Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 1997 / Notices 66891

1 The original notice of lease/operating

agreement, dated June 24, 1987, governs CCCL’s

operations over other rail lines owned by C–DOT.

FISCAL YEAR 97 RECALLS AFFECTING VEHICLES IMPORTED BY REGISTERED IMPORTERS—Continued

Make Model Model year Recall No.

TOYOTA ...................................................................... CAMRY ........................................................................ 1997 97V156000

[FR Doc. 97–33251 Filed 12–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33515]

Connecticut Central Railroad

Company, Inc.—Modified Rail

Certificate

On November 14, 1997, Connecticut

Central Railroad Company, Inc. (CCCL),

a class III shortline railroad, filed a

notice for a modified certificate of

public convenience and necessity under

49 CFR 1150, Subpart C—Modified

Certificate of Public Convenience and

Necessity to operate approximately 4.0

miles of abandoned rail line between

milepost 3.0 in Hartford, CT, and

milepost 7.0 in Wethersfield, CT (the

Wethersfield Secondary Track), owned

by the Connecticut Department of

Transportation (C–DOT). The involved rail line was abandoned

by Boston and Maine Corporation

pursuant to Board authorization granted

in Boston and Maine Corporation—

Abandonment Exemption—in Hartford

County, CT, STB Docket No. AB–32

(Sub-No. 80X) (STB served Sept. 17,

1997). C–DOT acquired the rail line on

October 28, 1997.

Pursuant to a supplement to the

agreement dated March 28, 1996,

between C–DOT and CCCL,1 which is

scheduled to terminate on May 17,

2017, operations over the 4-mile

segment of the Wethersfield Secondary

Track were scheduled to commence no

sooner than November 17, 1997.

The rail segment qualifies for a

modified certificate of public

convenience and necessity. See

Common Carrier Status of States, State

Agencies and Instrumentalities, and

Political Subdivisions, Finance Docket

No. 28990F (ICC served July 16, 1981). No subsidy is involved. There may be

preconditions for shippers to meet in

order to receive rail service. CCCL

indicates that in order for potential

shippers to receive service, they may be

required to enter into a contractual

agreement with it, and may be subject

to a special train charge as set forth in

CCCL’s tariff.

The segment represents a connecting

piece of trackage linking lines over

which CCCL has already obtained a

modified rail certificate. Northerly, the

line will form a link with other CCCLoperated trackage, and will connect

with Consolidated Rail Corporation

(Conrail) at Hartford, at or near milepost

2.6. Southerly, the line will connect

with other CCCL-operated trackage and

with a larger portion of CCCL’s system.

By this southerly connection, the line

will enjoy interline connections already

established by CCCL with the

Providence and Worcester Railroad

Company at Middlefield, CT, and with

Conrail at Cedar Hill Yard in New

Haven, CT.

This notice must be served on the

Association of American Railroads (Car

Service Division) as agent for all

railroads subscribing to the car-service

and car-hire agreement: Association of

American Railroads, 50 F St., NW,

Washington, DC 20001; and on the

American Short Line Railroad

Association: American Short Line

Railroad Association, 1120 G St., NW,

Suite 520, Washington, DC 20005.

Decided: December 15, 1997.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–33337 Filed 12–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service

Receipt of Domestic Interested Party

Petition Concerning Tariff

Classification of Textile Costumes

AGENCY: Customs Service, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of domestic

interested party petition; solicitation of

comments.

SUMMARY: Customs has received a

petition submitted on behalf of a

domestic interested party requesting the

reclassification of certain imported

textile costumes. The petitioner

contends that Customs is incorrect in

classifying textile costumes which are

flimsy, not durable, and not normal

articles of wearing apparel, under

subheading 9505.90.6090, Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTSUS), as ‘‘Festive, carnival or other

entertainment articles, including magic

tricks and practical joke articles; parts

and accessories thereof: Other: Other:

Other.’’ The provision is duty free under

the general column one rate and

costumes classifiable under this

provision are not subject to quota or visa

restraints. The petitioner contends that

all imported textile costumes should be

classified in Chapters 61 or 62, HTSUS,

asserting that textile costumes are

excluded from classification under

subheading 9505.90.6090, HTSUS,

pursuant to Note 1(e), Chapter 95,

which states that the chapter does not

cover sports clothing or fancy dress, of

textiles, of chapter 61 or 62. If classified

under Chapter 61 or 62 of the HTSUS,

the costumes would be dutiable and

may be subject to quota and visa

restraints. This document invites

comments with regard to the correctness

of the current classification.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 20, 1998.

ADDRESS: Written comments (preferably

in triplicate) are to be addressed to U.S.

Customs Service, Office of Regulations

and Rulings, Attention: Commercial

Rulings Division, 1300 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20229.

Comments submitted may be inspected

at the Commercial Rulings Division,

Office of Regulations and Rulings,

located at 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue.,

NW., 3rd Floor, Washington, D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann

Segura Minardi, Textiles Branch, (202–

927–1368).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

A petition has been filed under

section 516, Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (19 U.S.C. 1516), on behalf of

an American manufacturer of textile

costumes. The petitioner contends that

virtually identical costumes to those

manufactured by petitioner are being

imported into the U.S. and some of

these textile costumes are being

erroneously classified by Customs under

subheading 9505.90.6090, Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTSUS), as ‘‘Festive, carnival or other

entertainment articles, including magic

tricks and practical joke articles; parts

and accessories thereof: Other: Other:

Other.’’ The provision is duty free under

the general column one rate and

costumes classified under this provision

are not subject to quota or visa
66892 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 1997 / Notices

restraints. The petitioner claims that all

imported textile costumes should be

classified in Chapters 61 or 62, HTSUS,

asserting that textile costumes are

excluded from classification under

subheading 9505.90.6090, HTSUS,

pursuant to Note 1(e), Chapter 95. If

classified under Chapters 61 or 62, the

costumes would be dutiable and may be

subject to quota and visa restraints.

Classification under the HTSUS is

made in accordance with the General

Rules of Interpretation (GRIs). The

systematic detail of the harmonized

system is such that virtually all goods

are classified by application of GRI 1,

that is, according to the terms of the

headings of the tariff schedule and any

relative Section or Chapter Notes. In the

event that the goods cannot be classified

solely on the basis of GRI 1, and if the

headings and legal notes do not

otherwise require, the remaining GRIs

may then be applied. The Explanatory

Notes (ENs) to the Harmonized

Commodity Description and Coding

System, which represent the official

interpretation of the tariff at the

international level, facilitate

classification under the HTSUS by

offering guidance in understanding the

scope of the headings and GRIs.

Heading 9505, HTSUS, includes

articles which are for ‘‘Festive, carnival,

or other entertainment.’’ However, Note

1(e), chapter 95, HTSUS, excludes

articles of ‘‘fancy dress, of textiles, of

chapter 61 or 62’’ from chapter 95. The

ENs to 9505, state, among other things,

that the heading covers:

(A) Festive, carnival or other entertainment

articles, which in view of their intended use

are generally made of non-durable material.

They include:

* * * * *

(3) Articles of fancy dress, e.g., masks, false

ears and noses, wigs, false beards and

moustaches (not being articles of posticheheading 67.04), and paper hats. However, the

heading excludes fancy dress of textile

materials, of chapter 61 or 62.

In interpreting the phrase ‘‘fancy

dress, of textiles, of chapter 61 or 62,’’

Customs initially took the view that

fancy dress included ‘‘all’’ costumes

regardless of quality, durability, or

nature of the item. However, Customs

has reexamined its view regarding the

scope of the term ‘‘fancy dress’’ as it

relates to costumes. On November 15,

1994, Customs issued Headquarters

Ruling Letter (HQ) 957318, which

referred to the settlement agreement of

October 18, 1994, reached by the United

States and Traveler Trading in the case

of Traveler Trading Co. v. United States,

Civil Action, #91–02–00084. In HQ

957318, Customs stated that it had

agreed to classify as festive articles in

subheading 9505.90.6090, HTSUS,

costumes of a flimsy nature and

construction, lacking in durability, and

generally recognized as not being

normal articles of apparel.

Description of Merchandise

The imported costumes which are the

subject of HQ 957318 are of the same

class or kind of merchandise as the

costumes manufactured by petitioner.

Costumes, whether imported or

domestically manufactured, are

traditionally worn in conjunction with

the celebration of the Halloween festival

or to costume parties. The costumes at

issue are constructed of fabric

comprised of man-made or natural

fibers, but not of paper. The costumes

usually depict a character, creature, or

professional person, and often include

accessories.

Issues Raised

Petitioner asserts that Customs

interpretation of the term ‘‘fancy dress’’

is incorrect since the term ‘‘fancy dress’’

is synonymous with the word

‘‘costume.’’ In support of this assertion,

petitioner cites the ‘‘Cambridge

International Dictionary of English’’

(1995) as stating that the word

‘‘costume’’ is American for the British

and Australian term ‘‘fancy dress.’’ In

addition, petitioner cites the ‘‘Oxford

English Dictionary’’ (2d ed. 1989) as

stating that the definition of the term

‘‘fancy dress’’ is ‘‘[a] costume arranged

according to the wearer’s fancy, usually

representing some fictitious or historical

character.’’

The petitioner states that the

Nomenclature Committee of the

Customs Cooperation Council

(predecessor to the World Customs

Organization) considered the scope of

the term ‘‘fancy dress’’ and determined

that the proper classification for

costumes was in Section XI. Further, a

recent decision by the Canadian

International Trade Tribunal held that

the language of Note 1(e) regarding

‘‘fancy dress, of textiles’’ included the

inexpensive costumes before the

Tribunal because the costumes were

‘‘arranged or made to suit the wearer’s

fancy to represent fictitious characters’’

and that subheading 9505, HTSUS,

covered ‘‘goods [that] are more

indicative of face disguises than of

actual clothing.’’

In citing the ENs to Chapter 95,

petitioner argues that the examples set

forth as ‘‘articles of fancy dress’’ in the

ENs include only items that act as

accessories to the fancy dress but are not

themselves ‘‘fancy dress’’ because they

do not clothe the body. Further,

petitioner claims that the phrase in the

ENs, ‘‘articles of fancy dress’’, does not

include those articles made of textile

material and that an item of ‘‘fancy

dress’’ is the actual costume, not the

accessories.

Petitioner states that the durability of

the costume is irrelevant to the

determination of whether a costume is

an item of apparel. Petitioner cites the

case of Admiral Craft Equip Corp. v.

United States, 82 Cust. Ct. 162, 164, C.D.

4796 (1979), in support of their position

that Customs should apply a ‘‘use’’ test

in classifying textile costumes and the

case of Dynamics Classics, Ltd. v.

United States, 10 CIT 666 (1986), as

setting forth factors to be considered in

applying the ‘‘use’’ test. In the Dynamics

case the court cited United States v.

Carborundum Co., 63 CCPA 98, 102,

C.A.D. 1172, 536 F.2d 373 (1976), for

stating the elements used to establish

the chief use of a class or kind of

merchandise: ‘‘(1) the general physical

characteristics of the merchandise; (2)

the expectations of the ultimate

purchaser, (3) the channels of trade, and

(4) how it is advertised and used.’’

According to the petitioner, application

of these factors would require that a

Halloween costume be classified as an

article of apparel in Chapter 61 or 62.

Finally , petitioner states that Court of

International Trade (CIT) decisions

interpreting the Tariff Schedules of the

United States (TSUS), are inapplicable

when classifying costumes under the

HTSUS. Petitioner argues that Customs

should not consider the CIT’s decisions

in Traveler Trading Co. v. United States,

713 F.Supp. 409 (CIT 1989), and I.C.I.

Worldwide, Inc. v. United States, 14 CIT

201 (1990), because both were decided

under the TSUS. Specifically, it is

petitioner’s contention that the courts’

decisions in those cases rested on the ‘‘

* * * very broad and preclusive nature

of the TSUS’s definition of ‘toys’.’’

Petitioner further asserts that the

classification of costumes under the

HTSUS is very different from the TSUS

because costumes are never classifiable

as toys under the HTSUS and costumes

are specifically excluded from

classification as articles of fancy dress of

textiles pursuant to Note 1(e) to Chapter

95.

Comments

Pursuant to Section 175.21(a),

Customs Regulations (19 CFR 175.21(a)),

before making a determination on the

matter, Customs invites written

comments on the petition from

interested parties.

The domestic party petition, as well

as all comments received in response to

this notice will be available for public

inspection in accordance with the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 1997 / Notices 66893

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C.

552), 1.4, Treasury Department

Regulations (31 CFR 1.4), and Section

103.11(b), Customs Regulations (19 CFR

103.11(b)), between the hours of 9:00

a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on regular business

days, at the: U.S. Customs Service,

Office of Regulations and Rulings,

Commercial Rulings Division, 1300

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor,

Washington, DC.

Authority

This notice is published in

accordance with Section 175.21(a),

Customs Regulations (19 CFR 175.21(a)),

19 U.S.C. 1516.

Drafting information: The principal

author of this document was Ann

Segura Minardi, Textiles Branch, Office

of Regulations and Rulings, U.S.

Customs Service. However, personnel

from other Customs offices participated

in its development.

Approved: December 5, 1997.

William F. Riley,

Acting Commissioner of Customs.

Dennis M. O’Connell,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the

Treasury.

[FR Doc. 97–33291 Filed 12–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4820–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request for Form 2758

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, Pub.

L. 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

Currently, the IRS is soliciting

comments concerning Form 2758,

Application for Extension of Time To

File Certain Excise, Income,

Information, and Other Returns.

DATES: Written comments should be

received on or before February 20, 1998

to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments

to Garrick R. Shear, Internal Revenue

Service, room 5571, 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 Martha R. Brinson,

(202) 622–3869, Internal Revenue

Service, room 5571, 1111 Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Application for Extension of

Time To File Certain Excise, Income,

Information, and Other Returns.

OMB Number: 1545–0148.

Form Number: 2758.

Abstract: Internal Revenue Code

section 6081 allows a reasonable

extension of time for filing any return,

declaration, statement, or other

document. Form 2758 is used by

fiduciaries, trustees, and certain taxexempt organizations to request an

extension of time to file their returns.

The information is used to determine

whether the extension should be

granted.

Current Actions: There are no changes

being made to the form at this time.

Type of Review: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations and not-for-profit

institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

300,000.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 3 hr.,

51 min.

Estimated Total Annual Burden

Hours: 1,155,000.

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 on 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.

Approved: December 16, 1997.

Garrick R. Shear,

IRS Reports Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–33358 Filed 12–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request for Form 8038–T

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, Pub.

L. 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

Currently, the IRS is soliciting

comments concerning Form 8038–T,

Arbitrage Rebate and Penalty in Lieu of

Arbitrage Rebate.

DATES: Written comments should be

received on or before February 20, 1998

to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments

to Garrick R. Shear, Internal Revenue

Service, room 5571, 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 Martha R. Brinson,

(202) 622–3869, Internal Revenue

Service, room 5571, 1111 Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Arbitrage Rebate and Penalty in

Lieu of Arbitrage Rebate.

OMB Number: 1545–1219.

Form Number: 8038–T.

Abstract: Form 8038–T is used by

issuers of tax exempt bonds to report

and pay the arbitrage rebate and to elect

and/or pay various penalties associated

with arbitrage bonds. These issuers

include state and local governments.