Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 18983

correct an unsafe condition in aircraft,

and that it is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866. It has been determined

further that this action involves an

emergency regulation under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is

determined that this emergency

regulation otherwise would be

significant under DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures, a final

regulatory evaluation will be prepared

and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it, if filed, may be obtained from the

Rules Docket at the location provided

under the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. App. 1354(a), 1421

and 1423; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 14 CFR

11.89.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

95–06–53 Boeing: Amendment 39–9199.

Docket 95–NM–37–AD.

Applicability: All Model 737 series

airplanes, certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must use the authority

provided in paragraph (d) to request approval

from the FAA. This approval may address

either no action, if the current configuration

eliminates the unsafe condition; or different

actions necessary to address the unsafe

condition described in this AD. Such a

request should include an assessment of the

effect of the changed configuration on the

unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no

case does the presence of any modification,

alteration, or repair remove any airplane from

the applicability of this AD.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent the rudder actuator piston and

the rudder from operating with reduced force

capability or moving in a direction opposite

the intended direction, and resultant reduced

controllability of the airplane, accomplish

the following:

(a) Within 5 flights after the effective date

of this AD, identify the part number and

serial number of the main rudder power

control unit (PCU).

(b) If the PCU is identified with a part

number and serial number specified in the

list below, prior to further flight, remove the

PCU from the airplane, and replace it with

a serviceable part.

Part No. Serial No.(s)

65C37052–3 ... 17SS, 49, 90A, 101, 138,

149A, 191A, 308A, 374,

EGG0282.

65C37052–5 ... 1211A.

65C37052–7 ... 399A, 710A, 926A, 935A,

1175A, 1237A, 1493A,

1504A, 1546, 1561A,

67700.

65C37052–8 ... 1090A, 1223, 1920, 2023A.

65C37052–9 ... 0184, 247, 394A, 641A,

1739A, 1746A, 1796A,

1849A, 1997A, 2181A.

(c) As of the effective date of this AD, no

person shall install on any airplane a rudder

PCU having a part number and serial number

that is specified in the list contained in

paragraph (b) of this AD unless paragraphs

(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD are

accomplished.

(1) Perform a functional test of the PCU in

accordance with Part II of the

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing

Service Bulletin 737–27–1185, dated April

15, 1993. And

(2) Check the torque value on the spring

retainer, Part Number 68021–5, to determine

that it measures a minimum of 25 inchpounds. If the torque value is less than 25

inch-pounds, repair in accordance with a

method approved by the Manager, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. And

(3) Repeat the functional test required by

paragraph (c)(1) of this AD. The PCU must

pass this functional test in order to be

returned to service. And

(4) The measurement required by

paragraph (c)(2) of this AD must be reported

to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056; fax (206)

227–1181. Information collection

requirements contained in this regulation

have been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been

assigned OMB Control Number 2120–0056.

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Seattle

ACO. Operators shall submit their requests

through an appropriate FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Seattle ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197

and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a

location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(f) The functional test shall be done in

accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin

737–27–1185, dated April 15, 1993. The

incorporation by reference of this document

was approved previously by the Director of

the Federal Register in accordance with 5

U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 as of March

3, 1994 (59 FR 4570, February 1, 1994).

Copies may be obtained from Boeing

Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707,

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. Copies may

be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite

700, Washington, DC.

(g) This amendment becomes effective on

May 1, 1995, to all persons except those

persons to whom it was made immediately

effective by telegraphic AD T95–06–53,

issued on March 14, 1995, which contained

the requirements of this amendment.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 5,

1995.

S.R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–8828 Filed 4–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service

19 CFR Parts 10, 101, 111, 123, 128,

141, 143, 145, 148, 159, and 178

[T.D. 95–31]

RIN 1515–AB53

Express Consignments; Formal and

Informal Entries of Merchandise;

Administrative Exemptions

AGENCY: Customs Service, Department

of the Treasury.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document amends the

Customs Regulations by adopting final

rules that implement two Customs

Modernization provisions of the North

American Free Trade Agreement

Implementation Act that seek to

streamline the commercial operations of

the U.S. Customs Service. One provision

concerns raising administrative

exemptions from duty, taxes, and fees

on articles such as gifts and personal

and household goods; the other

concerns exemptions from entry
18984 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

requirements for specified merchandise

(undeliverable shipments, rail

equipment, and instruments of

international traffic). Further, the final

rules also clarify the entry procedures

for shipments by express consignment

operators or carriers to make it clear that

all such shipments must be entered,

unless they are specifically exempted

from entry requirements.

This document addresses public

comments solicited by the interim

regulations that were published in the

Federal Register on June 13, 1994, and

makes certain suggested changes to

those interim regulations to add clarity

and improve the readability of the final

regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 15, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

Operational Aspects: Mike Compeau,

Office of Field Operations, (202) 927–

0762; For Legal Aspects: William G.

Rosoff, Office of Regulations and

Rulings, (202–482–7040).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On December 8, 1993, the United

States enacted the North American Free

Trade Agreement Implementation Act

(the Act), Pub. L. 103–182, 107 Stat.

2057. Title VI of the Act (107 Stat. 2170)

contains some 60 provisions pertaining

to Customs Modernization that seek to

streamline and automate the

commercial operations of the U.S.

Customs Service. Two of these

streamlining provisions are section 651

of Subtitle C and section 681 of Subtitle

D. Section 651 amends section 321 of

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19

U.S.C. 1321), which pertains to the

administrative exemption of certain

articles from duty and taxes to avoid

disproportionate expense and

inconvenience to the Government;

section 681 of Subtitle D amends the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS), at General Note

4 (now General Note 13) and at various

chapter Notes, to exempt certain other

articles from unnecessary ‘‘re-entry’’

procedures as imports.

Administrative Exemptions and Section

651 of the Act

Prior to passage of the Act, section

321 authorized administrative

exemptions from duty and taxes only up

to specific minimal dollar limits on

articles, such as gifts and personal and

household goods, and in certain other

situations. Although the statutorilyspecified dollar amounts were adjusted

periodically, as recently as 1983, they

have not kept pace with inflation; the

current amounts are not sufficiently

high to permit the Secretary to meet the

statutory goal of limiting expense to the

Government disproportionate to the

revenue that is collected.

Because of this continuing inflation

problem and due to substantial

increases in passenger arrivals and lowvalue entries, section 321 was amended

by section 651 of the Act to increase the

dollar amounts that trigger eligibility for

administrative exemptions. But instead

of setting maximum dollar amounts

below which the Secretary was

authorized to make the exemptions

applicable, the amendments set

minimum dollar amounts and authorize

the Secretary to make the exemptions

applicable up to an amount specified by

regulation. Also, the exemptions were

made applicable to the total of duties

and taxes.

The provisions of section 651 also

added a new provision to section 321 to

allow Customs to waive collection of

duties, fees, and taxes on entered

merchandise where the duty amount is

less than $20; however, no amendment

to the regulations is promulgated at this

time.

The regulations pertaining to

administrative exemptions and entry

procedures applicable to merchandise

subject to section 321 are scattered

throughout the Customs Regulations (19

CFR Chapter I): The provision

containing the authorization to

disregard a difference of less than $10

between the duty actually due on an

entry and the estimated duties

deposited is found at § 159.6 (19 CFR

159.6); provisions pertaining to bona

fide gifts are found at §§ 10.152 and

145.32 (19 CFR 10.152 and 145.32);

provisions pertaining to personal or

household articles are found at

§§ 148.51, 148.12 and 148.64 (19 CFR

148.51, 148.12 and 148.64); provisions

pertaining to the $5 administrative

exemption for all other articles are

found at §§ 10.151 and 145.31 (19 CFR

10.151 and 145.31); and conditions for

the exemptions provided for at

§§ 10.151 and 10.152 are now found at

§ 10.153 (19 CFR 10.153). Also,

§ 128.24(d) (19 CFR 128.24(d)) refers to

low-value shipments (i.e., shipments

valued at $5 or less) and provides that

such shipments must be segregated from

shipments valued at more than $5 when

the special informal entry procedures

provided for in part 128 are used. (This

provision was intended to cover articles

which could be administratively

exempted from duties and taxes under

section 321(a)(2)(C) (19 U.S.C.

1321(a)(2)(C)) (see T.D. 89–53,

published in the Federal Register on

May 8, 1989 (54 FR 19561)).) Other

provisions relating to administrative

exemptions and entry requirements are

found in parts 111 (Customs brokers),

141 (Entry of merchandise), and 143

(Special entry procedures) of the

Customs Regulations (19 CFR).

The Harmonized Tariff Schedule and

Section 681 of the Act

Under present regulations, shipments

which leave the U.S. and go undelivered

to the country of destination (without

having left the custody of the carrier or

foreign customs service) are considered

exports and must be ‘‘re-entered’’ into

the U.S. as imports. Current regulations

also provide that rail equipment brought

into the U.S. from Canada, although not

subject to duty, is subject to entry

requirements, and instruments of

international traffic (e.g., containers, rail

cars and locomotives, truck cabs, and

trailers), although exempt from formal

entry procedures, are subject to certain

other procedures.

Section 681 of the Act amended the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS) at General Note

4 (now General Note 13, see,

Presidential Proclamation 6641,

December 15, 1993, published in the

Federal Register on December 20, 1993

(58 FR 67032, 66867)) to exempt from

entry requirements certain shipments

returned as undelivered, thereby

facilitating their processing. Section 681

also amended various HTSUS chapter

Notes to eliminate entry requirements

for rail cars and locomotives on which

no duty is owed, pursuant to terms of

the U.S.-Canada Free-Trade Agreement

(see, U.S.-Canada Free-Trade

Implementation Act of 1988, Pub. L.

100–449, 102 Stat. 1851, 19 U.S.C. 2112

note), and to eliminate unnecessary

entry procedures related to instruments

of international traffic by providing for

reporting requirements and the periodic

payment of fees.

The interim regulations implementing

aspects of these various provisions are

found in parts 10, 123, and 141 of the

Customs Regulations (19 CFR parts 10,

123, and 141).

Customs Regulations Amended by

Interim Regulations

To implement the amendments to

section 321 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and

provisions of the HTSUS by sections

651 and 681, respectively, of the Act,

and to clarify the procedures for

shipments brought into the U.S. by

express consignment operators and

carriers, on June 13, 1994, Customs

published interim regulations in the

Federal Register as T.D. 94–51 (59 FR

30289). These interim regulations

provided for a 30-day comment period

and an effective date of 45 days after
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 18985

publication, unless comments received

demonstrated that there was good cause

for not making the regulations effective

on an interim basis. No comments

received by Customs established such

good cause. The published effective date

of the interim regulations—July 28,

1994—subsequently became the subject

of litigation, when, on July 25, 1994, the

National Customs Brokers and

Forwarders Association of America,

Inc., filed a motion with the United

States Court of International Trade (CIT)

seeking to enjoin the implementation of

the interim regulations, and were

granted a temporary restraining order

(TRO). Accordingly, on July 28, 1994,

Customs published another document

in the Federal Register as T.D. 94–61

(59 FR 38548) giving notice that the

TRO had been issued and that the

effective date of the regulations was

delayed. A hearing was held on August

9, 1994, and on August 16, 1994, the

Court issued a decision in National

Customs Brokers & Forwarders Ass’n of

America, Inc. v. U.S., 18 CIT lll, 861

F.Supp. 121 (CIT 1994), which denied

the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary

injunction, revoked the temporary

restraining order, and dismissed the

case. The interim rules subsequently

became effective on August 23, 1994,

when T.D. 94–71 (59 FR 43283) was

published in the Federal Register.

The interim regulations amended or

revised twenty-one sections of the

Customs Regulations that are scattered

over ten parts of the Code of Federal

Regulations (19 CFR) to conform them

to the statutory changes made by the

above-mentioned amendments, and

solicited comments concerning these

changes. The sections affected by the

interim rule were §§ 10.151, 10.152,

10.153, 101.1, 111.3, 123.12, 128.21,

128.23, 128.24, 128.25, 128.26, 141.4,

143.21, 143.23, 143.26, 145.31, 145.32,

148.12, 148.51, 148.64, and 159.6 (19

CFR 10.151, 10.152, 10.153, 101.1,

111.3, 123.12, 128.21, 128.23, 128.24,

128.25, 128.26, 141.4, 143.21, 143.23,

143.26, 145.31, 145.32, 148.12, 148.51,

148.64, and 159.6).

Eighteen comments were received,

which raised five areas of concern. The

comments received and Customs

responses to them are set forth below.

Discussion of Comments

Comments were received from

Customs broker organizations (six),

express consignment companies or

organizations (five), groups representing

other types of carriers (three), a Port

Authority (one), a group representing

the recording industry (one), the Joint

Industry Group (one), and a Customs

office (one). The comments raised five

areas of concern involving: (1) Whether

the interim regulations codified existing

practices; (2) exempt merchandise

under §§ 10.151 and 10.152; (3)

unlicensed transactions under § 111.3;

(4) procedures for express consignments

under §§ 128.21, 128.23, and 128.24;

and (5) entry requirements under

§§ 141.4, 143.23, 143.26, and 145.31 and

those pertaining to undeliverable

shipments and international traffic. We

address each of these concerns seriatim.

In General

Comment: Five commenters stated

that the interim regulations should not

be implemented or that there should be

a longer comment period before

implementation. Six commenters called

for the immediate implementation of the

interim regulations.

Customs Response: The issue of

implementing interim regulations was

addressed by the Court of International

Trade (CIT) in National Customs

Brokers & Forwarders Ass’n of America,

Inc., v. U.S., 18 CIT lll, 861 F.Supp.

121 (CIT 1994) (National Customs

Brokers), wherein, the court found that

Customs acted lawfully in promulgating

interim regulations which affect certain

administrative exemptions. Further,

Customs feels that adequate time for

commenting and analysis of those

comments has been provided.

Comment: Two commenters stated

that Customs had not considered the

revenue effects of implementing the

new administrative exemption levels.

Customs Response: Given that the

Customs Modernization provisions of

the Act declare the will and the

objectives of Congress and the President

to modernize Customs laws, Customs is

not required to make such a

consideration because, by its act of

amending section 321, Congress

indicated its policy determination with

respect to cost-to-benefit analysis of

expense and inconvenience versus

revenue raised with regard to the entry

of exempt low-value shipments. See, the

legislative history of section 651, H.R.

Rep. No. 361, 103rd Cong., 1st Sess., pt.

1, 145 (1993) and S. Rep. No. 189, 103rd

Cong., 1st Sess. 93 (1993), and the

discussion of this issue by the court in

its decision in National Customs

Brokers, cited above.

Comment: One commenter expressed

concern that the interim regulations

appear to associate the privileges in 19

U.S.C. 1321 only with express

consignment processing. The

commenter stated that since a carrier is

not listed among the parties authorized

to make entry of shipments valued at

§ 200 or less, a carrier may not be

authorized to make entry, even though

the carrier holds the air waybill

document/data. The commenter

‘‘strongly recommends’’ that the interim

regulations be amended to clarify that

for these entries the carrier may present

the air waybill or bill of lading on behalf

of the owner or consignee.

Customs Response: The commenter’s

concern is ill-founded. A carrier is a

nominal consignee and, therefore, is

entitled to the privileges provided under

the interim regulations for shipments

valued § 200 or less. Regarding the

initial concern that the interim

regulations associate the privileges in

section 1321 only with express

consignment processing, this is exactly

what the interim regulations do not do;

they apply the same rules across the

board, as much as is possible, so that

now the privileges under the amended

statute are extended generally and a

‘‘level playing field’’ results (i.e., see the

amendments to §§ 143.21, 143.23, and

143.26, as well as those to parts 145 and

148). Accordingly, no change to the

amendments is made based on this

comment.

Comment: A commenter suggested the

total elimination of part 128, because

such regulations are superfluous and

duplicative of existing provisions. The

commenter stated that part 128 covers

‘‘express consignments’’ but does not

define the term. Therefore, the

commenter suggested that either part

128 be eliminated totally or it be

amended to cover all consignments and

all carriers. If it is decided to retain part

128, the commenter suggested that

§§ 143.26 and 145.31, as well as other

‘‘interim’’ regulations ‘‘designed to

accommodate the ‘express’ industry’’ be

redesignated in part 128.

Customs Response: Initially, we note

that it would be inconsistent with Pub.

L. 103–182, which took special notice of

the express consignment industry (see

section 681 and H.R. Rep. No. 361,

103rd Cong., 1st Sess. pt. 1, 154–155

(1993)), for Custom to now eliminate

that part of the Custom Regulations

pertaining to that industry. As for the

contention that Part 128 does not define

‘‘express consignments’’, the definition

of ‘‘express consignment operator or

carrier’’ in § 128.1(a) contains the

following elements: That such

businesses offer their special express

service to the public under an

advertised, reliable timely delivery on a

door-to-door basis; and, that they

operate in any mode or intermodally by

moving cargo under closely integrated

administrative control. Regarding the

propriety of having a separate part 128

to regulate just the express industry,

Customs has a long history of

facilitating trade by addressing the
18986 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

specific needs of groups or industries

which have transactions with Customs.

That is why other identifiable groups,

such as vessel carriers (part 4), air

carriers (part 122), land carriers (part

123), warehouses (parts 19 and 144),

and foreign trade zones (part 146) have

regulations applicable to their

businesses located in easily identifiable

parts of the Customs Regulations.

Accordingly, no change to the

amendments is made based on this

comment.

Comment: A commenter cited

Customs information-gathering and

automation efforts and then argued that

in the Interim Regulations Customs is

informing the public that, for a

‘‘majority of importations, those entered

on informal Customs entries,’’ Customs

does not need the information which it

had said it needed when it implemented

these automation efforts.

Customs Response: The only change

from the manifest requirements for

express consignment shipments under

part 128 is that the HTSUS (Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States)

number is not required for shipments

valued at § 200 or less (i.e., not for all

informal entries). Customs believes that

this change does not affect a ‘‘majority

of importations.’’ Accordingly, no

change to the amendments is made

based on this comment.

Comment: A commenter stated that

Customs should perform periodic

inspections of all goods, including

shipments valued at § 200 or less.

Customs Response: Customs fully

agrees with this comment and, in fact,

does perform examinations of

shipments valued at less than § 200.

These examinations are typically

performed under structured programs

such as statistically valid compliance

measurements, random examinations,

and targeted examinations.

Comment: One commenter stated that

the regulations would allow unfettered

entry according to unchallenged

declarations of entry. Another

commenter questioned how the FDA

will enforce its statutes and regulations

if Customs has no idea whether a

package falls within FDA jurisdiction.

This same commenter also questioned

how Customs will enforce visa

requirements for apparel and

intellectual property rights, arguing that

the Interim Regulations make no

mention of how this will be done.

Customs Response: Customs disagrees

with this statement. One of the concepts

that permeates the Customs

Modernization provisions is that an

‘‘importer of record’’ is held to a

standard of ‘‘reasonable care’’ in

discharging entry and related activities.

This standard, coupled with the fact

that Customs has every authority to

challenge the contents of any

documentation or data submitted,

including value, presented for

shipments entering the United States,

enables Customs to rely on the specific

description provided to determine

whether a shipment is subject to another

agency’s requirements. However,

because the ‘‘reasonable care’’ standard

was not made express in the interim

regulations, specifically at § 143.26,

language providing for this standard is

added, under the authority of 19 U.S.C.

1498(b).

In addition, it is Customs opinion that

visa requirements will be enforced

because merchandise for which there

are visa requirements is encompassed

by the provisions of § 10.153(g)

(merchandise of a class or kind

provided for in any absolute or tariffrate quota), or, in the case of express

shipments, by the provisions of

§ 128.24(a) (merchandise which is

subject to quota or other quantitative

restraints). Therefore, merchandise

subject to visa does not qualify for dutyfree treatment under the provisions of

§ 10.151. Accordingly, no change to the

amendments is made based on this

comment.

Comment: A commenter stated that

Customs would virtually eliminate any

possibility for detection of contraband

shipments through subsequent review of

importation documents.

Customs Response: Customs disagrees

with this statement. Customs routinely

performs port audits of manifest

information, including low-value

shipments. In addition, Customs can

examine these shipments prior to

release. (See also the response below to

a similar comment under the heading

‘‘Express consignment procedures under

§§ 128.21, 128.23, and 128.24’’.)

Exempt Merchandise Under §§ 10.151

and 10.152

Comment: One commenter contended

that the preparation of an entry should

not be required for any shipment valued

at $200 or less. Two other commenters

contended that shipments under 19

U.S.C. 1321 are exempt from entry as

well as duty. These commenters also

referred to what they believe to be

favorable treatment for mail shipments.

Customs Response: Customs does not

agree with these comments. These

issues were clearly addressed in the

BACKGROUND portion of T.D. 94–51 (the

Federal Register document which

amended the Customs Regulations on an

interim basis (59 FR 30289)) (see also

National Customs Brokers, which

upholds Custom position in this regard).

It is Customs position that the former

§ 10.151 did not exempt merchandise

covered by it from entry; it exempted

such merchandise from formal entry

under 19 U.S.C. 1484. T.D. 94–51

clearly explains this. Regarding mail

entries, § 145.31 provides that the

district director does not need to

prepare an entry as provided for in

§ 145.12. This is not a change from the

previous provision, except that a

reference to § 145.12 was added to make

it clear that what is meant is that

Customs officers need not prepare an

entry for the covered shipment.

Accordingly, no change to the

amendments is warranted.

Comment: One commenter questioned

Customs ability to determine if an

importer has multiple shipments of lowvalue merchandise arriving on one day

because an importer can use various

couriers, carriers and the mail.

Customs Response: Customs disagrees

that it would be unable to determine if

an importer has multiple shipments.

Customs performs post audits of

manifests for both couriers and other

carriers and it would be possible to

identify violators through these

procedures or simply through manifest

reviews. Importers using the mail have

no control over postal routing and a

pattern of repeated shipments of lowvalue merchandise would be detected

by Customs personnel responsible for

processing the packages.

Comment: One commenter proposed

that an invoice be attached to each

manifest to verify the low value of

shipments.

Customs Response: Customs disagrees

with this proposal. Although Customs

has the authority to require supporting

documentation for any shipment, we

feel that it would place an excessive

burden on the trade community to

require such documentation which, in

the preponderance of cases, would

simply duplicate information already

provided. Accordingly, no change to the

amendments is made based on this

comment.

Comment: One commenter proposed

that Customs maintain the status quo for

shipments with a declared value of $100

or more.

Customs Response: Customs feels that

this is not an option. Customs also notes

that the amount set by 19 U.S.C.

1321(a)(2)(C) is a ‘‘floor’’ amount of

$200.

Comment: One commenter suggested

that the $100 ceiling for gifts in § 10.152

be changed to $200, consistent with the

$200 ceiling for importations by one

person on one day in § 10.151.

Customs Response: The dollar

amounts currently provided in
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 18987

§§ 10.151 and 10.152 are the ‘‘floor’’

amounts established by Congress when

it amended 19 U.S.C. 1321. Although

the Secretary of the Treasury is

authorized to prescribe exceptions to

any exemption provided for under

section 321, changing a provision to

provide for amounts greater than the

floor amounts established requires an

analysis of the expense and

inconvenience to the Government

compared to the revenue that would

otherwise be collected. See, 19 U.S.C.

1321(b). When such an analysis is

undertaken, this comment will be

reconsidered. At this time, however, no

change to § 10.152 can be made.

Unlicensed Transactions Under § 111.3

Comment: A commenter stated that

although it does not challenge the

decision as to the type of entry method

which may be used for shipments under

19 U.S.C. 1321, it does challenge

Customs taking of the authority to

decide who will make such entries by

the addition of § 111.3(e) to the Customs

Regulations. The commenter also cited

19 U.S.C. 1641(b)(6) under which any

person who intentionally transacts

Customs business, other than on behalf

of that person (i.e., a person conducting

Customs business for his or her own

behalf), is liable to a $10,000 penalty.

The commenter noted that,

notwithstanding the above provisions,

the Interim Regulations provide that

shipments of $200 or less may be made

by the owner, purchaser, or consignee of

the shipment. The commenter argued

that a consignee filing such an entry is

clearly conducting Customs business

other than on its own behalf and

concluded that in this case the entry

documents must be filed by the persons

with the right to make entry under 19

U.S.C. 1484. Three other commenters

challenged the provisions of § 143.26

which allow a consignee to make entry

on shipments valued at $200 or less.

Regarding the amendment to

§ 111.3(e), another commenter noted

that an importer is already allowed to

make entry for his/her own account

without being a Customs broker, and

that Customs has issued instructions

and messages showing concern about

adequately enforcing cargo selectivity

processing and protecting the revenue

in regard to informal entries. The

commenter further stated that extending

the right to file informal entries to

parties other than the actual importer or

a licensed broker may compound

existing problems. Also, the commenter

asked what the power of attorney

requirements would be for the party

presenting an informal entry.

Another commenter noted the

amendment to ‘‘Customs business’’ in

19 U.S.C. 1641(a)(2) made by Pub. L.

103–182 and noted that this indicates

that the intent of Congress in

promulgating the Customs

Modernization provisions of the Act

was to further restrict the amount and

type of Customs business that could be

performed by unlicensed parties.

Customs Response: In National

Customs Brokers, the Court addressed

these very contentions and concluded

that ‘‘* * * sections 1498 and 1484

support the conclusion that Customs

has acted lawfully in promulgating

regulations for the declaration and entry

of exempt merchandise * * *’’

Concerning power of attorney

requirements, a power of attorney

continues to be required in each

instance in which a Customs broker is

designated by the owner, purchaser, or

consignee. The change effected by the

Interim Regulations in this regard is that

now, for shipments entitled to the

privileges in 19 U.S.C. 1321, the

consignee may make entry (see

§ 143.26(b)). Since the consignee in this

situation makes such an entry in its own

right, no Customs power of attorney (see

19 CFR 141.34 et seq.) is required in this

situation. Accordingly, no change to the

amendments is made based on these

comments.

Comment: Arguing that Customs has

historically required the person making

entry not only to be knowledgeable

about and accountable for the facts

relating to an importation but also to

submit documentation to substantiate

that knowledge, a commenter stated that

its reading of § 143.26, combined with

the changes to Part 128, indicates that

‘‘express’’ entities (and their licensed

brokers) may enter all shipments each

individually valued at not over $1250

by merely submitting an ‘‘entity’’

manifest setting forth the freight bill

number and a value not over $1250.

Customs Response: Regarding the

‘‘right to make entry’’ issues, as stated

above, these issues were clearly

addressed by the CIT’s decision in

National Customs Brokers. Regarding

the treatment of shipments carried by

express consignment operators or

carriers, the Interim Regulations are

very clear in creating a 3-tiered

approach (shipments valued at $200 or

less and otherwise qualifying may be

entered informally, as provided for in 19

U.S.C. 1498 and § 128.24, and are

entitled to the privileges in 19 U.S.C.

1321; shipments valued from $200 to

$1250 may be entered informally, as

provided for in 19 U.S.C. 1498 and

§ 128.24; and all other shipments must

be entered under the formal entry

procedures). If the commenter is

questioning the use of ‘‘in-house’’

brokers by couriers, we note that this

issue has been extensively dealt with by

the Courts (National Customs Brokers v.

U.S., 13 CIT 803, 723 F.Supp. 1511

(1989); National Customs Brokers &

Forwarders Ass’n of America v. U.S., 14

CIT 108, 731 F.Supp. 1076 (1990); J.F.K.

Customs Brokers Ass’n Inc. v. U.S., 745

F.Supp. 113 (E.D.N.Y. 1990)).

Express Consignment Procedures Under

§§ 128.21, 128.23, and 128.24

Comment: One commenter suggested

that the manifest requirements in

§ 128.21 be modified to require a

description (of the imported

merchandise) detailed enough so that

the HTSUS classification applicable to

the shipment can be determined from

the description.

Another commenter stated that

§ 128.24(e) permits release of shipments

valued at less than $200 without the

requirement for an HTSUS number and

§ 128.24(d) exempts such shipments

from the filing of an entry summary.

While two commenters supported not

having a HTSUS number requirement,

two other commenters stated that

HTSUS numbers should be required for

section 321 releases.

Those opposed to not requiring

HTSUS numbers questioned if Customs

would be able to enforce other

government agency requirements, visa

requirements, or Intellectual Property

Rights (IPR) issues.

Customs Response: The requirement

for a specific description of entered

merchandise, as provided in the Interim

Regulations, was contained in the

previous provision (19 CFR

128.21(a)(4)). The only change from the

previous provision is that, consistent

with the amendment to 19 U.S.C.

1321(a)(2)(C), no entry summary or

estimated duties are required and tariff

classification information is not

required for shipments qualifying for 19

U.S.C. 1321 treatment. In addition,

Customs, under 19 CFR 143.22, has the

option of requiring a formal entry for

any shipment for which there are

questions regarding admissibility,

enforcement or revenue.

Regarding a requirement for HTSUS

numbers on low-value entries, Customs

does not feel that there is sufficient

reason to require such merchandise

identification when other required

manifest information is adequate to

enforce these provisions. Customs

believes that the requirements to

provide shipper/consignee information

and a specific description, along with

the country of origin and value of the

merchandise, provide adequate
18988 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

information to meet Customs

enforcement responsibilities on lowvalue shipments. Accordingly, no

change to the amendments is made

based on this comment.

Comment: A commenter suggested

that the requirement in § 128.21(a)(4)(i)

for the HTSUS number on the manifest

if the merchandise is required to be

formally entered is redundant since the

HTSUS number is provided via the CF

3461 or CF 7501 and the transmission

of that data via the Automated Broker

Interface (ABI).

Customs Response: The requirement

has been in effect since express

regulations were originally published.

As this item is not directly related to the

amendments made by sections 651 and

681 and was not included in the interim

regulations, Customs does not support

including the proposal in the final rule

because there has not been a

comprehensive analysis performed at

this time. Accordingly, no change to the

amendments is made based on this

comment.

Comment: One commenter stated that

‘‘express’’ entities may enter shipments

valued at less than $1,250 by merely

submitting a manifest setting forth the

freight bill number and the value.

Customs Response: We are unaware of

any regulations which state this.

Requirements for entry of express

shipments valued between $200 and

$1,250 are set forth in § 128.24;

however, the information required goes

far beyond a bill number and value. The

requirements for release of shipments

valued under $200 are defined in

§ 143.23 and also require more than a

bill number and value information.

Comment: One commenter stated that

it appears that shipments of any value

may be entered via a manifest report.

Customs Response: The commenter

did not cite any regulation or other basis

for this comment. We are unaware of

any regulation which would permit this.

Comment: A commenter requested

removal or authorization of a waiver of

the requirement in § 128.23 that entry

numbers be furnished in a Customsapproved bar code format. Another

commenter argued that transmission in

a bar-coded format is ‘‘operationally

impossible.’’

Customs Response: The requirement

has been in effect since express

consignment regulations were originally

published. As this item was not directly

related to the amendments made by

sections 651 and 681 and was not

included in the interim regulations,

Customs does not support including the

proposal in the final rule because there

has not been a comprehensive analysis

performed at this time. Accordingly, no

change to the amendments is made

based on this comment.

Comment: Four commenters

suggested that § 128.23(b)(1) should

require express consignment entities

utilizing the procedures in part 128 to

comply with the applicable Automated

Commercial System (ACS)

requirements.

Customs Response: Customs disagrees

with this proposal, and believes that

such a change to the regulations would

actually serve to confuse the

applicability of ACS requirements.

Insertion of the word ‘‘applicable’’

would create confusion by inferring that

the use of automated procedures is

discretionary. Accordingly, no change to

the amendments is made based on this

comment.

Comment: One commenter asked that

§ 128.24(e) be clarified so that it is clear

that the requirement for segregation of

shipments valued at $200 or less from

those valued at more than $200 when an

advance manifest is used refers to

segregation on the manifest.

Customs Response: We agree with this

proposal. There was never any intent

that actual shipments of low-value

merchandise be physically segregated

from other shipments. We feel this can

be resolved by rewording the pertinent

sentence to read ‘‘such shipments must

be segregated on the manifest

from * * *.’’

Entry Requirements Under §§ 141.4,

143.23, 143.26, and 145.31 and Those

Pertaining to Undeliverable Shipments

and International Traffic

Comment: A commenter stated that

§ 141.4(c) provides for exemption from

entry for undeliverable articles under

HTSUS General Note 13(e), subject to

certain conditions. One of these

conditions requires that the person

claiming the exemption must submit a

certification that the merchandise was

intended to be exported to a foreign

country. However, T.D. 55091(4), 95

Treas. Dec. 145 (1960), allows for the

return of merchandise that was

erroneously shipped to a foreign

country. Thus, the commenter suggested

that merchandise erroneously shipped

to a foreign country should be exempt

from entry under HTSUS General Note

13(e)—since these types of shipments

were not intended to be exported—and

that § 141.4(c) should so provide.

Customs Response: Customs does not

agree with this suggestion. Two separate

concepts are apparently being confused

here: Goods erroneously shipped that

may be administratively treated as

nonexports/nonimports, and goods

undeliverable abroad that, pursuant to

statute, are required to be exported to be

exempt from entry. As stated by the

commenter, § 141.4(c) provides for the

entry exemption statutorily available

under General Note 13(e), which was

amended by section 681 of the Act to

provide, in part, that goods

undeliverable abroad must have been

exported in the first instance.

Exportation is defined at § 101.1(k) of

the Customs Regulations (19 CFR

101.1(k)) in terms of intent to unite

goods to the mass of things belonging to

some foreign country. Thus, an intent to

export domestic goods to some foreign

country must be present before the entry

exemption available can be considered

applicable. Under the provisions of T.D.

55091(4), however, merchandise that

was erroneously shipped is

administratively treated as if it was

never exported, because there was no

intent to export the goods, i.e., to unite

the goods to the mass of things

belonging to a foreign country, in the

first instance. While this may seem like

a case of semantics, the concepts

embrace different scenarios: The latter

situation addressed in the T.D. is much

narrower than the circumstances

required to be met by the entry

exemption available under General Note

13(e). To the extent that the commenter

believes that the T.D. may be

inconsistent with the provisions of

§ 141.4(c), it is encouraged to write in,

under the provisions of part 177 of the

Customs Regulations, for a clarification

of the T.D., but Customs does not see

any apparent contradiction between

these two exemption provisions.

Accordingly, no change to the

amendments is made based on this

comment.

Comment: A commenter stated that

Customs should clarify that the

merchandise involved cannot leave the

custody of either the carrier or the

foreign Customs service.

Customs Response: It seems obvious

that the statutory requirement does not

require the merchandise to be in the

custody of both the carrier and the

foreign Customs service.

Comment: A commenter argued that

the Interim Regulations are inconsistent

with an agreement reached between

Customs and a railroad association,

which provides that the importer

(required to make the certification

regarding age of the car under HTSUS

subheading 9905.86.05 or the

certification regarding the exportation

within 1 year from the date of

importation under HTSUS subheading

9905.86.10) should not have to make the

certification; the requirement should be

met by a certified list from the

Association, with information regarding

the cars.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 18989

Customs Response: In general,

Customs must have a mechanism in

place to ‘‘ensure’’ that rail cars and

locomotives entering the U.S. are not

subject to duties or taxes. The current

interim regulation gives U.S. Customs

the authority to establish evidentiary

requirements.

With regard to bonding requirements,

Customs is unaware of any other

method to insure the performance of the

obligations set forth in the regulations

(other than a bond). Since there is a

statutory requirement, compliance with

which is guaranteed by a bond, and

since the legislative history specifically

authorized the requiring of such a bond

(see the BACKGROUND to the Interim

Regulations, under Other Exemptions

from Entry), we see no alternative to

requiring such a bond.

However, the commenter requested

Customs to accept the railroad

association’s certification of eligibility

for importation under HTSUS

subheading 9905.86.05 instead of

having the certification of particular

railroads actually importing the cars;

that the association should guarantee

the accuracy of that certification and the

fact that any car so imported would be

timely exported. If the railroad

association would be willing to post a

bond that made it, rather than the actual

importing railroad, responsible for any

default of those two commitments and

the association would further agree not

to raise as a defense to an action the fact

that it was not the importing railroad,

then Customs would draft the

appropriate bond language and seek to

obtain the formal commitment of the

Department of the Treasury that the

Customs Service may accept such a

bond from the association for the

activity specified. Accordingly, no

change to the regulations is made at this

time.

Comment: Three comments—all from

express companies—suggested that

Customs should clarify that requiring

documents under § 141.4(c)(2) to

support claims for exemption from entry

for undeliverable articles should not be

done on a routine basis.

Customs Response: We disagree with

this proposal. The express companies

deal primarily with small, low-value

shipments. HTSUS General Note 13(e),

however, applies to all shipments.

There are no restrictions upon mode of

transport, value, country of origin, quota

merchandise, or other agency

requirements. Customs could

conceivably receive claims for

importation without entry on shipments

of unlimited quantities or value. We

oppose inclusion of any language which

could be interpreted as limiting

Customs authority to require supporting

documentation. Accordingly, no change

to the amendments is made based on

this comment.

Comment: Four commenters

contended that the documentation

needed to enter a shipment valued at

$200 or less, provided for in § 143.23(j),

which does not include ‘‘shipping

weight,’’ should be consistent with the

documentation required to be on

manifests submitted by express carriers

under § 128.21(a)(6), which does

include ‘‘shipping weight.’’

Customs Response: We agree with this

proposal. Because the weight of a

shipment can provide valuable

enforcement or compliance information,

we feel that ‘‘Weight’’ should be

included in the list of required

information under § 143.23.

Comment: Four commenters proposed

either to eliminate language from

§ 143.23(j) which refers to informal

entries for shipments valued at less than

$200, or provide statements which

essentially assert that an entry is not

required for these shipments.

Customs Response: Customs disagrees

with the underlying premise of these

commenters, i.e., that such low-value

shipments are exempt from entry

requirements. As stated in the

BACKGROUND portion of T.D. 94–51, the

interim regulations amended Part 143 to

clarify the procedures for entries of

shipments, including shipments which

may be entered under the procedures

provided for by regulation. Only

merchandise specifically exempt from

entry, i.e., so-called intangibles, under

General Note 13, is exempt from all

forms of entry. By adding paragraph (j)

to § 143.23, Customs was clarifying the

entry requirements that have always

been applicable to low-value shipments.

Thus, this amendment to § 143.23 did

not constitute a change from current

practice.

Regarding the propriety of

promulgating such regulations, the

commenter is advised to see the Court’s

decision in National Customs Brokers,

which, in responding to the issue of

whether merchandise authorized to be

exempt, under section 321 of the Tariff

Act of 1930, must be entered, reiterated

that the Secretary is empowered to

promulgate regulations with respect to

entry of low-value exempt merchandise

pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1498(b) (also

citing 19 U.S.C. 1484). Accordingly, no

change to the amendments is made

based on this comment.

Comment: One commenter stated that,

operationally, a hard copy air waybill

must be submitted, even though the

required information can be submitted

through AMS.

Customs Response: Customs notes

that the reference to ‘‘manifest’’ in

§ 143.23 includes electronic manifests.

Comment: One commenter indicated

that couriers do not have to tell Customs

what imported goods actually are.

Customs Response: This is an

incorrect statement. Sections 143.23 and

128.21(a) very clearly state that a

specific description of the merchandise

is required.

Comment: One commenter proposed

that Customs should require the

importer’s identification number and

the manufacturer’s identification

number for low-value shipments.

Customs Response: Customs disagrees

with the proposal to require ID

numbers. Customs believes that it can

adequately fulfill its enforcement needs

for low-value shipments based on the

shipper and consignee information

required in §§ 143.23 and 128.21(a).

Accordingly, no change to the

amendments is made based on this

comment.

Comment: Another commenter stated

that Customs would be unable to

enforce embargoes because the courier

does not have to furnish Customs and

their computer with the country of

origin.

Customs Response: Sections 143.23

and 128.21(a) clearly state that the

country of origin of the merchandise is

required information for release of

merchandise under section 321

provisions.

Comment: A commenter suggested

that §§ 143.26 and 145.31 be

incorporated into part 128 of the CFR.

Customs Response: Customs disagrees

with this proposal. Section 143.26

applies to all shipments which qualify

for administrative exemptions,

regardless of whether the shipment is

express. Section 145.31 deals with

shipments in the mail and is not

applicable to express shipments.

Accordingly, no change to these

sections is made based on this

comment.

Comment: One commenter suggested

that §§ 143.26 and 145.31 should be

revised to state that the consignee, other

than the owner or purchaser, must show

direct interest in, and a relationship to,

an importation sufficient to meet basic

custom entry requirements.

Customs Response: Customs disagrees

with this suggestion. The suggestion is

confusing in that a consignee, by its

very nature, must have an interest in

and a relationship to the importation.

Accordingly, no change to these

sections is made based on this

comment.
18990 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Comment: Two commenters stated

that mail importations are exempt from

entry under § 145.31.

Customs Response: Customs believes

that it is made clear in the revised

§ 10.151 that the provisions included in

§ 145.31 constitute an entry under

informal entry procedures. Information

needed for release of mail shipments

under administrative exemptions is

supplied in documentation

accompanying the mail package. This

accompanying documentation is the

‘‘other document filed as the entry’’

required by § 10.151.

Conclusion

As no material issues were raised in

the comments that are not adequately

addressed by existing regulations or by

relevant judicial decisions, Customs has

decided to finalize the amendments as

proposed, with the minor editorial

changes to §§ 128.24(e), 143.23, and

143.26 discussed above. Also,

conforming amendments to §§ 10.151,

Part 178, and the general authority

citations to Parts 10, 101, 123, and 159

are made as follows: § 10.151 is revised

to add oral declarations to the forms of

evidence showing the fair retail value of

imported merchandise; Part 178 is

amended to indicate the OMB-assigned

control numbers for the information

collections contained at §§ 128.21,

128.23, 128.24, 141.4, and 143.23; at

part 10, the reference to 19 U.S.C. 1202

is revised to add a parenthetical

reference to General Note 20 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS); at Part 101, the

parenthetical HTSUS reference is

revised to include a reference to General

Note 20; at Part 123, section 1433 is

added to the citations for title 19—it

was inadvertently left out of the Interim

Regulation text; and, at part 159, section

1504 is added to the citations for title

19—it also was inadvertently left out of

the Interim Regulation text.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, and

Executive Order 12866

Based on the supplementary

information set forth above and because

the amendments contained in this

document reflect existing statutory

requirements or merely implement

interpretations and policies that are

already in effect under interim

regulations, pursuant to the provisions

of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 601 et seq., it is certified that the

regulations will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Accordingly,

the regulations are not subject to the

regulatory analysis or other

requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

This document does not meet the

criteria for a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ as specified in E.O. 12866.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The collections of information in

these final regulations, contained in

§§ 128.21, 128.23, 128.24, 141.4, and

143.23, were previously reviewed and

approved by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) in accordance with

the requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3507)

under control numbers 1515–0069

(§§ 128.21, 128.23 and 128.24) and

1515–0065 (§§ 141.4 and 143.23). The

estimated average annual burden

associated with this collection is .24

hours per respondent or recordkeeper.

Comments concerning the accuracy of

this burden estimate and suggestions for

reducing this burden should be directed

to the U.S. Customs Service, Paperwork

Management Branch, Room 6316, 1301

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20229, or the Office of Management

and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for

the Department of the Treasury, Office

of Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Washington, DC 20503.

Drafting Information

The principal author of this document

was Gregory R. Vilders, Attorney,

Regulations Branch, U.S. Customs

Service. However, personnel from other

offices participated in its development.

List of Subjects

19 CFR Part 10

Customs duties and inspection,

Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Value content.

19 CFR Part 101

Customs duties and inspection,

Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Shipments.

19 CFR Part 111

Administrative practice and

procedure, Brokers, Customs duties and

inspection, Imports, Licensing,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

19 CFR Part 123

Administrative practice and

procedure, Canada, Customs duties and

inspection, Imports, International

traffic, Railroads, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Trade

agreements (US-Canada Free Trade

Agreement).

19 CFR Part 128

Customs duties and inspection, Entry,

Express Consignments, Imports,

Manifests.

19 CFR Part 141

Customs duties and inspection, Entry,

Invoices, Powers of attorney, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

19 CFR Part 143

Automated broker interface, Customs

duties and inspection, Electronic entry

filing, Entry, Imports, Invoice

requirements.

19 CFR Part 145

Customs duties and inspection,

Imports, Mail, Postal service, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

19 CFR Part 148

Customs duties and inspection,

Declarations, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Taxes,

Trade agreements.

19 CFR Part 159

Computer technology, Customs duties

and inspection, Entry, Imports, Value

content.

19 CFR Part 178

Administrative practice and

procedure, Exports, Imports, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Amendments to the Regulations

For the reasons stated above, the

interim rule amending Title 19, Chapter

I, parts 10, 101, 111, 123, 128, 141, 143,

145, 148, 159, and 178 of the Customs

Regulations (19 CFR parts 10, 101, 111,

123, 128, 141, 143, 145, 148, 159, and

178), which were published at 59 FR

30289–30296 on June 13, 1994 (T.D. 94–

51), is adopted as a final rule with the

following changes:

PART 10—ARTICLES CONDITIONALLY

FREE, SUBJECT TO A REDUCED

RATE, ETC.

1. The general authority citation for

part 10 is revised to read as follows:

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

Note 20, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS)), 1321, 1481, 1484,

1498, 1508, 1623, 1624;

* * * * *

§ 10.151 [Amended]

2. In § 10.151, the words ‘‘, an oral

declaration,’’ are added following the

words ‘‘as evidenced by the’’ in the first

sentence.

PART 101—GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. The authority citation for part 101

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 2, 66,

1202 (General Note 20, Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)),

1623, 1624.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 18991

PART 123—CUSTOMS RELATIONS

WITH CANADA AND MEXICO

1. The general authority citation for

part 123 is revised to read as follows:

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

Note 20, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS)), 1431, 1433, 1624;

* * * * *

PART 128—EXPRESS

CONSIGNMENTS

1. The authority citation for part 128

continues to read as follows:

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

Note 20, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS)), 1321, 1484, 1498,

1551, 1555, 1556, 1565, 1624.

§ 128.24 [Amended]

2. In § 128.24, the second sentence in

paragraph (e) is amended by adding the

words ‘‘on the manifest’’ following the

words ‘‘Such shipments must be

segregated’’.

PART 143—SPECIAL ENTRY

PROCEDURES

1. The authority for part 143

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1481, 1484, 1498,

1624.

2. In § 143.23, paragraph (j)(5) is

amended by removing the word ‘‘and’’;

paragraph (j)(6) is redesignated

paragraph (j)(7); and by adding a new

paragraph (j)(6) to read as follows:

§ 143.23 Form of entry.

* * * * *

(j) * * *

(6) Shipping weight; and

* * * * *

§ 143.26 [Amended]

3. In § 143.26, paragraphs (a) and (b)

are each amended by adding the words

‘‘, using reasonable care,’’ after the

words ‘‘may be entered’’.

PART 159—LIQUIDATION OF DUTIES

1. The authority citation for part 159

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1500, 1504, 1624.

Subpart C also issued under 31 U.S.C. 5151.

Additional authority and statutes interpreted

or applied are cited in the text or following

the sections affected.

PART 178—APPROVAL OF

INFORMATION COLLECTION

REQUIREMENTS

1. The authority citation for part 178

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 1624; 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

2. Section 178.2 is amended by

adding, in appropriate numerical order

according to the section number under

the column indicated, the following

information to read as follows:

19 CFR section descriptionOMB control No.

* * * * *

§ 128.21 Specific description of merchandise.1515–0069

§ 128.23 Requirement of

submission of

Customs-approved bar-coded

entry numbers

for ACS processing.

1515–0069

§ 128.24 Requirement for Invoice, Advance

Manifest, or Immediate Delivery

application form.

1515–0069

* * * * *

§ 141.4 Requirement to

make entry unless specifically

exempt.

1515–0065

§ 143.23 Requirement to file

entry summary

form.

1515–0065

Michael H. Lane,

Acting Commissioner of Customs.

Approved: March 20, 1995.

John P. Simpson,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

[FR Doc. 95–9192 Filed 4–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4820–02–P

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

20 CFR Chapter III and Part 423

RIN 0960–AE07

Service of Process

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Final rules.

SUMMARY: The Social Security

Independence and Program

Improvements Act of 1994 (SSIPIA),

established the Social Security

Administration (SSA) as an

independent agency in the Executive

Branch of the U.S. Government effective

March 31, 1995. The Social Security

Administration will continue to be

responsible for the administration of the

old-age, survivors, and disability

insurance (OASDI) and the

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

programs. The SSA is also required to

continue to assist in the administration

of the Medicare program, the Black

Lung program, and the Coal Industry

Retirees Health Benefits Act. Prior to

March 31, 1995, SSA was an operating

component of the Department of Health

and Human Services (DHHS). These

final rules generally adopt as SSA rules

the same procedures and practices on

service of legal process applicable to

DHHS. These final rules also remove

‘‘Department of Health and Human

Services’’ from the heading of Chapter

III of title 20 of the Code of Federal

Regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Harry J. Short, Legal Assistant, 3–B–1

Operations Building, 6401 Security

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, (410)

965–6243.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The rules at 45 CFR Part 4, entitled

Service of Process, prescribe the

procedures DHHS follows regarding

service of legal process in lawsuits

brought against the Department and its

employees and in other process directed

at the Department or its employees.

These final rules adopt, with minor

changes, the same procedures and

practices set out in 45 CFR Part 4 that

were applicable to SSA when it was a

component of DHHS. All changes are

technical, that is, changes in names,

titles, addresses and legal citations. The

changes in legal citations are due to

changes to the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure (FRCP) effective December 1,

1993.

DHHS Policies Continued by SSA

These final rules contain SSA’s

method of service of legal process and

reflect Rule 4 of the FRCP regarding

service of process in civil litigation in

Federal courts, including service on

Federal agencies and officials. Rule

(4)(i) specifies that service on a Federal

agency or officer is to be made by

sending a copy of the summons and

complaint to the officer or agency by

registered or certified mail.

These final rules also provide that

service of a summons and complaint on

SSA or on any SSA official sued in his

or her official capacity may be made by

mailing a copy to SSA’s General

Counsel. Such service will constitute

service on SSA or the official, as

required by Rule 4 of the FRCP. Process

mailed directly to SSA’s General

Counsel will avoid the delays

encountered when documents must be

transferred from other offices.

The General Counsel will also accept

service of subpoenas and other process

served on the Commissioner or on SSA.

These final rules specify certain

employees in the Office of the General