

subcommittees on: 

(a) Medical Evacuation of Injured 

Divers. 

(b) Marine Portable Quarters. 

(4) An update on the NOSAC 

recommendations received by the Coast 

Guard and their status. 

(5) The Bureau of Ocean Energy, 

Management, Regulation and 

Enforcement (BOEMRE) organizational 

and regulatory update. 

(6) A presentation on the 

DEEPWATER HORIZON ongoing 

Investigation. 

(7) An update on current Coast Guard 

regulatory initiatives. 

(8) An update on Standards, Training, 

Certification & Watch keeping (STCW) 

involving U.S. vessels operating in 

foreign waters and the use of non-U.S. 

citizens for their manning purposes. 

(9) International Maritime 

Organization (IMO) Updates concerning 

what regulations have been released or 

will be released soon that may be of 

interest to NOSAC. 

(10) Period for public comment. 

Procedural 

The DFO will use the following 

procedures to facilitate the meeting. 

(1) The meeting is open to the public. 

(2) Persons desiring to present 

statements at the meeting are 

encouraged to notify the DFO listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section above before October 25, 2010. 

(3) The DFO will make every effort to 

accommodate all persons who wish to 

participate, but admission will be 

subject to availability of space in the 

meeting room. The meeting may adjourn 

early if scheduled speakers complete 

their statements or questions in less 

time than is scheduled for the meeting. 

(4) An individual, whether speaking 

in a personal or a representative 

capacity on behalf of an organization, 

will be limited to a three-minute 

statement and scheduled on a firstcome, first-served basis. If a large 

number of persons register to present 

comments, this amount of time may be 

shortened to provide all registered 

persons an opportunity to present their 

comments. 

(4) Any speaker prevented by time 

constraints from speaking will be 

encouraged to submit written remarks, 

which will be made part of the record. 

(5) For information on facilities or 

services for individuals with disabilities 

or to request assistance at the meeting, 

please contact the person listed in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section above before October 25, 2010. 

(6) The meeting will be recorded by 

a court reporter. A transcript of the 

meeting and any material presented at 

the meeting will be made available 

through the fido.gov Web site discussed 

in the MINUTES section below. 

(7) The meeting is designed to invite 

public views and gather information on 

relevant topics being discussed. 

However, the DFO, ADFO, and 

Committee members may ask questions 

to clarify a statement. 

Minutes 

Minutes from the meeting will be 

available for the public review and 

copying 30 days following the meeting 

and can be accessed from the fido.gov 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES