This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

14575 

Vol. 76, No. 52 

Thursday, March 17, 2011 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

19 CFR Parts 12, 102, 141, 144, 146, 

and 163 

[CBP Dec. 11–09; USCBP–2005–0009] 

RIN 1515–AD57 (Formerly RIN 1505–AB60) 

Country of Origin of Textile and 

Apparel Products 

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, Department of Homeland 

Security; Department of the Treasury. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document adopts as a 

final rule, with some changes, interim 

amendments to title 19 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) to revise, 

update, and consolidate the Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

regulations relating to the country of 

origin of textile and apparel products. 

The regulatory amendments adopted as 

a final rule in this document reflect 

changes brought about, in part, by the 

expiration on January 1, 2005, of the 

Agreement on Textiles and Clothing 

(‘‘ATC’’) and the resulting elimination of 

quotas on the entry of textile and 

apparel products from World Trade 

Organization (‘‘WTO’’) members. The 

primary regulatory change consists of 

the elimination of the requirement that 

a textile declaration be submitted for all 

importations of textile and apparel 

products. In addition, to improve the 

quality of reporting of the identity of the 

manufacturer of imported textile and 

apparel products, this document adopts 

as a final rule an amendment requiring 

importers to identify the manufacturer 

of such products through a 

manufacturer identification code 

(‘‘MID’’). 

DATES: Final rule effective March 17, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Operational aspects: Roberts Abels, 

Textile Operations, Office of 

International Trade, (202) 863–6503. 

Legal aspects: Cynthia Reese, Tariff 

Classification and Marking Branch, 

Office of International Trade, (202) 325– 

0046. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On January 1, 2005, the Agreement on 

Textiles and Clothing (‘‘ATC’’) expired. 

The ATC was the successor agreement 

to the Multifiber Arrangement 

Regarding International Trade in 

Textiles (‘‘MFA’’) which governed 

international trade in textiles and 

apparel through the use of quantitative 

restrictions. The ATC provided for the 

integration of textiles and clothing into 

the General Agreement on Tariffs and 

Trade (‘‘GATT’’) regime over a 10-year 

transition period. With the conclusion 

of the 10-year period, the integration 

was complete and the ATC thus 

expired. As of January 1, 2005, textile 

and apparel products of World Trade 

Organization members are no longer 

subject to quantitative restrictions for 

entry of such products into the United 

States. 

By letter dated February 11, 2005, the 

Chairman of CITA requested that CBP 

review the regulations relating to the 

country of origin of textile and apparel 

products set forth in § 12.130 of the CBP 

regulations (19 CFR 12.130) and 

recommend appropriate changes in light 

of the conclusion of the 10-year 

transition period for the integration of 

the textile and apparel sector into GATT 

1994 to ensure ongoing enforcement of 

trade in textiles and apparel. By letter 

dated February 23, 2005, CBP 

responded to CITA’s request. CITA 

agreed by letter dated May 4, 2005, that 

§ 12.130 should be amended at this time 

and responded to the recommendations 

offered by CBP in response to CITA’s 

solicitation of February 11, 2005. By 

letter dated July 28, 2005, the 

Department of the Treasury, pursuant to 

the authority retained by the 

Department of the Treasury over the 

customs revenue functions defined in 

the Homeland Security Act, and 

pursuant to section 204 of the 

Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended, as 

that authority is delegated by Executive 

Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, and 

Executive Order 12475 of May 9, 1984, 

and in accordance with the policy 

guidance, recommendation and 

direction provided by the Chairman of 

CITA in his letter of May 4, 2005, 

authorized and directed the Department 

of Homeland Security to promulgate, as 

immediately effective regulations, 

amendments to the CBP regulations 

regarding the country of origin of 

textiles and textile products, including 

elimination of the textile declaration 

and requiring that importers provide the 

identity of the manufacturer. 

Accordingly, on October 5, 2005, CBP 

published CBP Dec. 05–32 in the 

Federal Register (70 FR 58009) setting 

forth interim amendments to the CBP 

regulations relating to the country of 

origin of textile and apparel products. In 

addition to revising and updating the 

provisions of § 12.130, CBP Dec. 05–32 

re-designated § 12.130 as new §§ 102.22 

and 102.23(b) and (c) to consolidate the 

rules of origin for textiles and apparel 

products for all countries in Part 102 of 

the CBP regulations. Similarly, 

§§ 12.131 and 12.132, which set forth 

certain procedural matters regarding the 

entry of textile and apparel products, 

were also revised and updated and, as 

part of the consolidation of the textile 

regulations, re-designated as new 

§§ 102.24 and 102.25, respectively. The 

interim amendments were effective on 

the date that the interim rule was 

published in the Federal Register 

(October 5, 2005). For a more 

comprehensive discussion of these 

interim regulatory amendments, please 

see CBP Dec. 05–32. 

One of the principal regulatory 

changes effected by CBP Dec. 05–32 was 

the elimination of the requirement that 

a textile declaration accompany 

importations of textile and apparel 

products. The interim rule document 

stated that this will reduce the 

paperwork burden on importers and is 

consistent with the movement toward 

paperless entries. 

In addition, the interim amendments 

included a requirement that importers 

of textile and apparel products identify 

on CBP Form 3461 (Entry/Immediate 

Delivery) and CBP Form 7501 (Entry 

Summary), and in all electronic data 

submissions that require identification 

of the manufacturer, the manufacturer of 

such products through a manufacturer 

identification code (MID) constructed 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
14576 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

from the name and address of the entity 

performing the origin-conferring 

operations. CBP Dec. 05–32 stated that 

this requirement resulted from guidance 

provided by CITA and the Department 

of the Treasury, and that it applied to all 

entries of textile or apparel products 

listed in § 102.21(b)(5) of the CBP 

regulations. The interim rule document 

explained that this requirement will 

assist CBP in verifying the origin of 

imported textile and apparel products, 

thereby enabling CBP to better enforce 

trade in textile and apparel products. 

CBP Dec. 05–32 noted that importers 

of all goods are required to provide 

either a manufacturer or shipper 

identification code at the time of entry. 

The MID requirement for textile or 

apparel goods described above differs 

from the identification code required for 

all products in that the MID must 

identify the manufacturer (i.e., the 

entity performing the origin-conferring 

operations with respect to the imported 

product). 

Although the interim regulatory 

amendments were promulgated without 

prior public notice and comment 

procedures and took effect on October 5, 

2005, CBP Dec. 05–32 provided for the 

submission of public comments which 

would be considered before adoption of 

the interim regulations as a final rule, 

and the prescribed public comment 

period closed on December 5, 2005. A 

discussion of the comments received by 

CBP is set forth below. 

Discussion of Comments 

A total of 26 commenters responded 

to the solicitation of public comments 

on the interim regulations set forth in 

CBP Dec. 05–32. Nearly all of the 

commenters supported the elimination 

of the textile declaration, although 24 of 

the commenters expressed opposition to 

or raised concerns or questions 

regarding the interim rule’s requirement 

that entries of textile and apparel goods 

identify the manufacturer of the goods 

through a manufacturer identification 

code (MID). The comments are 

discussed below. 

Comment: 

Thirteen of the commenters objected 

to the fact that the interim rule became 

effective immediately upon publication 

in the Federal Register and, as a result, 

failed to provide any advance notice to 

the trade community of the change in 

the MID requirement for textile and 

apparel products. These commenters 

emphasized that because a change of 

this significance has impacts on many 

levels of trade, prior notice is necessary 

to afford importers and other supply 

chain participants sufficient time to 

fully understand the new MID 

requirement and to establish procedures 

to meet the requirement. One 

commenter stated that the adoption of 

the interim rule without a ‘‘phase-in’’ 

period is not in conformity with the 

principle of ‘‘informed compliance’’ and 

that members of the trade community 

believe that business certainty is 

imperative for good trade compliance. 

CBP’s Response: 

CBP fully understands the concerns 

expressed by the commenters regarding 

the interim rule’s immediate effective 

date. It was in response to these 

concerns that CBP decided to delay 

enforcement of the new requirement, as 

discussed in more detail below. CBP 

will continue to work with the trade 

community to ensure that this 

regulatory change results in as little 

disruption to the flow of legitimate trade 

as possible. 

Comment: 

Although several commenters noted 

that CBP delayed enforcement of the 

new MID requirement until November 

18, 2005, ten commenters urged that 

CBP delay implementation and/or 

enforcement of the revised MID 

requirement beyond that date to allow 

importers and other trade participants 

adequate time to track the required MID 

information and incorporate it into their 

logistic systems. Four commenters 

recommended a six-month phase-in 

period, two commenters suggested a 

delay of 90 days in enforcing the new 

MID requirement, one commenter 

suggested a one-year delay (until 

October 5, 2006) in implementing and 

enforcing the requirement, and one 

commenter recommended a delay in 

enforcement until the final rule is 

published. Two other commenters 

stated that the final rule in regard to the 

MID requirement should provide the 

public with advance notice of any 

changes. 

CBP’s Response: 

The interim regulations took effect on 

the date of publication of CBP Dec. 05– 

32 (October 5, 2005). However, 

cognizant of the challenges facing some 

importers in complying with the new 

MID requirement, CBP advised the 

importing community by administrative 

notice (TBT–05–029 dated October 20, 

2005) posted on the cbp.gov Web site 

that it was delaying enforcement of the 

requirement until November 18, 2005. 

CBP believed at that time that a further 

delay in the implementation and/or 

enforcement of the MID requirement 

was unwarranted. The requirement now 

has been in place for an extended period 

of time, and it appears that few 

importers are experiencing problems 

complying with the requirement. 

Regarding the request by several 

commenters for advance notice of any 

changes in the MID requirement effected 

by the final rule, CBP is making two 

changes to the MID requirement, as 

discussed later in this comment 

analysis. However, these changes limit 

the scope of the MID requirement and, 

therefore, reduce the burden on the 

importer. This final rule is effective 

upon publication in the Federal 

Register. 

Comment: 

One commenter stated that with 

respect to merchandise that was 

procured before the interim rule was 

published, importers were not on notice 

that the new MID would be required to 

make entry. Therefore, according to the 

commenter, it would be a violation of 

the Due Process Clause of the U.S. 

Constitution for CBP to penalize 

importers (or their customs brokers) for 

failing to present accurate MIDs when 

the merchandise was procured prior to 

publication of the interim rule. The 

commenter further suggested that CBP 

implement and publish a policy of nonenforcement with respect to this 

merchandise. 

CBP’s Response: 

As noted earlier in this comment 

discussion, CBP informed the importing 

community by administrative notice 

posted on the cbp.gov Web site that CBP 

was delaying enforcement of the new 

MID requirement until November 18, 

2005. With respect to imported textile or 

apparel goods that may have been 

purchased prior to October 5, 2005 (but 

were entered on or after November 18, 

2005), CBP believes that the nearly sixweek delay in enforcement afforded 

these importers sufficient time and 

notice to enable them to ascertain the 

identity of the manufacturers of their 

goods (if not already known) for 

purposes of constructing accurate MIDs 

in compliance with § 102.23(a). For this 

reason, CBP declines to implement a 

policy of non-enforcement with respect 

to such merchandise. However, in 

determining whether, or to what extent, 

penalties should be assessed in 

instances in which importers of textile 

or apparel goods fail to present accurate 

MIDs, CBP port directors will take into 

consideration the circumstances of each 

case, including the importer’s use of 

reasonable care in attempting to 

determine the information necessary to 

comply with the new MID requirement. 

Comment: 

One commenter stated that requiring 

the change in the MID requirement is a 

major rule change that should have been 

the subject of a notice of proposed 

rulemaking and pre-implementation 

comment in conformance with the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 14577 

mandates of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA). According to this 

commenter, the interim rule’s 

conclusion that the foreign affairs 

exception of the APA applies is 

incorrect (rendering the interim 

regulations null and void) for two main 

reasons. First, the notion that the new 

MID requirement is centrally aimed at 

enforcing textile restraint agreements 

with China is belied by the fact that the 

requirement applies to textile goods 

from all countries. Second, CBP’s 

authority to promulgate regulations 

relating to the country of origin of 

textile products derives from a 

delegation of congressional authority 

(section 334 of the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act) and is no longer within 

the discretion of the Executive Branch. 

CBP’s Response: 

CBP promulgated these regulations 

pursuant to section 204 of the 

Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended, 

and as directed by the Department of the 

Treasury. They were issued as 

‘‘immediately effective interim 

regulations’’ because they involve a 

foreign affairs function of the United 

States. 

Section 334 of the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act sets forth rules for 

determining the origin of textile 

products and authorizes the issuance of 

regulations to implement those rules. 

However, section 334(b) begins with the 

words ‘‘[e]xcept as otherwise provide for 

by statute’’ and proceeds to provide 

principles by which the origin of textile 

products is to be determined ‘‘for 

purposes of the customs laws and the 

administration of quantitative 

restrictions.’’ Section 204 of the 

Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended, is 

broader in scope than section 334 and 

provides for the issuance of regulations 

relevant to the enforcement of any 

textile agreement. 

The enactment of section 334 of the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act did not 

eliminate the President’s authority 

under section 204 of the Agricultural 

Act of 1956 to regulate the importation 

of textile products. 

Regarding the commenter’s reference 

to the textile restraint agreement with 

China, CBP notes that the United StatesChina Memorandum of Understanding 

dated November 8, 2005, has expired. 

However, CBP noted in the interim 

rule that ‘‘by improving the proper 

reporting of the country of origin of 

textile imports, these interim 

regulations [including the MID 

requirement] will facilitate enforcement 

and administration of the various 

bilateral and multilateral free trade 

agreements with which the United 

States is a party by helping to ensure 

that only those textile products that are 

entitled to trade benefits receive those 

benefits.’’ Textile and apparel products 

may receive preferential tariff treatment 

under the various free trade agreements 

(FTAs) as originating goods (i.e., goods 

that meet the applicable rules of origin) 

or, under certain FTAs, as nonoriginating goods that nevertheless 

qualify for preference under tariff 

preference levels (TPLs). TPLs 

negotiated by the President under 

certain FTAs limit the quantity of textile 

and apparel products that may receive 

preferential tariff treatment when they 

fail to qualify as originating goods under 

the applicable rules of origin. In view of 

the continuing proliferation of free trade 

agreements between the United States 

and numerous other countries around 

the world, CBP believes that it is 

entirely appropriate to apply the new 

MID requirement to textile and apparel 

products imported into the United 

States from all countries. 

Comment: 

Eleven commenters complained that 

the new MID requirement places an 

undue burden on importers and 

exporters because of: (1) Significantly 

increased paperwork and associated 

costs to importers in terms of the size 

(number of pages) of typical entries, 

especially in regard to consolidated 

shipments sourced from multiple 

manufacturers and multiple countries 

(requiring MID codes on a line-by-line 

basis); (2) increased paperwork and 

costs to collect, track, report, and store 

data for the first time relating to the 

actual manufacturer; (3) costs involved 

in reprogramming exporter and importer 

systems to capture manufacturer 

information; (4) additional costs to 

buyers and sellers when shipments are 

refused entry by CBP due to incorrect 

MID information; and (5) exorbitant 

costs and physical obstacles associated 

with segregating fungible goods that 

previously were commingled in 

inventory without reference to the 

manufacturer. One commenter alleged 

that the new MID requirement is more 

of a burden on importers than the textile 

declaration that was just eliminated. 

CBP’s Response: 

Based on discussions with the trade 

community and from a review of the 

textile declarations submitted over the 

years, CBP believes that most importers 

were aware of the name of the entity 

producing their goods and were 

providing this information to CBP prior 

to implementation of the new MID 

requirement. For these companies, there 

has been little, if any, additional 

expense or burden associated with 

complying with the new requirement. 

CBP understands that there are some 

companies that face challenges in 

complying with the new regulation. 

However, CBP worked closely with the 

trade community before implementing 

the interim regulations and believes that 

the elimination of the paper textile 

declaration, which was a required 

document for nearly all textile 

shipments to the United States, is a 

benefit to most firms. The elimination of 

the paper textile declaration has 

allowed importers to complete paperless 

entry filing, thereby facilitating trade in 

textiles and wearing apparel. CBP 

believes that the overall tradeoff 

between the elimination of the textile 

declaration and the initiation of the new 

MID requirement is of benefit to the 

majority of importers. CBP recognizes 

that expenditures may be necessary to 

comply with the new rule with respect 

to fungible goods that are commingled 

in inventory. But, consistent with 

common business practices, many 

companies already know the identity of 

their suppliers/producers and the 

quantity of products purchased from 

each for accounts payable purposes. 

Comment: 

Two commenters stated the new MID 

requirement for textile and apparel 

goods is having a severe and 

unjustifiable impact upon the ability of 

the EU and Swiss textile and apparel 

industries to sell their products into the 

U.S. market. According to these 

commenters, this unexpected new 

requirement is creating significant 

problems, and a growing number of 

companies are having their products 

blocked at Customs, thus imposing huge 

costs on them and placing several on the 

verge of bankruptcy through their 

inability to deliver products on time to 

their U.S. customers. 

CBP’s Response: 

Although the interim regulations were 

immediately effective, CBP recognized 

the challenges facing some importers in 

complying with the new regulations and 

accordingly delayed enforcement to 

permit companies to fully implement 

the requirements. However, as 

previously indicated, CBP no longer 

requires the submission of a paper 

textile declaration that was traditionally 

completed by the manufacturer. The 

elimination of the textile declaration 

should expedite the processing of textile 

entries. The textile declaration required 

information on manufacturing processes 

that could only be obtained by 

contacting the manufacturer. CBP 

believes that providing the MID 

constructed from the name and address 

of the manufacturer is a less intrusive 

and onerous undertaking than 

describing the production process 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
14578 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

which was a requirement of the textile 

declaration. 

Comment: 

Two commenters questioned whether 

the new MID requirement is in 

conformity with ‘‘WTO common 

practice’’ because the requirement 

appears to be: (1) Stricter and more 

cumbersome than the previous one that 

regulated textile and apparel imports 

during the Multi Fiber Arrangement 

(MFA) and the subsequent WTO 

Agreement on Textile and Clothing 

(ATC); and (2) inapplicable to a few 

country suppliers who have privileged 

relations with the U.S. A third 

commenter stated that the new 

requirement may be in contradiction to 

the goals of Article 2 of the WTO 

Agreement on rules of origin, such as 

‘‘not to create unnecessary obstacles to 

trade.’’ This commenter asked whether 

certain free trade partners of the U.S. are 

exempt from the new MID requirement. 

CBP’s Response: 

CBP Form 3461 (Entry/Immediate 

Delivery) and CBP Form 7501 (Entry 

Summary) require importers of all goods 

(textile and non-textile products) to 

provide a MID at the time of entry in 

blocks 26 and 13, respectively. Prior to 

publication of the interim amendments, 

importers of all goods had the option of 

constructing the MID from the name and 

address of the manufacturer, shipper or 

exporter. However, effective October 5, 

2005, importers of textile and apparel 

products have been required to 

construct the MID from the 

manufacturer only, and not from the 

exporter or shipper (unless that entity is 

also the manufacturer). Prior to this 

change, many importers were already 

constructing the MID from the name and 

address of the manufacturer. Only in 

cases in which importers of textile 

products were constructing the MID 

from the shipper or exporter (who was 

not also the manufacturer) have 

importers been required to provide a 

different MID. The MID requirement for 

textile and apparel goods was created, 

in part, to facilitate trade into the United 

States by compensating for the 

elimination of the paper textile 

declaration. 

Comment: 

A commenter stated that the new MID 

requirement will generate fewer 

paperless entries, contrary to CBP’s 

stated goal of a paperless environment. 

Another commenter stated that it was 

his understanding that the Automated 

Invoice Interface (AII) module of ACS/ 

ABI is capable of only handling one 

MID per commercial invoice. This 

commenter also indicated that it is his 

understanding that the AII module is 

mandatory for Remote Location Filing 

(RLF), and that, under the new MID 

requirement, an entry will need to show 

as many MIDs as there are actual 

manufacturers of the goods in the 

shipment. The commenter asked 

whether ‘‘CBP is capable of accepting 

multiple MID codes per invoice for AII/ 

RLF purposes,’’ and, if the answer is no, 

whether the new requirement is 

defeating the push toward automation. 

CBP’s Response: 

The ‘‘AII’’ module, utilized for 

electronic invoices, is capable of 

handling more than one MID per 

invoice. For example, if there are three 

lines on an invoice, each line could be 

transmitted separately with a different 

MID for each. If a broker needs 

assistance with the AII module, he or 

she should contact their ABI Client 

Representative. Also, it should be noted 

that the AII module is separate from the 

line data transmitted for purposes of 

CBP Forms 3461 and 7501. The RLF 

program allows for multiple line entries 

and a broker would be able to transmit 

a different MID for each line on the 

entry/entry summary. 

Comment: 

Two commenters addressed whether 

the information collections set forth in 

this interim rule meet the requirements 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3507). One commenter 

contended that the estimates of the 

annual burden associated with these 

information collections, as published in 

the Federal Register, greatly understate 

the additional level of burden and cost 

placed on companies as a result of this 

interim rule. The second commenter 

stated that because the interim rule 

‘‘results in a tremendous increased 

burden on importers with regard to the 

quantity and content of the information 

to be collected,’’ the rule violates the 

basic principles of the Act. 

CBP’s Response: 

CBP consulted closely with many 

parties before the issuance of this 

regulation. Although some importers 

may find it necessary to increase their 

data collections, CBP believes that those 

importers who already had knowledge 

of the manufacturer of their goods will 

have a significantly-reduced 

information collection burden due to 

the elimination of the textile 

declaration. In estimating the annual 

burden associated with the collection of 

information set forth in the interim rule, 

CBP took into account that many U.S. 

importers of textile and apparel 

products already knew the name and 

address of the entity performing the 

origin-conferring operations with 

respect to their goods. 

Comment: 

Eight commenters provided examples 

of situations in which they allege it will 

be impossible or extremely difficult for 

importers of textile and apparel goods to 

comply with the requirement that 

entries identify the entity that 

performed the origin-conferring 

operations through a MID. Several of 

these commenters indicated that 

requiring the identification of the 

manufacturer in these situations in 

effect imposes a barrier to trade. The 

examples provided include: 

a. Cross-border trade, especially 

between the U.S. and Canada, involving 

re-imports/re-exports, such as when 

clothing from the U.S. is cleaned, 

repaired, or altered in Canada and 

returned to the U.S. (or vice-versa). 

Cross-border trade in which a company 

is three or four steps removed from the 

importer of the goods into the NAFTA 

territory and is unable to determine the 

manufacturer due to the commingling of 

the goods in inventory by parties in the 

chain of commerce both within and 

outside the NAFTA territory; 

b. Fungible goods, such as parts and 

trimmings, that are procured from 

multiple manufacturers and are 

commingled in inventory without 

reference to the manufacturer; 

c. Fabric purchased from a 

middleman who has no information on 

the identity of the weaver of the fabric 

for a myriad of reasons such as the 

unavailability of records due to the 

passage of time or because the 

manufacturer has gone out of business; 

d. Mail orders of textile and apparel 

items by U.S. retail customers; 

e. Textile products sourced from 

vendors who subcontract to a ‘‘cottage 

industry,’’ primarily involving 

individuals working from their homes; 

f. Textile and apparel goods entered 

into a bonded warehouse or foreign 

trade zone and not intended to be sold 

or used in the U.S.; 

g. Clothing contributed for charitable 

purposes from outside the U.S.; and 

h. Textile and apparel articles 

imported as sets. 

CBP’s Response: 

For the most part, U.S. importers 

should be aware of their supply chain 

and, therefore, should know the identity 

of the manufacturer of their goods. If an 

agent or seller is unwilling to provide 

the importer with the identity of the 

manufacturer, the importer should 

question the security of that transaction 

and/or the legality of the production 

process. However, CBP recognizes that 

there may be instances in which the 

importer, despite the use of reasonable 

care, is unable to determine the identity 

of the entity that performed the originconferring operations with respect to 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 14579 

certain imported goods. Under these 

circumstances, importers must be able 

to demonstrate to the CBP port director 

the use of reasonable care in attempting 

to determine the information required to 

comply with the MID regulation. 

Although the importer technically may 

be in violation of § 102.23(a) for not 

providing the required MID in these rare 

instances, CBP port directors will take 

into account the importer’s use of 

reasonable care in determining whether 

to assess penalties. 

The following examples are offered to 

provide guidance as to when a port 

director may consider not pursuing 

penalties: 

• Antique Persian carpets are 

imported from a European dealer. The 

importer has a statement from the dealer 

claiming that the dealer has no idea who 

produced each carpet. 

• Six one-of-a-kind dresses purchased 

at retail at a South American boutique 

are imported into the United States. The 

importer offers correspondence showing 

that the boutique owner does not know 

the entities that produced the 6 dresses 

being imported. 

• An importer purchases vintage 

World War II uniforms on a trip to 

Eastern Europe. Most of the uniforms 

were surplus with no visible signs of 

wear and, therefore, not eligible for 

entry as worn clothing under heading 

6309, HTSUS. The importer, due in part 

to historical interest, asks the shop 

owner for the identity of the 

manufacturer. The shop owner is unable 

to provide any information relating to 

the production of the uniforms, even 

after checking various records, 

including relevant invoices, packing 

slips, and shipping documents. 

Together, the shop owner and the 

eventual importer verify that neither the 

surplus goods nor the boxes in which 

they are packed contain information on 

the manufacturer. 

The following examples are offered to 

provide guidance as to when a port 

director may consider pursuing 

penalties: 

• An importer states to CBP that his 

agent located in Asia does not wish to 

disclose the name of the manufacturer 

for fear of being cut out of future 

business. 

• A particular style of flannel bed 

sheets formed from Asian cloth is 

imported from Europe. Pursuant to the 

origin rules in § 102.21, the sheets are a 

product of the country where the cloth 

was formed. Because the goods were 

purchased from Europe, the importer 

believes it is ‘‘too difficult’’ to request 

the necessary origin information from 

the European supplier. 

Comment: 

Ten commenters raised business 

confidentiality concerns regarding the 

new MID requirement for textile and 

apparel products. Five of these 

commenters pointed out that where the 

seller is not the manufacturer of the 

imported goods but an intermediary, the 

seller may be reluctant, or even refuse, 

to disclose information regarding its 

sources for fear that the importer will 

bypass the seller in future transactions 

by going directly to the manufacturer to 

purchase goods. Five of the commenters 

also expressed concern that identifying 

the manufacturer on entry documents 

increases the risk of the disclosure of 

proprietary business information 

(product sources) to competitors. In this 

regard, several commenters indicated 

that there was some confusion in the 

trade as to whether the interim rule 

requires the submission of the name and 

address of the manufacturer in addition 

to the MID to provide CBP the means to 

verify the accuracy of the MID provided. 

One commenter suggested the use of a 

confidential MID system using random 

codes that are known only to CBP and 

the exporter. Another commenter 

expressed concern that part of CBP’s 

justification in requiring the MID is to 

enable CBP to provide specific 

information to foreign customs 

administrations concerning foreign 

entities violating customs laws. 

CBP’s Response: 

Regarding the concern that an 

intermediary may be reluctant or even 

refuse to disclose the identity of its 

suppliers, CBP incorporates by reference 

the response to the immediatelypreceding comment above. 

The objectives of the regulatory 

changes are to assist in the enforcement 

of U.S. textile laws and to facilitate the 

movement of textile trade into the 

United States. The MID requirement has 

allowed CBP to eliminate the paper 

textile declaration, thereby permitting 

the electronic processing of entries. The 

textile and apparel MID requirement 

involves providing the Manufacture 

Identification Code on appropriate entry 

documentation. There is no requirement 

that the name and address of the 

manufacturer appear on the commercial 

invoice or other entry documentation. 

However, CBP has the right to verify the 

accuracy of all information provided by 

importers by requesting and reviewing 

additional records and documentation. 

CBP can provide assurances that the 

U.S. Government and its employees are 

prohibited from disclosing business 

confidential information pursuant to the 

Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905). In 

addition, § 552(b)(4) of the Freedom of 

Information Act, as amended, provides 

an exemption from the disclosure by the 

U.S. Government of ‘‘trade secrets and 

commercial or financial information 

obtained from a person and privileged 

or confidential.’’ CBP considers all 

information provided in connection 

with the entry process to be confidential 

(see 19 CFR 103.34 and 103.35) and as 

such it is for official use only. CBP, 

however, reserves the right, pursuant to 

19 U.S.C. 1628, to exchange this 

information with foreign customs and 

law enforcement agencies, as 

appropriate, for law enforcement 

purposes on a limited case-by-case 

basis. 

Comment: 

Four commenters recommended that, 

because informal entries were exempt 

from the textile declaration requirement, 

CBP similarly should provide an 

exemption from the MID requirement 

for non-commercial shipments for 

personal use as well as goods entered on 

informal entries. 

CBP’s Response: 

CBP fully appreciates the concerns 

regarding the MID requirement for 

personal use shipments and has 

consulted with CITA regarding this 

matter. In a letter dated April 13, 2006, 

the Chairman of CITA concurred with 

CBP’s suggested exclusion of personal 

use shipments from the MID 

requirements of § 102.23(a). 

Accordingly, § 102.23(a) has been 

amended in this final rule document to 

provide that the MID must reflect the 

entity performing the origin-conferring 

operations only with respect to 

commercial importations. As a result of 

this change, all personal use shipments 

subject to formal or informal entry 

procedures will be excepted from the 

MID requirement set forth in § 102.23(a), 

while all commercial shipments, 

whether covered by formal or informal 

entries, will continue to be subject to 

this requirement. 

CBP wishes to clarify that this 

exemption relates only to the 

requirement that the MID be constructed 

from the entity performing the originconferring operations. Importers of 

personal use shipments must continue 

to provide a MID (a required data 

element on CBP Forms 3461 and 7501), 

but the MID may be constructed from 

the manufacturer, shipper, or exporter. 

Comment: 

Nine commenters urged CBP to allow 

the MID to be constructed from entities 

other than those performing the originconferring operations in situations in 

which it is impossible or extremely 

difficult to ascertain the identity of the 

manufacturer. One commenter indicated 

that such situations would include 

when the seller refuses to provide the 

identity of the manufacturer for 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
14580 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

business proprietary reasons. Two of the 

commenters stated that the MID 

required by the interim rule should be 

constructed using the ‘‘best information 

available,’’ which may be the name and 

address of the shipper, buying or selling 

agent, or seller, provided the parties to 

the transaction have used reasonable 

care to determine the identity of the true 

manufacturer. Two commenters 

suggested that in situations in which 

there are multiple manufacturers for a 

single shipment (e.g., fungible goods), 

importers should be able to describe the 

manufacturer as ‘‘multi’’ or ‘‘multiple’’ on 

the CBP Form 7501. Two commenters 

recommended that CBP maintain the 

use of textile declarations, coupled with 

the former requirements for MID 

completion, as an alternative to the new 

MID requirement. 

CBP’s Response: 

Requiring the MID to be identified on 

entries of textile and apparel goods to be 

constructed from the entity performing 

the origin-conferring operations better 

enables CBP to enforce U.S. textile laws 

and trade agreements as well as 

facilitate trade in textile and apparel 

products. 

Regarding fungible goods, importers 

should use reasonable care in 

constructing the MID for each shipment, 

but, as always, should work closely with 

the CBP port director in cases involving 

extraordinary circumstances. For 

example, if an importer purchases from 

a company with a unique inventory 

system, this information should be 

discussed with the port director to 

ensure that an acceptable yet accurate 

reporting of required information is 

provided. 

Comment: 

Two commenters indicated that it 

should be sufficient for CBP purposes 

for importers to provide the country of 

origin of imported textile and apparel 

goods on entry documents without also 

having to identify the manufacturer 

through the MID requirement. 

According to these commenters, CBP 

may request additional information 

regarding the manufacturer of the goods 

as part of a post-entry verification. One 

of these commenters proposed, as a 

practical alternative to the new MID 

requirement, that CBP permit importers 

to identify the MID of one actual 

producer (rather than all producers) in 

each separate country. As part of this 

proposal, CBP could request the 

‘‘identity of manufacturers on a countryby-country basis, or by entry if it deems 

the information necessary for 

enforcement purposes.’’ 

CBP’s Response: 

CBP wishes to remind these 

commenters that the basic MID 

requirement is not new. Importers of 

virtually all goods (textile and nontextile products) have been required for 

some time to submit a MID at the time 

of entry. The instructions on completing 

the CBP Form 7501 clearly indicate that 

when an entry summary covers 

merchandise from more than one 

manufacturer, the word ‘‘MULTI’’ 

should be recorded in block 13, and 

column 28 should reflect the MID 

corresponding to each line item. CBP 

continues to believe that the MID 

requirement for both textile and nontextile products is an important tool in 

facilitating the correct reporting of the 

origin of imported goods. 

Comment: 

Eight commenters recommended that 

CBP grant exceptions to the new MID 

requirement. Six of these commenters 

noted that the primary function of the 

new requirement (according to CBP) is 

to assist CBP in properly enforcing the 

international textile restraint agreements 

to which the U.S. is a party. Consistent 

with that purpose, these commenters 

asked that CBP limit the new MID 

requirement to products that are still 

subject to quantitative restraints under 

bilateral textile agreements or due to 

safeguard actions. One commenter 

expressed concern that the new MID 

requirement may apply to a wide variety 

of products that are not traditionally 

considered textile and apparel products 

(e.g., valves with mesh fabric filters, 

jump ropes, hats, and footwear). Other 

commenters suggested that exemptions 

from the MID requirement should be 

granted for goods of NAFTA and 

CAFTA–DR countries, goods entered 

under subheadings 9802.00.40, .50, .80, 

and .90, HTSUS, goods previously 

imported, exported, and then returned, 

products integrated prior to 2000 

(consistent with the November 8, 2005, 

Memorandum of Understanding with 

the People’s Republic of China), as well 

as merchandise sold in duty-free stores. 

CBP’s Response: 

As noted above, the objectives of the 

interim amendments are to assist in the 

enforcement of U.S. textile laws and 

facilitate the movement of legitimate 

trade in textiles into the United States. 

Since illegal trade may be disguised as 

products of virtually any country, it 

would be of little help in enforcing the 

trade laws to require the MID only for 

products of certain countries. CBP has 

discovered illegal trade from dozens of 

countries, including some of our free 

trade agreement partners. Although the 

scope of textile and apparel goods 

subject to the new MID requirement 

closely parallels the scope of products 

formerly subject to the textile 

declaration requirement, CBP is 

sympathetic to the concerns regarding 

the wide range of products covered by 

§ 102.23(a). In an April 13, 2006, letter 

to CBP, CITA indicated that it concurred 

with CBP’s proposal to limit the scope 

of products for which the MID is 

required to textile and apparel goods 

classified within Section XI of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS), and any 10-digit 

HTSUS number outside Section XI with 

a three-digit textile category number 

assigned to the specific subheading. 

Section 102.23(a), which previously 

provided that the MID requirement 

applied to textile or apparel products 

listed in § 102.21(b)(5), has been 

amended in this final rule document to 

effect the above change. This 

amendment excludes from the scope of 

the MID requirement products such as 

umbrellas, seat belts, parachutes, 

watchstraps, and doll clothing. 

With respect to the commenters’ 

requested exemption for goods 

classified in subheading 9802.00.40, .50, 

.80, or .90, HTSUS, the MID for goods 

classified in Chapter 98, HTSUS, must 

be constructed from the entity 

performing the origin-conferring 

operations only if the Statistical Notes 

for the specific Chapter 98 subheading 

require the reporting of the associated 

Chapter 1–97 10-digit statistical number 

and that Chapter 1–97 number falls 

within the scope of the MID 

requirement set forth in amended 

§ 102.23(a). Thus, if a good is classified 

in a Chapter 98 subheading and that 

subheading either does not require the 

reporting of the associated Chapter 1–97 

number or the associated Chapter 1–97 

number falls outside the scope of the 

MID requirement in § 102.23(a), then the 

MID may be constructed from the 

manufacturer, shipper, or exporter. 

Comment: 

Five commenters questioned the 

usefulness of the new MID requirement 

for security targeting purposes. Four of 

these commenters maintained that since 

the shipper is the last party in the 

supply chain to handle the product 

prior to export to the U.S., the identity 

of the shipper rather than that of the 

manufacturer is the better source of 

security targeting data. Two of the 

commenters pointed out that the MID is 

not a reliable tool in enforcement 

actions because of the many potential 

variations in MID construction—names 

and addresses of companies may be 

written and abbreviated in many 

different ways. 

CBP’s Response: 

While CBP appreciates the 

commenters’ concerns regarding 

security issues, the objectives of the 

interim regulations do not include using 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 14581 

the MID to improve CBP’s security 

targeting efforts. That said, it should be 

noted that the manufacturer generally is 

the last party in the supply chain to load 

the goods into the shipping container, 

which usually is just as important a 

consideration from a security standpoint 

as the last party that handles the 

container. In addition, CBP is aware of 

the potential variations in MID 

construction and is considering ways to 

address this problem. However, it is 

important to recognize that these 

variations may occur regardless of 

whether the MID is reported as the 

manufacturer or as the shipper. 

Comment: 

Three commenters stated that the new 

MID requirement for textile and apparel 

products should conform to the rule for 

all other products so as to permit the 

identification of either the manufacturer 

or the shipper. One commenter 

described the new requirement as 

‘‘discriminatory’’ and questioned why 

the criteria for the MID for textiles is far 

more stringent than for other products 

which pose a greater threat to the health 

and safety of U.S. citizens, such as food 

or spare parts for cars or airplanes. 

Another commenter observed that, for 

trade data collection purposes, MIDs for 

textile and apparel products now will 

represent completely different parties 

(manufacturers) from MIDs for other 

products (shippers or exporters). 

CBP’s Response: 

In many cases, importers of textile 

and apparel goods were already 

constructing the MID from the 

manufacturer prior to the change in the 

MID requirement. CBP would also note 

that few, if any, non-textile products 

have the origin restrictions that exist for 

textile and apparel products. CBP will 

carefully evaluate the results of the 

change in the MID requirement for 

textile and apparel products before 

determining whether the same change 

also should be made for all non-textile 

products. 

Comment: 

Five commenters pointed out that the 

instructions for block 13 (‘‘Manufacturer 

I.D.’’) on the CBP Form 7501 provide 

that for ‘‘purposes of this code, the 

manufacturer should be construed to 

refer to the invoicing party or parties 

(manufacturers or other direct 

suppliers).’’ Therefore, according to 

these commenters, the new MID 

requirement for textile and apparel 

products set forth in the interim rule 

conflicts with the CBP Form 7501. Two 

of these commenters stated that this 

discrepancy will result in confusion and 

uncertainty in the trading community. 

CBP’s Response: 

CBP agrees that there should be no 

discrepancy between the requirements 

of § 102.23(a) and the instructions for 

the completion of CBP Form 7501. 

Therefore, the instruction notice for 

completing CBP Form 7501 has been 

amended to conform to the 

requirements of § 102.23(a) and posted 

to the cbp.gov Web site (see http:// 

www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/ 

cargo_summary/cbp7501/). 

Comment: 

Two commenters expressed the view 

that CBP will have difficulty 

determining whether the MID for textile 

and apparel goods is constructed 

correctly, especially in the case of 

‘‘home textiles’’ (where the seller is 

rarely the manufacturer) and in 

situations in which the seller is a 

trading company. One of these 

commenters inquired as to the type of 

documentation that will be required to 

enable CBP to enforce the new MID 

requirement. This commenter stated 

that ‘‘since there are no definitions of 

what is acceptable proof,’’ there likely 

will be inconsistent enforcement around 

the country. 

CBP’s Response: 

If CBP officials choose to verify the 

accuracy of MID information, these 

officials will request and review 

additional documentation and records 

for that purpose. What is ‘‘acceptable 

proof’’ will depend on the type of 

product being imported, as the originconferring operations will differ from 

product to product. For example, for 

most apparel, the MID reflects the firm 

assembling the garment, while for many 

home textile products such as bed 

sheets, the MID reflects the firm that 

formed the fabric. While sewing records 

would be appropriate in verifying MID 

information in the former situation, a 

mill certificate would be appropriate in 

the latter situation. We appreciate the 

concern for consistency and offer as 

guidance that, after CBP determines the 

origin-conferring operation for a 

particular textile product, it will request 

and review commercially available 

manufacturing documentation 

appropriate to the product involved, 

such as commercial invoices, sewing 

tickets, and spinning or mill certificates. 

Comment: 

Two commenters recommended that, 

as part of its final rule, CBP update the 

‘‘Formal Entry List,’’ or TBT–01–036, 

most recently issued on August 31, 

2001. Both commenters suggested that 

the Formal Entry List exempt all noncommercial shipments from the 

requirement of filing a formal entry to 

help clarify that the new MID 

requirement applies only to formal 

entries of commercial shipments. One of 

these commenters also recommended 

that the Formal Entry List be modified 

to require formal entries only for 

commercial shipments valued over 

$250. The second commenter also 

suggested that the List have a single 

value limit, not less than the value limit 

set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1321. However, 

this commenter stated the value limit 

set forth in section 1321 should be 

increased from $200 to $500. 

CBP’s Response: 

By way of background, TBT–01–036 

dated August 31, 2001, is a CBP textile 

information issuance to the trade 

community that updated two lists of 

tariff numbers for which the submission 

of a formal entry is required. One list 

relates to tariff numbers for which a 

formal entry is required for commercial 

shipments only, regardless of value 

(pursuant to 19 CFR 143.22). The 

second list relates to tariff numbers for 

which a formal entry is required if the 

shipment is valued in excess of $250 

(pursuant to 19 CFR 143.21(a)). TBT– 

01–036 indicates that if a tariff number 

is on both lists, the requirement for 

formal entry regardless of value takes 

priority. 

CBP appreciates the recommendations 

of these commenters regarding the 

Formal Entry List and is reviewing and 

evaluating the potential impact of the 

suggested changes. However, CBP does 

not believe that this final rule 

document, which is concerned with the 

country of origin of textile and apparel 

products, is the appropriate vehicle for 

implementing changes relating to the 

types of merchandise that may be 

entered under informal entry. Any such 

changes that CBP decides to pursue 

affecting 19 CFR Part 143 will be the 

subject of a separate rulemaking. 

In regard to the suggestion that CBP 

should clarify that the new MID 

requirement applies only to formal 

entries of commercial shipments, CBP 

notes (as previously pointed out in this 

comment discussion) that § 102.23(a) 

has been amended in this final rule 

document to provide that the MID must 

reflect the entity performing the originconferring operations only with respect 

to commercial importations. Thus, 

effective upon publication of this 

document in the Federal Register, all 

personal use shipments subject to 

formal or informal entry procedures will 

be excepted from the MID requirement 

set forth in § 102.21(a), while all 

commercial shipments (covered by 

formal or informal entries) will continue 

to be subject to this requirement. 

Comment: 

A commenter stated that he was 

unaware of any Customs statute that 

requires a U.S. importer to know the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
14582 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

manufacturer of textile and apparel 

products so long as the importer can 

demonstrate that it acted with 

‘‘reasonable care’’ to enter, classify, and 

value the imported goods, as well as 

determine the application of other legal 

requirements (e.g., requirements of other 

government agencies affecting 

admissibility). 

CBP’s Response: 

The commenter is correct that there is 

no customs statute that requires a U.S. 

importer to know the manufacturer of 

his/her product. However, in 

accordance with the direction provided 

by the Chairman of CITA and pursuant 

to section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 

1956, as amended, as that authority is 

delegated by Executive Orders 11651 

and 12475, and with direction from the 

Department of the Treasury, CBP is 

requiring the U.S. importer to provide 

the manufacturer’s identification code 

for entries of textile and apparel 

products to help enforce trade in textile 

and apparel products. 

Comment: 

A commenter stated that the new MID 

requirement for textile and apparel 

articles is poorly defined. The 

commenter indicated that, while it is 

reasonably easy to use the country of 

origin rules in § 102.21, CBP 

regulations, to ascertain the correct 

country of origin of a good, the rules are 

difficult to use in determining the 

specific ‘‘origin-conferring operation’’ for 

purposes of complying with the new 

MID requirement. Three examples were 

provided: 

1. While § 102.21(c)(1) clearly defines 

country of origin as ‘‘the single country, 

territory, or insular possession in which 

the good was wholly obtained or 

produced,’’ the rule does not identify the 

origin-conferring operation (e.g., 

growing the cotton, spinning the thread, 

weaving the cloth, or cutting and sewing 

the final product). 

2. Regarding the rule set forth in 

§ 102.21(e)(2) (‘‘the country of origin of 

the good is the country, territory, or 

insular possession in which the fabric 

comprising the good was both dyed and 

printed when accompanied by two or 

more of the following operations: 

***’’), how is the entity performing 

the origin-conferring operation to be 

determined if more than one 

manufacturer performs these operations 

within one country? For example, if one 

company prints and dyes while a 

second company shrinks and fulls, 

which is the origin-conferring entity? 

3. In a situation involving a single 

textile item consisting of fabrics made 

by multiple weavers, which of the 

weavers is the origin-conferring entity? 

Is it the one that wove the largest piece 

of fabric? 

CBP’s Response: 

With regard to determining the entity 

who performed the origin-conferring 

operations for particular goods, 

importers may request and obtain a 

determination from CBP on that issue, 

provided sufficient information is 

furnished to enable CBP to make such 

a determination. Generally, however, 

one can look to the rules of origin for 

textile and apparel products set forth in 

§ 102.21 (or the statutory source of those 

rules, 19 U.S.C. 3592) or § 102.22 (for 

products of Israel) and discern which 

operation will be the origin-conferring 

operation for the good at issue. For 

instance, in the first example above, 

assuming that the product is one that, if 

it had been produced in more than one 

country, would derive its origin from 

where it is wholly assembled, the 

assembler would be the entity that 

performed the origin-conferring 

operation. 

The second example above is more 

difficult. Assuming that the good is 

subject to the rule set forth in 

§ 102.21(e)(2), CBP believes that the 

entity performing the last or final step 

of these origin-conferring operations 

would be considered the originconferring entity. For example, the 

dyeing, printing, shrinking, and fulling 

must all occur in a single country for 

origin to be conferred in that country. 

The origin-conferring process is not 

complete until the last of the required 

or necessary steps is completed. 

Therefore, it is the last manufacturer to 

complete the origin-conferring steps 

who is to be considered the originconferring entity. However, the 

determination of the origin-conferring 

entity may vary depending on the 

specific facts involved and the product 

at issue. An importer should seek a 

ruling from CBP in cases of uncertainty 

of the entity to be considered the originconferring entity. 

As for the third example, CBP is 

unable to determine the originconferring entity without more specific 

information regarding the ‘‘single textile 

item’’ involved. 

Comment: 

A commenter asked whether, in 

constructing a MID for companies 

located in amalgamated cities in Quebec 

(e.g., Montreal, Quebec City, Hull), an 

importer should use the amalgamated 

location or the location of any former 

townships within said location. 

CBP’s Response: 

Consistent with the rules for 

constructing the MID set forth in the 

Appendix to Part 102, if the location is 

indeed an amalgamated city, it would be 

appropriate to use such a location (such 

as Montreal) rather than a former 

township. 

Comment: 

A commenter inquired as to whether 

the new MID requirement applies to 

marked/mutilated textile samples. The 

commenter noted in this regard that 

such goods are accorded tariff treatment 

based upon their classification in 

subheading 9811.00.60, HTSUS, and 

that this subheading is not within the 

HTSUS provisions defining the scope of 

textile or apparel products set forth in 

19 CFR 102.21(b)(5). Another 

commenter recommended that the term 

‘‘samples,’’ as used in interim § 102.24(a) 

be defined to exclude samples 

classifiable in subheading 9811.00.60, 

HTSUS. According to this commenter, 

‘‘[t]ariff samples are not subject to duty 

or quantitative restraints and there is no 

purpose in denying the informal entry 

procedure to them.’’ 

CBP’s Response: 

Subheading 9811.00.60 does not fall 

within the scope of the MID 

requirement set forth in amended 

§ 102.23(a) and, because subheading 

9811.00.60 does not require a 10-digit 

statistical reporting number, the MID for 

goods classified in this provision need 

not be constructed from the entity 

performing the origin-conferring 

operations. Samples that are referred to 

in 19 CFR 102.24(a) are not intended to 

include samples classifiable in 

subheading 9811.00.60. 

Comment: 

A commenter recommended that the 

final rule include a definition of the 

term ‘‘manufacturer’’ to clarify that the 

manufacturer is the entity that performs 

the origin-conferring operations. This 

commenter also noted that the 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

with the People’s Republic of China 

includes a requirement for a visa 

transmission, and that a manufacturer’s 

identification code is one of the data 

elements that must appear on the visa 

transmission. The commenter stated 

that since the MID on the visa 

transmission may not reflect the entity 

performing the origin-conferring 

operations, there may be a discrepancy 

between the MID on the visa 

transmission and the MID on the entry 

documentation. In this regard, the 

commenter recommended that interim 

§ 102.23(a) be amended in the final rule 

to clarify that such a discrepancy will 

not be the cause of an entry rejection. 

CBP’s Response: 

The first suggested clarification is 

unnecessary as § 102.23(a) specifically 

requires that the MID be ‘‘constructed 

from the name and address of the entity 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 14583 

performing the origin-conferring 

operations.’’ 

Pursuant to the MOU with China, an 

MID must be transmitted via the 

Electronic Visa Information System 

(ELVIS). The MOU closely parallels 

§ 102.23(a) by providing that the MID is 

to be constructed from ‘‘the name of the 

entity performing the origin-conferring 

operations.’’ Therefore, while there is no 

reason to expect a discrepancy between 

the MID reported on the visa 

transmission and the MID reported on 

entry documentation, CBP recognizes 

that there may be instances in which the 

two MIDs do not match. CBP will not 

reject an entry if there is a discrepancy 

between the two MIDs if the MID 

identified pursuant to 102.23(a) 

accurately reflects the name and address 

of the entity performing the originconferring operations. 

Comment: 

A commenter noted that, for goods 

produced in the NAFTA territories, a 

different conclusion regarding the 

country of origin of a good may be 

reached when applying the NAFTA 

preference override provision in 19 CFR 

102.19 rather than the rules set forth in 

19 CFR 102.21. Because § 102.19 takes 

precedence in such a situation, the 

commenter recommended that the final 

rule clarify that, in determining the 

entity performing the origin-conferring 

operations for purposes of the MID 

requirement, the NAFTA preference 

override provision in § 102.19 should be 

taken into consideration. 

CBP’s Response: 

The clarification sought by the 

commenter is unnecessary. Section 

102.21(c) clearly states that in 

determining the country of origin of a 

textile or apparel product by application 

of paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of 

§ 102.21, where appropriate ‘‘the 

additional requirements or conditions of 

§§ 102.12 through 102.19 of this part’’ 

are to be applied. 

Comment: 

A commenter inquired regarding a 

situation involving sewing thread made 

of spun polyester fiber where the fiber 

is produced in China but the yarn is 

spun, twisted, dyed, and finished in 

Mexico. The commenter stated that 

although the sewing thread would be 

considered to be of Chinese origin for 

purposes of NAFTA, it appears that the 

MID should reflect the Mexican supplier 

since the ‘‘major transformation is done 

in Mexico.’’ 

CBP’s Response: 

Section 102.23(a) provides that the 

entity performing the origin-conferring 

operations is to be determined by 

application of the rules of origin set 

forth in 102.21 (or § 102.22 for products 

of Israel). Applying the rules in § 102.21 

to the example provided, if the fiber 

referenced by the commenter is staple 

fiber, the origin of the sewing thread 

would be the country in which the fiber 

was spun into yarn, i.e., Mexico. 

However, if the fiber referenced by the 

commenter is extruded filament, the 

origin of the thread would be the 

country in which the filament was 

extruded, i.e., China. It should be 

emphasized that these determinations 

are made by application of the country 

of origin rules set forth in § 102.21 and 

not by the NAFTA preference rules set 

forth in General Note 12, HTSUS. 

Comment: 

A commenter requested clarification 

regarding whether post office boxes may 

be used in constructing the MID, and, if 

so, suggested that an example of a MID 

constructed, in part, from a P.O. Box 

would be helpful. This commenter also 

stated that there has been some 

confusion as to whether Kowloon 

should be reflected in the MID as the 

city. The commenter suggested that 

inserting an example in paragraph 7 of 

the Appendix to Part 102 where the 

factory is located in Kowloon would 

help eliminate the confusion. 

CBP’s Response: 

As stated in paragraph 4 of the 

Appendix to Part 102, a post office box 

number (the first four numbers) is to be 

used in constructing the MID if it 

contains the largest number on the street 

address line. CBP agrees that it would 

be helpful to include an example in 

paragraph 7 of the Appendix showing 

the use of a P.O. Box number. With 

respect to whether Kowloon (in Hong 

Kong) should be reflected in the MID as 

the city, paragraph 5 of the Appendix 

provides that the last characters in the 

MID are derived from the first three 

letters in the city name. Paragraph 5 

clearly states that, for city-states, the 

first three letters are to be taken from the 

country name and gives an example of 

‘‘HON’’ for Hong Kong. CBP agrees with 

the commenter that it would be helpful 

to include in paragraph 7 an example of 

a manufacturer in Kowloon. 

The following example, using both a 

post office box number and a 

manufacturer in Kowloon, has been 

added to the examples in paragraph 7 of 

the Appendix to Part 102: A.B.C. 

Company, 55–5 Hung To Road, P.O. Box 

1234, Kowloon, Hong Kong. The MID is 

HKABCCOM1234HON. 

Conclusion 

Accordingly, based on the analysis of 

the comments received, CBP has 

determined that the interim regulations 

published as CBP Dec. 05–32 should be 

adopted as a final rule with certain 

changes as discussed above and as set 

forth below. The changes to the interim 

regulatory text effected by this final rule 

document are as follows: 

1. In § 102.23(a), paragraph (a), 

relating to the manufacturer 

identification code (MID), has been 

revised to limit the MID requirement to 

commercial importations of textile and 

apparel goods classified within Section 

XI, HTSUS, and any 10-digit HTSUS 

number outside of Section XI with a 

three-digit textile category number 

assigned to the specific subheading; and 

2. In the Appendix to Part 102, which 

sets forth rules for constructing the MID: 

a. Paragraph 1 has been revised to 

reflect the limitation in the scope of the 

MID requirement set forth in amended 

§ 102.23(a); and 

b. Paragraph 7 has been revised by 

adding a new example that illustrates 

the use of a post office box number as 

well as a manufacturer located in 

Kowloon, Hong Kong. 

Inapplicability of Notice and Delayed 

Effective Date Requirements 

Under the Administrative Procedure 

Act (‘‘APA’’) (5 U.S.C. 553), agencies 

generally are required to publish final 

amendments at least 30 days prior to 

their effective date. However, 

§§ 553(d)(1) and (d)(3) of the APA 

exempt agencies from the requirement 

of publishing notice of final rules at 

least 30 days prior to their effective date 

when a substantive rule grants or 

recognizes an exemption or relieves a 

restriction and when the agency finds 

that good cause exists for not meeting 

the advance publication requirement. 

As discussed earlier, the only changes to 

the interim regulations effected by this 

final rule involve limiting the scope of 

the MID requirement for textile and 

apparel products and adding a new 

example to clarify the proper 

construction of the MID. Accordingly, it 

has been determined that this final rule 

grants an exemption and relieves 

restrictions and that good cause exists 

for dispensing with a delayed effective 

date. 

Executive Order 12866 

CBP has determined that this 

document is not a regulation or rule 

subject to the provisions of Executive 

Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (58 

FR 51735, October 1993), because it 

pertains to a foreign affairs function of 

the United States and, therefore, is 

specifically exempted by section 3(d)(2) 

of Executive Order 12866. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

CBP Dec. 05–32 was issued as an 

interim rule rather than as a notice of 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
14584 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

proposed rulemaking because CBP had 

determined that: (1) The interim 

regulations involve a foreign affairs 

function of the United States pursuant 

to § 553(a)(1) of the APA; and (2) prior 

public notice and comment procedures 

on these regulations were impracticable, 

unnecessary, and contrary to the public 

interest pursuant to § 553(b)(B) of the 

APA. Because no notice of proposed 

rulemaking was required, the provisions 

of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not 

apply to this rulemaking. Accordingly, 

this final rule is not subject to the 

regulatory analysis requirements or 

other requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 

604. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The collections of information in 

these regulations (the identification of 

the manufacturer on CBP Form 3461 

(Entry/Immediate Delivery) and CBP 

Form 7501 (Entry Summary)) have been 

previously reviewed and approved by 

the Office of Management and Budget in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3507) under control numbers 1651–0024 

and 1651–0022, respectively. These 

regulations clarify that the manufacturer 

to be identified on entries of textile and 

apparel products must consist of the 

entity performing the origin-conferring 

operations. An agency may not conduct 

or sponsor and an individual is not 

required to respond to a collection of 

information unless it displays a valid 

OMB control number. 

Signing Authority 

This document is being issued in 

accordance with § 0.1(a)(1) of the CBP 

regulations (19 CFR 0.1(a)(1)) pertaining 

to the authority of the Secretary of the 

Treasury (or his/her delegate) to 

approve regulations related to certain 

customs revenue functions. 

List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 102 

Customs duties and inspections, 

Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Rules of origin, Trade 

agreements. 

Amendments to the Regulations 

Accordingly, the interim rule 

amending parts 12, 102, 141, 144, 146, 

and 163 of the CBP regulations (19 CFR 

parts 12, 102, 141, 144, 146 and 163), 

which was published at 70 FR 58009 on 

October 5, 2005, is adopted as a final 

rule with certain changes as discussed 

above and set forth below. 

PART 102—RULES OF ORIGIN 

■ 1. The general authority citation for 

part 102 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General 

Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States), 1624, 3314, 3592. 

■ 2. Section 102.23 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 102.23 Origin and manufacturer 

identification. 

(a) Textile or apparel product 

manufacturer identification. All 

commercial importations of textile or 

apparel products must identify on CBP 

Form 3461 (Entry/Immediate Delivery) 

and CBP Form 7501 (Entry Summary), 

and in all electronic data transmissions 

that require identification of the 

manufacturer, the manufacturer of such 

products through a manufacturer 

identification code (MID) constructed 

from the name and address of the entity 

performing the origin-conferring 

operations pursuant to § 102.21 or 

§ 102.22 of this part, as applicable. The 

code must be accurately constructed 

using the methodology set forth in the 

Appendix to this part, including the use 

of the two-letter International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO) 

code for the country of origin of such 

products. When a single entry is filed 

for products of more than one 

manufacturer, the products of each 

manufacturer must be separately 

identified. Importers must be able to 

demonstrate to CBP their use of 

reasonable care in determining the 

manufacturer. If an entry filed for such 

merchandise fails to include the MID 

properly constructed from the name and 

address of the manufacturer, the port 

director may reject the entry or take 

other appropriate action. For purposes 

of this paragraph, ‘‘textile or apparel 

products’’ means goods classifiable in 

Section XI, Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

of the United States (HTSUS), and goods 

classifiable in any 10-digit HTSUS 

number outside of Section XI with a 

three-digit textile category number 

assigned to the specific subheading. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. The Appendix to part 102 is 

amended by revising paragraph 1 and by 

adding a new example at the end of 

paragraph 7. Revised paragraph 1 and 

the addition to paragraph 7 read as 

follows: 

Appendix to Part 102—Textile and 

Apparel Manufacturer Identification 

Rules for Constructing the Manufacturer 

Identification Code (MID) 

1. Pursuant to § 102.23(a) of this part, all 

commercial importations of textile or apparel 

products, as defined in that paragraph, must 

identify on CBP Form 3461 (Entry/Immediate 

Delivery) and CBP Form 7501 (Entry 

Summary), and in all electronic data 

transmissions that require identification of 

the manufacturer, the manufacturer of such 

products through a manufacturer 

identification code (MID) constructed from 

the name and address of the entity 

performing the origin-conferring operations. 

The MID may be up to 15 characters in 

length, with no spaces inserted between the 

characters. 

* * * * * 

7. * * * 

A.B.C. COMPANY, 55–5 Hung To Road, P.O. 

Box 1234, Kowloon, Hong Kong; 

HKABCCOM1234HON. 

Alan Bersin, 

Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection. 

Approved: March 14, 2011. 

Timothy E. Skud, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6253 Filed 3–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2006–0952; FRL–9246–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Montana; Attainment Plan for Libby, 

MT PM2.5 Nonattainment Area and 

PM10 State Implementation Plan 

Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Montana on 

March 26, 2008. Montana submitted this 

SIP revision to meet Clean Air Act 

requirements for attaining the 1997 

annual fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) for the Libby nonattainment 

area. The plan revision, herein called an 

‘‘attainment plan,’’ includes an 

attainment demonstration, an analysis 

of Reasonably Available Control 

Technology and Reasonably Available 

Control Measures (RACT/RACM), baseyear and projection year emission 

inventories, and contingency measures. 

The requirement for a Reasonable 

Further Progress (RFP) plan is satisfied 

because Montana projected that 

attainment with the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS will occur in the Libby 

nonattainment area by April 2010. In 

addition, EPA is also approving 

revisions to the Lincoln County Air 

Pollution Control Program submitted by 

Montana on June 26, 2006, for inclusion 

into Libby’s attainment plan for 

purposes of the 1987 PM10 NAAQS. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1