68284 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 220 / Friday, November 14, 2014 / Notices 

2014. This process is conducted in 

accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and/or 

suggestions regarding the item(s) 

contained in this notice, especially 

regarding the estimated public burden 

and associated response time, must be 

directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer 

via email at oira_submission@

omb.eop.gov. Comments may also be 

submitted via fax at (202) 395–5806. All 

submissions received must include the 

agency name and the OMB Control 

Number 1615–0090. 

You may wish to consider limiting the 

amount of personal information that you 

provide in any voluntary submission 

you make. For additional information 

please read the Privacy Act notice that 

is available via the link in the footer of 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments: 

Note: The address listed in this notice 

should only be used to submit comments 

concerning this information collection. 

Please do not submit requests for individual 

case status inquiries to this address. If you 

are seeking information about the status of 

your individual case, please check ‘‘My Case 

Status’’ online at: https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/ 

Dashboard.do, or call the USCIS National 

Customer Service Center at 1–800–375–5283. 

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 

agency’s 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 

Request: Extension, Without Change, of 

a Currently Approved Collection. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 

Application for Status as a Temporary 

Resident under Section 245A of the 

INA. 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of the DHS 

sponsoring the collection: I–687; I– 

687WS; USCIS. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: Individuals or 

households. The information collection 

on Form I–687 is required to verify the 

applicant’s eligibility for temporary 

status, and if the applicant is deemed 

eligible, to grant the benefit sought. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: The estimated total number of 

respondents for the information 

collection I–687 and I–687WS combined 

is 30 and the estimated hour burden per 

response is 1.167 hours. For the 

biometric collection that is a part of this 

information collection, the estimated 

total number of respondents is 30 and 

the estimated hour per response is 1.167 

hours. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: The total estimated burden 

hour associated with this information 

collection is 70 hours. 

If you need a copy of the information 

collection instrument with 

supplementary documents, or need 

additional information, please visit 

http://www.regulations.gov. We may 

also be contacted at: USCIS, Office of 

Policy and Strategy, Regulatory 

Coordination Division, 20 

Massachusetts Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20529–2134; 

Telephone 202–272–8377. 

Dated: November 4, 2014. 

Laura Dawkins, 

Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 

Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services, Department of 

Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26925 Filed 11–13–14; 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 Outdoor 

Unit 

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 Outdoor Units used in HVAC 

systems. Based upon the facts 

presented, CBP has concluded in the 

final determination that the U.S. is the 

country of origin of the Outdoor Units 

for purposes of U.S. Government 

procurement and country of origin 

marking. 

DATES: The final determination was 

issued on November 7, 2014. 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 

December 15, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen S. Greene, Valuation and Special 

Programs Branch: (202) 325–0041. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that on November 7, 2014, 

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 

Outdoor Units, which may be offered to 

the U.S. Government under an 

undesignated government procurement 

contract. This final determination, in 

HQ H248850, was issued at the request 

of Mitsubishi Electric US Inc., 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 

Outdoor Units were substantially 

transformed in the U.S. such that the 

U.S. is the country of origin of the 

Outdoor Units for purposes of U.S. 

Government procurement and country 

of origin marking. 

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: November 7, 2014. 

Glen E. Vereb, 

Acting Executive Director, Regulations and 

Rulings, Office of International Trade. 

Attachment 

HQ H248850 

November 7, 2014 

OT:RR:CTF:VS H248850 KSG 

Stuart P. Seidel, Esq. 

Baker & McKenzie LLP 

815 Connecticut Avenue NW. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 220 / Friday, November 14, 2014 / Notices 68285 

Washington, DC 20006–4078 

RE: Government Procurement; Country of 

Origin of Outdoor Unit of CITY MULTI VRF 

System; substantial transformation 

Dear Mr. Seidel: 

This is in response to your letter dated 

December 13, 2013, and additional 

submission and information dated May 12 

and October 31, 2014, requesting a final 

determination on behalf of Mitsubishi 

Electric US, Inc. (‘‘Mitsubishi’’), pursuant to 

subpart B of part 177 of the U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 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. 

The final determination concerns the 

country of origin of an Outdoor Unit for a 

CITY MULTI Variable Refrigerant Flow 

(‘‘VRF’’) multi-split heating, ventilation and 

air conditioning system (‘‘HVAC System’’). 

We note that as a U.S. importer, Mitsubishi 

is a party-at-interest within the meaning of 19 

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

this final determination. A conference was 

held on this matter on April 8, 2014. 

FACTS: 

The HVAC System is comprised of 

Outdoor Units; Indoor Units; Branch Circuit 

(BC) Controllers; system controllers; and 

vertical air handlers. This final determination 

pertains to the Outdoor Units of the system. 

You listed various types of Outdoor Units, 

including the R2 Series, the Y Series, the H2i 

hyper–Heat Series, the WY Series, and the 

WR2 Series. 

In the U.S., the base from Japan is 

unpacked. The base pan contains the 

compressor and accumulator. An appropriate 

flat heat exchanger (HEX) with aluminum 

fins and copper tubing and copper headers is 

selected for the particular Outdoor Unit and 

the HEX is moved with a mechanical lift to 

coil bending equipment. The HEX is placed 

in coil bending equipment to form the coil 

with two 90 degree bends. The HEX is then 

removed from the bender and positioned on 

the base pan. Some Outdoor Units utilize two 

coils and each must be formed before being 

placed on the unit base pan. The refrigerant 

tubing from the headers of the HEX is 

connected to the refrigerant tubing on the 

unit base connecting compressors, reversing 

valves, the accumulator and other 

components depending on the model type. 

The tubing is filled with nitrogen. The six to 

ten connections between the refrigerant 

tubing from the headers on the HEX are 

brazed to the refrigerant tubing on the base 

unit. The unit is moved into a leak test 

chamber to test for leaks. Photographs which 

show the complex machinery and segments 

involved in the HEX bending and brazing 

processes were submitted. 

Although there are various types of 

Outdoor Units, you state that in the U.S., the 

fan motor, fan, fan-motor mount, unit top 

panel, fan orifice, and fan guard cover are 

installed onto the unit base. The vacuum 

pump is also attached to the unit process 

tube. Next, an appropriate control box is 

placed into the programming fixture. The 

compressor, outdoor fan motor, reversing 

valve, pressure switches and sensors are 

wired to the appropriate location in the 

control box. Software is loaded onto the 

printed circuit board (PCB) which separates 

the PCB specification for Y Series and R2 

Series Outdoor Units. It is stated that the 

software used for the Outdoor Unit was 

developed in the U.S. 

Various tests are performed to ensure the 

Outdoor Unit functions. You have provided 

the costs of the various materials and labor 

used to produce the Outdoor Units in Japan 

and the U.S. 

The mechanical contractor brings all the 

components of the system together to install 

them as laid out by the design engineer. The 

Outdoor Unit itself is ground or roof 

mounted and is connected to the BC 

Controller. 

ISSUE: 

What is the country of origin of the 

Outdoor Unit for U.S. Government 

procurement and country of origin marking. 

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 CFR 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 Acquisition Regulations. 

See 19 CFR 177.21. In this regard, CBP 

recognizes that the Federal Acquisition 

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 Acquisition 

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 name, character, or use 

distinct from that of the article or articles 

from which it was transformed. 

48 CFR 25.003. 

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 the degree of skill required 

during the manufacturing process may be 

relevant when determining whether a 

substantial transformation has occurred. No 

one factor is determinative. The same 

standard is applicable to determinations of 

the country of origin for marking purposes 

under 19 U.S.C. 1304. 

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 

(CIT 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. In Carlson 

Furniture Industries v. United States, 65 

Cust. Ct 474 (1970), the U.S. Customs Court 

(predecessor to the U.S. Court of 

International Trade), held that the assembly 

of finished and unfinished chair parts into 

finished chairs in the U.S. was a substantial 

transformation. The court did acknowledge 

that more than the assembly of chairs took 

place; the legs were cut to length and in some 

cases, the seats were upholstered. 

It is your position that the country of origin 

of the Outdoor Unit is the U.S. because the 

final assembly in the U.S. is complex. 

In New York Ruling Letter (NYRL) 808608 

dated April 13, 1995, Customs considered 

whether imported heat exchanger cores were 

required to be individually marked with their 

country of origin if they were later processed 

in the U.S. by a U.S. manufacturer. The heat 

exchanger core was a heat exchanger 

subassembly constructed of 25 steel tubes 

with attached aluminum fins. The tubes were 

evacuated and filled with a small amount of 

water which made them into ‘‘heat pipes’’ (a 

two-phase heat transfer system). The final 

subassembly had a protective aluminum 

housing that surrounded the fins. After 

importation into the U.S., two fans, a wire 

harness and a gasket were installed on the 

heat exchanger core. The completed unit was 

then marketed as a cabinet cooler. It was 

determined that the imported heat exchanger 

cores were substantially transformed as a 

result of the U.S. processing, and therefore 

the U.S. manufacturer was the ultimate 

purchaser under 19 CFR 134.35. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

68286 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 220 / Friday, November 14, 2014 / Notices 

We find that the processing in the U.S. of 

the Outdoor Unit is similar to the processes 

considered in NYRL 808608. Similar to 

NYRL 808608, the HEX is bent and 

assembled with the fan motor and vacuum 

pump to complete the Outdoor Unit. 

Substantial processing is performed in the 

U.S., including bending of the HEX, brazing 

of the various connections, and installation 

of the control box which includes software 

developed in the U.S. to complete the 

Outdoor Unit. We find that these are complex 

operations requiring skilled workers. Based 

on the totality of the circumstances, we find 

that the Outdoor Units are substantially 

transformed as a result of the processing in 

the U.S. Accordingly, we find that the 

Outdoor Unit may be considered a product 

of the U.S. for purposes of U.S. Government 

procurement. 

Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), provides that 

unless excepted, every article of foreign 

origin imported into the U.S. shall be marked 

in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly, 

and permanently as the nature of the article 

(or its container) will permit, in such a 

manner as to indicate to the ultimate 

purchaser in the U.S. the English name of the 

country of origin of the article. Congressional 

intent in enacting 19 U.S.C. 1304 was ‘‘that 

the ultimate purchaser should be able to 

know by an inspection of the marking on the 

imported goods the country of which the 

goods is the product. The evident purpose is 

to mark the goods so that at the time of 

purchase the ultimate purchaser may, by 

knowing where the goods were produced, be 

able to buy or refuse to buy them, if such 

marking should influence his will.’’ United 

States v. Friedlaender & Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 297 

at 302; C.A.D. 104 (1940). 

Part 134, Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 

134), implements the country of origin 

marking requirements and the exceptions of 

19 U.S.C. 1304. Section 134.1(b), Customs 

Regulations (19 CFR 134.1(b)), defines 

‘‘country of origin’’ as the country of 

manufacture, production or growth of any 

article of foreign origin entering the U.S. 

Further work or material added to an article 

in another country must effect a substantial 

transformation in order to render such other 

country the ‘‘country of origin’’ within the 

meaning of the marking laws and regulations. 

The case of United States v. Gibson-Thomsen 

Co., Inc., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 (C.A.D. 98) (1940), 

provides that an article used in manufacture 

which results in an article having a name, 

character or use differing from that of the 

constituent article will be considered 

substantially transformed. In such 

circumstances the U.S. manufacturer is the 

ultimate purchaser. The imported article is 

excepted from individual marking and only 

the outermost container is required to be 

marked. See 19 CFR 134.35. 

As Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. will be 

considered the ultimate purchaser of the 

Outdoor Units, the imported components 

used in the manufacture of the Outdoor Units 

may be excepted from country of origin 

marking, provided their outer containers in 

which they are imported are marked with 

their country of origin pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

1304(a)(3)(D). 

HOLDING: 

Based on the facts provided, the Outdoor 

Unit is considered a product of the U.S. for 

U.S. Government procurement purposes, and 

Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. will be 

considered the ultimate purchaser of the 

Outdoor Unit. 

Notice of this final determination will be 

given in the Federal Register, as required by 

19 CFR 177.29. Any party-at-interest other 

than the party which requested this final 

determination may request, pursuant to 19 

CFR 177.31, that CBP reexamine the matter 

a new and issue a new final determination. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 177.30, any party-atinterest 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, 

Glen E. Vereb 

Acting Executive Director, Regulations and 

Rulings Office of International Trade 

[FR Doc. 2014–26955 Filed 11–13–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–5750–N–46] 

Federal Property Suitable as Facilities 

To Assist the Homeless 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Community Planning and 

Development, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This Notice identifies 

unutilized, underutilized, excess, and 

surplus Federal property reviewed by 

HUD for suitability for use to assist the 

homeless. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Juanita Perry, Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, 451 Seventh 

Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 

20410; telephone (202) 402–3970; TTY 

number for the hearing- and speechimpaired (202) 708–2565 (these 

telephone numbers are not toll-free), or 

call the toll-free Title V information line 

at 800–927–7588. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and 

section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney 

Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 

11411), as amended, HUD is publishing 

this Notice to identify Federal buildings 

and other real property that HUD has 

reviewed for suitability for use to assist 

the homeless. The properties were 

reviewed using information provided to 

HUD by Federal landholding agencies 

regarding unutilized and underutilized 

buildings and real property controlled 

by such agencies or by GSA regarding 

its inventory of excess or surplus 

Federal property. This Notice is also 

published in order to comply with the 

December 12, 1988 Court Order in 

National Coalition for the Homeless v. 

Veterans Administration, No. 88–2503– 

OG (D.D.C.). 

Properties reviewed are listed in this 

Notice according to the following 

categories: Suitable/available, suitable/

unavailable, and suitable/to be excess, 

and unsuitable. The properties listed in 

the three suitable categories have been 

reviewed by the landholding agencies, 

and each agency has transmitted to 

HUD: (1) Its intention to make the 

property available for use to assist the 

homeless, (2) its intention to declare the 

property excess to the agency’s needs, or 

(3) a statement of the reasons that the 

property cannot be declared excess or 

made available for use as facilities to 

assist the homeless. 

Properties listed as suitable/available 

will be available exclusively for 

homeless use for a period of 60 days 

from the date of this Notice. Where 

property is described as for ‘‘off-site use 

only’’ recipients of the property will be 

required to relocate the building to their 

own site at their own expense. 

Homeless assistance providers 

interested in any such property should 

send a written expression of interest to 

HHS, addressed to Theresa Ritta, Ms. 

Theresa M. Ritta, Chief Real Property 

Branch, the Department of Health and 

Human Services, Room 5B–17, 

Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, 

Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443–6672 

(This is not a toll-free number.) HHS 

will mail to the interested provider an 

application packet, which will include 

instructions for completing the 

application. In order to maximize the 

opportunity to utilize a suitable 

property, providers should submit their 

written expressions of interest as soon 

as possible. For complete details 

concerning the processing of 

applications, the reader is encouraged to 

refer to the interim rule governing this 

program, 24 CFR part 581. 

For properties listed as suitable/to be 

excess, that property may, if 

subsequently accepted as excess by 

GSA, be made available for use by the 

homeless in accordance with applicable 

law, subject to screening for other 

Federal use. At the appropriate time, 

HUD will publish the property in a 

Notice showing it as either suitable/

available or suitable/unavailable. 

For properties listed as suitable/

unavailable, the landholding agency has 

decided that the property cannot be 

declared excess or made available for 

use to assist the homeless, and the 

property will not be available. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES