Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 49597

3. In § 12.104(g), paragraph (b), the list

of emergency actions imposing import

restrictions on described articles of

cultural property of State parties is

amended by removing the entry for

‘‘Mali’’ in its entirety.

Samuel H. Banks,

Acting Commissioner of Customs.

Dated: September 12, 1997.

John P. Simpson,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

[FR Doc. 97–25342 Filed 9–19–97; 2:01 pm]

BILLING CODE 4820–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service Treasury Decisions

19 CFR Part 134

[T.D. 97–79]

Country of Origin Marking Guidance

for Containers of Imported Fruit Juice

Concentrate

AGENCY: U.S. Customs Service,

Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Policy statement.

SUMMARY: The purpose of this document

is to remind the public of the existing

Customs Service’s interpretation of the

application of the country of origin

marking law to imported fruit juice

concentrate. Customs has previously

published guidance on application of

the marking law to imported juice

concentrate in Treasury Decision (T.D.)

89–66. In recognition of the fact that

accounting for all minor foreign sources

on the label may make compliance with

the marking law prohibitively

expensive, fruit juice processors have

been permitted to comply with marking

requirements by ‘‘major supplier

marking.’’ Customs permits ‘‘major

supplier marking’’ as an acceptable

method of compliance. Processors may

list up to ten countries if they account

for at least 75 percent of foreign

concentrate used. Additionally, the

sources listed on a juice container must

indicate the sources actually used in

that lot, not the sources used in a

representative past importing period.

The full name of the country of origin

must be used unless Customs has

authorized abbreviations which

unmistakably reflect the country of

origin to the ultimate purchaser.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Cohen, Special Classification and

Marking Branch (202–482–6980).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1304,

and 19 CFR Part 134, Customs ensures

that imported fruit juice concentrate

entering the U.S. in large containers,

e.g., tanker cars and multi-gallon drums,

is properly marked to show country of

origin. However, the country of origin

marking requirements set forth in this

document are those pertaining to

labeling that must appear on packages of

concentrated or reconstituted fruit juice

containing imported concentrate that

reach ultimate purchasers. The purpose

of this document is to remind the public

of these requirements.

Customs Service Decision (C.S.D.) 85–

47 (Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL)

728557, dated September 4, 1985) held

that containers of orange juice in frozen

concentrated or reconstituted forms

which contain imported concentrate,

must be marked on the labels with the

foreign country of origin of the

products. This decision was based on

the determination that the imported

foreign orange juice concentrate used in

the production of frozen concentrated or

reconstituted orange juice is not

substantially transformed after

undergoing further processing in the

U.S., including blending with other

batches of orange concentrate, addition

of water, oils and essences,

pasteurization or freezing, and

repacking. Customs determined that the

frozen concentrated or reconstituted

orange juice did not emerge from the

processing as a new article with a new

name, character, and use. United States

v. Gibson-Thomsen Co., 27 C.C.P.A.

267, (C.A.D. 98) (1940).

By a notice published in the Federal

Register on July 30, 1986 (51 FR 27195),

Customs announced that the country of

origin marking requirements of orange

juice set forth in C.S.D. 85–47, later

upheld substantively in National Juice

Products Association v. United States,

10 Ct. Int’l Trade 48, 628 F. Supp. 978

(1986), were extended to include all

other imported fruit juice concentrate

which undergoes processing in the U.S.

similar to that performed on orange

juice concentrate. Therefore, all frozen

concentrated or reconstituted fruit

juices made with foreign concentrate

processed in a manner similar to that

described in C.S.D. 85–47 must be

marked to indicate the country of origin

of the foreign concentrate. This position

has been in effect since February 1,

1987. T.D. 86–120 (51 FR 23045 (June

25, 1986)).

Customs does not require ‘‘all sources

marking’’ on containers of juice made

with imported concentrate. Customs

allows ‘‘major supplier marking’’ as an

acceptable method of compliance for

marking of imported juice concentrate.

Major supplier marking permits

processors to list up to ten foreign

sources to account for 75 percent or

more of imported concentrate. Customs

concluded from previous consultations

with those in the juice industry that in

the majority of circumstances, five or

fewer sources will account for at least

75 percent of foreign concentrate

present in a lot, and that in virtually all

cases, ten or fewer sources will account

for 75 percent of the foreign concentrate.

If ten sources do not amount to 75

percent of foreign concentrate, then all

foreign sources must be listed. For

purposes of complying with this

requirement, ‘‘lot’’ is defined as it is in

Food and Drug Administration

regulations, 21 CFR 146.3(h)(1)(i), as

‘‘[a] collection of primary containers or

units of the same size, type, and style

manufactured or packed under similar

conditions and handled as a single unit

of trade.’’ ‘‘Manufactured or packed

under similar conditions’’ is defined, for

purposes of compliance with 19 U.S.C.

1304, as all the containers or units

containing the same blend of foreign

concentrates.

The listing of foreign sources must

consist of the countries contributing the

greatest percentages adding up to at

least 75 percent. For example,

processors may not skip over an

‘‘undesirable’’ source contributing 10

percent in order to list the next two

‘‘unobjectionable’’ sources contributing

five percent each. However, the order

within the list need not change based on

ranking. For example, if a processor is

blending foreign concentrates from two

countries contributing 60 and 15

percent, respectively, and the two

countries reversed proportions, the

same label could be used on both lots.

In addition, Customs reminds the

public that section 134.45, Customs

Regulations (19 CFR 134.45), provides

that:

Except as otherwise provided in * * * this

section, the markings required by this part

shall include the full English name of the

country of origin, unless another marking to

indicate the English name of the country of

origin is specifically authorized by the

Commissioner of Customs * * *.

Only authorized abbreviations which

unmistakably indicate the name of a

country, such as ‘‘Gt. Britain’’ for ‘‘Great

Britain’’ or ‘‘Luxemb’’ and ‘‘Luxembg’’

for ‘‘Luxembourg’’ are acceptable and

variant spellings which clearly indicate

the English name of the country of

origin, such as ‘‘Brasil’’ for ‘‘Brazil’’ and

‘‘Italie’’ for ‘‘Italy,’’ are acceptable.

Rulings may be obtained from the
49598 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Customs Service regarding what country

abbreviations are acceptable for

purposes of compliance with the

marking statute. Customs notes that it is

incorrect to abbreviate the word

‘‘concentrate’’ to ‘‘conc’’ when

disclosing the origin of juice concentrate

since the ultimate purchaser will not

unmistakably identify ‘‘conc’’ as an

abbreviation for the word ‘‘concentrate.’’

Summary

Imported fruit juice concentrate

which is imported into the U.S. and

used in the production of concentrated

or reconstituted fruit juice is not

substantially transformed after

undergoing further processing in the

U.S. Accordingly, all such imported

concentrate is subject to the country of

origin marking requirements of 19

U.S.C. 1304, and 19 CFR Part 134.

Processors may use ‘‘major supplier

marking’’ in preparing labels for

containers of juice made with imported

concentrate. If a processor obtains 75

percent or more of the imported

concentrate used in a particular lot from

ten or fewer countries, only those

countries need be revealed. The full

name of the country of origin must be

used unless Customs has authorized

abbreviations which unmistakably

indicate the country of origin of the

concentrate to the ultimate purchaser.

Drafting Information

The principal author of this document

was David E. Cohen, Office of

Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs

Service. However, personnel from other

offices participated in its development.

Date: September 17, 1997.

Stuart P. Seidel,

Assistant Commissioner, Office of

Regulations and Rulings.

[FR Doc. 97–25134 Filed 9–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4820–02–P

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

20 CFR Parts 404 and 416

RIN 0960–AE58

Administrative Review Process,

Testing Elimination of the Fourth Step

of Administrative Review in the

Disability Claim Process (Request for

Review by the Appeals Council)

ACTION: Final rules.

SUMMARY: We are amending our rules to

establish authority to test elimination of

the final step in the administrative

review process used in determining

claims for Social Security and

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

benefits based on disability. Under the

final rules, the right of appeal for a

claimant who is included in the test

procedures and who is dissatisfied with

the decision of an administrative law

judge (ALJ) will be to file a civil action

in Federal district court, rather than to

request the Appeals Council to review

the decision. We are testing procedures

that eliminate the request for Appeals

Council review in furtherance of the

Plan for a New Disability Claim Process

that former Commissioner of Social

Security Shirley S. Chater approved in

September 1994. Unless specified, all

other regulations relating to the

disability determination process and the

administrative review process remain

unchanged.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 23, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Harry J. Short, Legal Assistant, Division

of Regulations and Rulings, Social

Security Administration, 6401 Security

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, (410)

965–6243. For information on eligibility

or claiming benefits, call our national

toll-free number, 1–800–772–1213.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Social Security Administration

(SSA) currently uses a four-step process

in deciding claims for Social Security

benefits under title II of the Social

Security Act (the Act) and for SSI

benefits under title XVI of the Act.

Claimants who are not satisfied with the

initial determination on their claims

may request reconsideration. Claimants

who are not satisfied with the

reconsidered determination may request

a hearing before an ALJ, and claimants

who are dissatisfied with an ALJ’s

decision may request review by the

Appeals Council. Claimants who have

completed these four steps, and who are

dissatisfied with the final decision, may

request judicial review of the decision

by filing a civil action in Federal district

court. 20 CFR 404.900 and 416.1400.

SSA’s Plan for a New Disability Claim

Process (59 FR 47887, September 19,

1994) anticipates establishment of a

redesigned, two-step process for

deciding Social Security and SSI claims

based on disability. The redesign plan

anticipates that the process for

determining disability can be

significantly improved by strengthening

the steps of the process in which we

make initial determinations and provide

dissatisfied claimants an opportunity for

a hearing before an ALJ, and by

eliminating the reconsideration step and

the step in which claimants request the

Appeals Council to review the decisions

of ALJs.

In 20 CFR 404.906 and 416.1406 (60

FR 20023, April 24, 1995), we have

established authority to test, singly and

in combination, several model

procedures for modifying the disability

claims process. Under that authority, we

are testing, in isolation from other

possible changes, a modification of the

initial determination step in which a

single decisionmaker, rather than a team

composed of a disability examiner and

a medical consultant, makes the initial

determination of disability. In addition,

under authority established in 20 CFR

404.943 and 416.1443 (60 FR 47469,

September 13, 1995), we are also testing,

in another model for evaluating a

possible change in isolation from other

changes, use of an adjudication officer

as the focal point for all prehearing

activities in disability cases in which a

claimant requests a hearing before an

ALJ.

To assess how the above changes and

other elements of the disability redesign

plan would work together in different

combinations, we initiated an integrated

test on April 7, 1997, that combines

model procedures for major elements of

the redesign plan. As structured under

testing authority established in

§§ 404.906, 404.943, 416.1406, and

416.1443 in combination, this integrated

model includes, in addition to models

for the single decisionmaker and the

adjudication officer, a model for

procedures to provide a predecision

interview conducted by the single

decisionmaker (at which a claimant for

benefits based on disability will have an

opportunity to submit further evidence

and have an interview with the initial

decisionmaker if the evidence is

insufficient to support a fully favorable

initial disability determination or would

require an initial determination denying

the claim), and a model to test

eliminating the reconsideration step in

disability claims.

In order to increase our ability to

assess the effects of possible

modifications of the disability claim

process in combination, we are, through

publication of these final rules, adding

new §§ 404.966 and 416.1466 to our

regulations to authorize testing of an

additional modification in our

integrated model. These final rules

authorize us to incorporate in the

integrated model additional procedures

to test elimination of the step in the

disability claim process in which a

claimant requests the Appeals Council

to review the hearing decision of an

ALJ.

Our specific goal in testing

elimination of the request for Appeals

Council review will be to assess the

effects of this change, as it functions in