39224 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 122 / Friday, June 23, 2000 / Notices

DATES: Written comments should be

received on or before July 24, 2000 to be

assured of consideration.

U.S. Customs Service (CUS)

OMB Number: 1515–0042.

Form Number: CF 4455 and CF 4457.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Certificate of Registration.

Description: The Certificate of

Registration is used to expedite free

entry or entry at a reduced rate on

foreign made personal articles which are

taken abroad. These articles are dutiable

each time they are brought into the

United States unless there is acceptable

proof of prior possession.

Respondents: Individuals or

households, Business or other for-profit,

Not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

200,000.

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Respondent: 3 minutes.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Total Reporting Burden:

10,000 hours.

OMB Number: 1515–0056.

Form Number: CF 19.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Protest.

Description: This collection is used by

an importer, filer, or any party at

interest to petition the Customs Service,

or Protest, any action or charge, made by

the port director on or against any;

imported merchandise, merchandise

excluded from entry, or merchandise

entered into or withdrawn from a

Customs bonded warehouse.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit, Individuals or households, Notfor-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

3,750.

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Respondent: 1 hour, 30 minutes.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Total Reporting Burden:

67,995 hours.

OMB Number: 1515–0063.

Form Number: CF 5129.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Crew Members Declaration.

Description: This document is used to

accept and record importations of

merchandise by crew members, and to

enforce agricultural quarantines, the

currency reporting laws, and the

revenue collection laws.

Respondents: Individuals or

households, Business or other for-profit,

Not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

5,968,351.

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Respondent: 3 minutes.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Total Reporting Burden:

298,418 hours.

Clearance Officer: J. Edgar Nichols

(202) 927–1426, U.S. Customs Service,

Printing and Records Management

Branch, Ronald Reagan Building, 1300

Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room

3.2.C, Washington, DC 20229.

OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt

(202) 395–7860, Office of Management

and Budget, Room 10202, New

Executive Office Building, Washington,

DC 20503.

Mary A. Able,

Departmental Reports Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–15880 Filed 6–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4820–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

June 16, 2000.

The Department of the Treasury has

submitted the following public

information collection requirement(s) to

OMB for review and clearance under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. Copies of the

submission(s) may be obtained by

calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance

Officer listed. Comments regarding this

information collection should be

addressed to the OMB reviewer listed

and to the Treasury Department

Clearance Officer, Department of the

Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be

received on or before July 24, 2000 to be

assured of consideration.

U.S. Customs Service (CUS)

OMB Number: 1515–0130.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Free Admittance Under

Conditions of Emergency.

Description: This collection of

information will be used in the event of

emergency or catastrophic event to

monitor goods temporarily admitted for

the purpose of rescue or relief.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit.

Estimated Number of Respondents/

Recordkeepers: 1.

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Respondent/Recordkeeper: 1 hour.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Total Reporting/

Recordkeeping Burden: 1 hour.

OMB Number: 1515–0158.

Form Number: CF 349 and CF 350.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Harbor Maintenance Fee.

Description: The Harbor Maintenance

Fee established by the Water Resources

Development Act of 1986 (Act) (26

U.S.C. 4461, et seq.), is collected by

Customs and used to contribute to the

operation and maintenance by the Army

Corps of Engineers of certain United

States channels and harbors.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

625,900.

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Respondent: 26 minutes.

Frequency of Response: Annually.

Estimated Total Reporting Burden:

1,250,000 hours.

OMB Number: 1515–0200.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Importers Declaration/Shippers

Declaration.

Description: These declarations are

related to the legal requirements and

procedures which must be followed in

order to obtain duty-free treatment on

articles imported into the Customs

territory of the United States from the

insular possession.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit, Not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

10.

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Respondent: 6 minutes.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 31

hours.

Clearance Officer: J. Edgar Nichols

(202) 927–1426, U.S. Customs Service,

Printing and Records Management

Branch, Ronald Reagan Building, 1300

Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room

3.2.C, Washington, DC 20229.

OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt

(202) 395–7860,Office of Management

and Budget, Room 10202, New

Executive Office Building,Washington,

DC 20503.

Mary A. Able,

Departmental Reports Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–15924 Filed 6–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4820–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service

Implementation of Electronic Filing

and Status of Protests

AGENCY: United States Customs Service,

Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: General notice.

SUMMARY: This document advises the

public that following completion of test

procedures under the National Customs

Automation Program, the electronic

filing and status of protests is now

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 122 / Friday, June 23, 2000 / Notices 39225

operational in all service ports of

Customs. The document also sets forth

the results of the concluded test,

describes the current operation of the

electronic protest program, and invites

the public to provide comments on an

ongoing basis regarding the program.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For operational or policy issues:

Millie Gleason, Office of Field

Operations (202–927–0625).

For protest system or automation

issues: Steve Linnemann, Office of

Information and Technology (202–927–

0436.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Statutory and Regulatory Test

Procedures

The National Customs Automation

Program (NCAP) is contained in

sections 411–414 of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1411–

1414). The NCAP is described in section

411(a) as an automated and electronic

system for processing commercial

importations that includes, as one of its

planned components, the electronic

filing and status of protests. The NCAP

in section 413(b) requires the

development of an implementation plan

for each planned component, the testing

of each planned component to assess its

viability, the evaluation of each planned

component to assess its contribution to

the goals of the NCAP, and the

transmission of the implementation

plan, the testing results, and an

evaluation report to the House

Committee on Ways and Means and the

Senate Committee on Finance. Section

413(b) further provides that a planned

NCAP component may be implemented

on a permanent basis if at least 30 days

have passed after transmission of the

implementation plan, testing results and

evaluation report to the two

Congressional committees.

Regulatory standards regarding NCAP

testing are set forth in § 101.9(b) of the

Customs Regulations (19 CFR 101.9(b))

and include a requirement of

publication of notices in the Federal

Register and in the Customs Bulletin

both prior to implementation of a test

(for purposes of inviting public

comments on any aspect of the test and

informing the public of the eligibility

criteria for voluntary participation in

the test and the basis for selecting

participants) and after completion of a

test (to describe the results of the test).

On January 30, 1996, Customs

published in the Federal Register (61

FR 3086) a notice announcing a plan to

conduct a test regarding the electronic

filing of protests, involving the use of

transaction sets within the Automated

Broker Interface (ABI) portion of the

Customs Automated Commercial

System (ACS). The test would allow the

electronic filing of, and the electronic

tracking of the status of, the following:

• Protests against decisions of

Customs under 19 U.S.C. 1514;

• Petitions or claims for refunds of

customs duties or corrections of errors

requiring reliquidation pursuant to 19

U.S.C. 1520(c) and (d); and

• Interventions in an importer’s

protest by an exporter or producer of

merchandise from a country that is a

party to the North American Free Trade

Agreement under § 181.115 of the

Customs Regulations.

That January 30, 1996, notice stated

that the test would be implemented at

selected ports, outlined the eligibility

criteria for voluntary participation in

the test, including test participation

application procedures and the basis for

participation selection, and stated that

the final results of the test would be

published as provided in § 101.9(b) of

the Customs Regulations. The notice

further provided that the test would run

for approximately six months

commencing no earlier than May 1,

1996, and prescribed a deadline of

February 29, 1996, for the submission of

public comments concerning any aspect

of the test and for contacting Customs

for the purpose of participating in the

test.

On December 31, 1996, Customs

published in the Federal Register (61

FR 69133) a notice announcing an

extension of the electronic protest filing

test through April 1997. This notice

stated that the test was currently

operational with regard to 6 of the 17

entities (importers, customs brokers,

legal firms and sureties) that

volunteered to participate in the test

and that 8 ports were originally selected

for the test. The notice further stated

that while the test would not be opened

to new participants at that time,

Customs was considering expanding the

test to include up to 7 additional ports.

The notice also invited comments from

the public concerning any aspect of the

test.

On September 24, 1997, Customs

published in the Federal Register (62

FR 50053) a notice announcing both an

extension of the electronic protest filing

test through December 1997 and an

expansion of the test to encourage new

participants. This notice stated that

Customs anticipated that this NCAP

component would be available to all

interested parties by January 1998. The

notice also solicited public comments

concerning any aspect of the test.

Test Results

Following conclusion of the test,

Customs on December 17, 1999,

submitted an evaluation report, entitled

‘‘Electronic Filing and Query of Protest

Test,’’ to the House Committee on Ways

and Means and the Senate Committee

on Finance as required by 19 U.S.C.

1413(b). The test results reflected in that

report are described below.

As of February 12, 1999, a total of

3,861 filings were made during the test,

involving 15,277 associated entries. Of

those 3,861 filings, 860 involved

protests under 19 U.S.C. 1514, 103

involved petitions under 19 U.S.C.

1520(c), and 2,898 involved claims

under 19 U.S.C. 1520(d). Again, as of

February 12, 1999, among the 3,861

filings, 478 had been approved, 614 had

been denied in full, 29 had been denied

in part, 230 had been denied as

untimely, 2,156 remained open, 235

were in suspended status pending the

outcome of requests for internal advice

or applications for further review or

court action, and 119 had been

withdrawn.

For purposes of satisfying the test

evaluation requirement of 19 U.S.C.

1413(b), a user satisfaction survey was

conducted. To this end, the external

group of trade community users

participated in a Structured Group

Interview (SGI) and the internal group

of Customs users participated in a

questionnaire.

A. External Group

On October 1,1997, the Protest Team

(which consisted of personnel from

various Customs offices and a

representative of the National Customs

Brokers and Forwarders Association of

America) conducted the SGI with the

test participants in Washington, DC. A

representative of the Office of Planning

and Evaluation, experienced in the SGI

technique, acted as moderator/

facilitator. The group compiled random

lists of positive and negative factors and

then, by polling, eliminated some and

prioritized those remaining:

1. Positives:

• No need to physically deliver

paper; more efficient.

• Easier to get status of protest.

• Easier to file when time is short.

• Better standardization of filing:

—Fewer errors, and

—Edits provide check of information

submitted.

2. Negatives:

• Recap status query report is noninformational.

• Cannot file 520(a) electronically.

• Attorneys have no electronic access

to liquidation information.

39226 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 122 / Friday, June 23, 2000 / Notices

• Electronic format does not include

a filer’s contact person.

• Filer has to retype narrative when

multiple protests are filed on the same

issue.

3. Resolution:

It was decided that the recap query

could not be made more informational

without causing it to take on the

character of the full file query.

The Protest Team has recommended

that the Office of Field Operations and

the Office of Information and

Technology review the ABI query

capabilities now available to other filers

to determine which might be made

available to law firms. It has also

informed the Office of Field Operations

that interest was expressed in filing

other actions electronically.

Those filers who deem it desirable to

identify a contact will include the

contact person’s name and telephone

number within the narrative portion of

the electronic filing.

The narrative portion, containing the

statement of the nature and justification

for the objection to the protested

Customs decision, is a required element

of a protest (see 19 CFR 174.13, contents

of protest) and therefore cannot be

waived. However, the task of

duplicating it for use in multiple

protests or petitions can be

accomplished efficiently by using word

processing software, such as Word

Perfect or MS Word, to compose and

edit it and then cut and paste it into the

protest for transmission to Customs.

B. Internal Group

During the month of December 1998,

the Protest Team conducted a survey of

Customs users. A representative of the

Office of Planning and Evaluation acted

as consultant on development of the

survey. Prior to issuing the survey to all

users, it was administered to a group of

twelve import and entry specialists at

six of the test ports as an assessment

group. Results from the assessment

group were used to make the final

version of the survey. Administration of

the survey was facilitated by electronic

protest coordinators at the service ports.

Completed surveys were returned to the

Protest Team for evaluation.

Two hundred and seven persons, or

about 77 percent of the survey

recipients, responded. Of those, 63

percent participated in processing 19

U.S.C. 1514 protests, 22 percent took

part in 19 U.S.C. 1520(c) petitions, and

12 percent took part in 19 U.S.C.

1520(d) claims.

Prior to the electronic protest

procedure, Customs entry specialists

were the primary users of, and had the

most knowledge of, the ACS protest

system. That system was merely a

tracking device for paper protests and

letters of petition. Import specialist

involvement amounted to no more than

changing team assignments. The

electronic protest system is both a

tracking system and an electronic

equivalent of the protest form (Customs

Form 19) and of letters of petition or

claim. Implementation took entry and

import specialists to a new level of use

and involvement. Fifty percent of those

surveyed indicated that electronic

protest had some impact on their job.

While electronic protest requires them

to perform new tasks using ACS

functions, 62 percent of those

responding indicated that those new

tasks were no more difficult than those

performed using other ACS systems,

and 10.6 percent indicated that the tasks

were actually easier.

Concomitant to the development of

electronic filing and query of protests,

the Office of Field Operations included

in its requirements a number of new

elements to be used in processing both

paper and electronic protests, petitions,

claims, and interventions. Therefore,

several survey questions asked about

specific new system data fields and new

regulatory procedures. For example, it

was asked whether or not the user knew

that a record could be flagged as

NAFTA-related, that it could be

indicated whether or not samples and

hardcopy materials were associated

with the filing, and that test summons

and internal advice case numbers could

be cited. Further, it was asked whether

or not the user knew about three other

related procedures whereby the

protestant can challenge a denial of an

application for further review and

request that a denial of a protest be

voided and whereby an exporter or

producer from a country which is a

signatory of NAFTA can intervene in an

importer’s 19 U.S.C. 1514 protest. A

majority of entry and import specialists

responded affirmatively, indicating that

a good working knowledge of the system

is shared across all disciplines. The

concept least familiar to them was that

of the foreign exporter or producer of

goods from Canada or Mexico

intervening in the importer’s protest

under 19 CFR 181.115.

Some survey questions compared and

contrasted electronic protests to nonelectronic protests and elicited

responses regarding possible benefits of

the electronic protest system. Forty-one

percent of those responding judged the

content and quality of the narrative

submitted via electronic protest or

petition or claim to be as good as those

received on a Customs Form 19, and an

additional 6.8 percent indicated that the

narrative is actually better than in the

case of non-electronic protests. Twentyfive percent indicated that the narrative

was worse and another 25 percent were

uncertain.

A combined total of 48.8 percent of

those surveyed either merely agreed or

strongly agreed with the statement that

Customs saves staff-hours at the front

end of protest processing because it is

not necessary to date and time-stamp

the Customs Form 19 and return a copy

to the protestant or his agent, and

because all of the required information

normally entered into ACS by the entry

specialist is input by the protestant or

his agent electronically via ABI. A

combined total of 70 percent either

merely agreed or strongly agreed with

the statement that Customs saves

additional staff-hours and money at the

back end of protest processing because

it is not necessary to complete and mail

the final copy of the Customs Form 19

for the 19 U.S.C. 1514 protest, or the

final letter of approval or denial of the

19 U.S.C. 1520 petition or claim, to the

protestant or his agent.

To support the implementation of this

NCAP component, the Office of

Information and Technology developed,

and made available to Customs

personnel, a computer-based training

course. Various other means of training

made available to users included

classroom/computer lab training (either

by local port officers or Headquarters

personnel), local one-on-one training,

and a revised ACS handbook. Ninetytwo percent of the users surveyed had

experience with one or more of these

types of training. Additionally, each

port was asked to name an electronic

protest coordinator. In response to the

question, ‘‘When you encounter a

problem with the ACS electronic protest

system * * * [whom do you contact?],’’

57.9 percent said they check with local

port personnel, 17 percent said they call

ACS User Assistance, 9 percent said

they call the Headquarters ACS officer,

and 4 percent said they call the Office

of Field Operations. No comments were

received expressing an inability to

receive assistance with questions or

problems regarding the electronic

protest system.

Current Status of the Electronic Protest

Program

The electronic filing of protests is

now operational in all service ports of

Customs, and participation is open to

any party in interest who qualifies

under the program requirements.

Accordingly, using the ABI system to

send records to ACS, any qualified party

at interest now can file the following

electronically:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 122 / Friday, June 23, 2000 / Notices 39227

• Protests against decisions of the

Customs Service under 19 U.S.C. 1514;

• Petitions for refunds of Customs

duties or corrections of errors requiring

reliquidation pursuant to 19 U.S.C.

1520(c);

• Claims for refunds of Customs

duties when duty-free treatment was not

claimed at the time of entry under

NAFTA pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1520(d);

and

• Interventions in an importer’s

protest by an exporter or producer of

merchandise from a country that is a

party to the North American Free Trade

Agreement under § 181.115 of the

Customs Regulations.

In addition, the system allows

amendments and addenda after the

initial filing to:

• Apply for further review of a protest

(if not requested at time of initial filing);

• Assert additional claims or

challenge an additional decision;

• Submit alternative claims and

additional grounds or arguments;

• Request review of denial of further

review of a protest;

• Request accelerated disposition of a

protest;

• Request that the denial of a protest

be voided; and

• Withdraw the protest or petition or

claim or intervention.

All of the above actions may be

transmitted to Customs from a remote

location anywhere in the United States.

Filers receive notification of all review

events, including the final decision,

electronically. Additionally, filers may

query their submissions at any time and

share access to those records with

designated third parties. The query

function provides the filer the option of

receiving either an abbreviated status

report (recap) on the protest, petition,

claim or intervention, or a complete

copy (full file) of the protest, petition,

claim or intervention record. The shared

access feature allows third parties to

query protest records and to submit

amendments and addenda.

The Client Representative Branch of

the Office of Information and

Technology will continue to market

electronic protest to all interested

parties. The Commercial Systems

Branch of the Office of Information and

Technology will continue to work with

vendors and filers in development, test

and implementation of their software for

electronic protest. The Commercial

Compliance Division of the Office of

Field Operations will continue to

respond to operational and procedural

questions and issues. Customs remains

open to comments and suggestions from

the international trade community

regarding the design, conduct, and

procedures of the electronic protest

program.

Dated: June 19, 2000.

John H. Heinrich,

Acting Assistant Commissioner, Office of

Field Operations.

[FR Doc. 00–15875 Filed 6–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4820–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request For Form 8853

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),

Treasury.

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Department of the

Treasury, as part of its continuing effort

to reduce paperwork and respondent

burden, invites the general public and

other Federal agencies to take this

opportunity to comment on proposed

and/or continuing information

collections, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C.

3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is

soliciting comments concerning Form

8853, Medical Savings Accounts and

Long-Term Care Insurance Contracts.

DATES: Written comments should be

received on or before August 22, 2000

to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments

to Garrick R. Shear, Internal Revenue

Service, room 5244, 1111 Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or

copies of the form and instructions

should be directed to Carol Savage,

(202) 622–3945, Internal Revenue

Service, room 5242, 1111 Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Medical Savings Accounts and

Long-Term Care Insurance Contracts.

OMB Number: 1545–1561.

Form Number: 8853.

Abstract: This form is used by

individuals to report general

information about their medical savings

accounts (MSAs), to figure their MSA

deductions, and to figure their taxable

distributions from MSAs. The form is

also used to report taxable payments

from long-term care (LTC) contracts.

Current Actions: Part I of Section A,

General Information, was deleted

because it is no longer needed. Section

301(k) of the Health Insurance

Portability and Accountability Act of

1996 required collection of the

information requested in Part I only

from returns filed before 2001. On page

5 of the instructions, a worksheet was

added to figure the amount of any

additional 50% tax on distributions

from a Medicare+Choice MSA. I.R.C.

§ 138(c)(2) provides that the amount of

any additional tax is affected by the

value of the MSA on December 31 of the

prior year. Because 1999 was the first

year for making contributions to

Medicare+Choice MSAs, 2000 is the

first year in which the I.R.C. § 138(c)(2)

limitation applies.

Type of Review: Revision of a

currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Individuals or

households.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

36,000.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 1

hour, 44 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden

Hours: 62,605.

The following paragraph applies to all

of the collections of information covered

by this notice:

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless the collection of information

displays a valid OMB control number.

Books or records relating to a collection

of information must be retained as long

as their contents may become material

in the administration of any internal

revenue law. Generally, tax returns and

tax return information are confidential,

as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Request for Comments

Comments submitted in response to

this notice will be summarized and/or

included in the request for OMB

approval. All comments will become a

matter of public record. Comments are

invited on: (a) Whether the collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

agency, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate

of the burden of the collection of

information; (c) ways to enhance the

quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected; (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information of respondents, including

through the use of automated collection

techniques or other forms of information

technology; and (e) estimates of capital

or start-up costs and costs of operation,

maintenance, and purchase of services

to provide information.