[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 6, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16635-16640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-8332]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Customs Service
19 CFR Part 178 and 192
[T.D. 99-34]
RIN 1515-AC19
Exportation of Used Motor Vehicles
AGENCY: Customs Service, Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends the Customs Regulations to implement
title IV of the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992, which concerns the
exportation of used self-propelled vehicles. The amendments concern the
nature of the documentation that establishes ownership of a vehicle
bound for export and the presentment of that documentation to Customs.
The document also clarifies procedures to enable Customs to more
efficiently and effectively deter the export of stolen vehicles.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 6, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hugh Austin, Outbound Programs, Office
of Field Operations, (202) 927-3735.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Regulations implementing current export control requirements
applicable to used self-propelled vehicles, vessels, and aircraft are
found at part 192 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR part 192). Since
1989, these regulations have, in general, required persons or entities
seeking to export used self-propelled vehicles to present both the
vehicle and documentation, which includes the Vehicle Identification
Number (VIN) or other product identification number, to Customs at
least three days prior to shipment; Customs then checks the VIN against
the databases of the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) to see if
the vehicle has been reported stolen.
To strike back against auto thieves and carjackers, on October 25,
1992, the President signed the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 (the
Act)(Pub. L. 102-519, 106 Stat. 3384) in the hope that the legislation
would reduce the level of auto thefts and carjackings--a major crime
problem costing American car owners billions of dollars each year. See,
H.R. 4542, 102th Cong., 2d Sess. (1992), reprinted in (1992) 5
U.S.C.C.&A.N. 2829. Title IV of the Act contains provisions pertaining
to the export of stolen automobiles. Section 401 of title IV contains
two provisions intended to tighten Customs enforcement against stolen
car exporters. Section 401 amends Part VI of Title IV of the Tariff Act
of 1930 by adding: new section 646A (19 U.S.C. 1646b), which directs
Customs to conduct random checks of automobiles and containers to
ensure that reported VIN information matches the VINs on vehicles being
exported; and new section 646B (19 U.S.C. 1646c), which codifies
Customs export reporting requirements, and directs Customs to check
selected VINs against the information contained at the NCIC.
To implement section 401 of the Act and address certain other
procedural problems present in the exportation of used motor vehicles
pertaining to the authenticity of documentation presented to Customs to
establish ownership of the vehicle to be exported, on October 28, 1997,
Customs published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal
Register (62 FR 55764) to amend the Customs Regulations at Sec. 192.2,
Customs Regulations (19 CFR 192.2), which pertains to the requirements
for exporting such vehicles. The amendment proposed to revise the
documentation requirements contained in paragraph (b) to better ensure
that the documentation reflects ownership of the vehicle; the
documentation presentment requirement contained in paragraph (c) to
clarify the three-day rule; and the authentication requirement of
paragraph (d) to make it conform with the above changes. The proposed
amendment also added a new paragraph (e) to give port directors the
authority to establish when and where the original documentation for
the vehicle for export may be presented and where and when the vehicle
may be inspected at their ports. The authority citation for part 192
would also be revised to add the statutory citation for the Act
discussed (19 U.S.C. 1646c).
The comment period closed on December 29, 1997. Forty-four comments
were received. The comments and Customs responses to them follow.
Discussion of Comments
Of the comments received, nine (9) supported the proposed changes
and thirty-five (35) either opposed or suggested revisions to the
proposed changes. Collectively, these comments concern four major
areas.
1. The requirement to present the original Certificate of Title or
a certified copy of the original title issued by a government authority
for export of the vehicle presented.
Comment: The majority of comments received argued that Customs
should continue to accept notarized copies of title documents as
sufficient proof of ownership of used vehicles intended to be exported,
rather than adopt a requirement that only an original or a certified
copy of the vehicle title issued by a government authority establishes
ownership. These commenters stated that this new documentary
requirement will slow the business of exporting used vehicles because
of the added costs and time required to obtain these documents from
sole-source state-issuing authorities. Accordingly, these commenters
propose that Customs not institute the more stringent documentary
requirement.
Customs Response: Customs disagrees with the contention that
notarized copies of an original title are sufficient to prove ownership
of vehicles intended to be exported. Customs needs to be sure that the
export of the vehicle presented is authorized by the true owner(s) of
the vehicle. In light of the mandate contained in the Anti Car Theft
Act of 1992 that Customs tighten enforcement against stolen car
exporters, it is Customs position that the only documents which
establish verifiable ownership are the original Certificate of Title or
a certified copy issued by a government authority.
Original Certificates of Title contain security features designed
to defeat fraud, counterfeiting, modifications, etc. Copies of original
titles certified by the government-issuing authority also protect
against fraud. The fact that these documents are issued by a single
government agency in each jurisdiction registering motor vehicles adds
to the trustworthiness of these documents.
Concerning notaries certifying ``copies'' of original documents as
[[Page 16636]]
representing the ``original'' document, Customs understands the
function of the majority of such acts as merely bearing witness/
attesting to the placement of an original signature on a document,
rather than certifying as to the authenticity of copies of original
documents as ``original'' documents. (Indeed, some states expressly
provide in their notary public application procedures that notaries do
not have the power to certify the authenticity of any document,
official or unofficial!) Accordingly, Customs can no longer accept such
documents as meeting the requirement of establishing verifiable
ownership with an intent to export the vehicle presented. Customs does
not know of any document other than an original title for a vehicle or
certified copy of the title issued by a government authority that
possesses the same level of trustworthiness to aid Customs in the
prevention of exporting stolen vehicles.
Accordingly, the more stringent documentary requirement proposed
will not be modified. However, because the comments received regarding
the documentary requirements admit to some confusion concerning the
words ``certified copy'' and ``copy'' of documents, definitions for
these terms are added to Sec. 192.1 to clarify their meaning in the
regulations. A ``certified'' copy of an original title document is
defined to mean ``a document issued by a government authority that
serves in place of the original Certificate of Title.'' It is felt that
this definition provides the same trustworthiness factors discussed
above for the original title. Where the word ``copy'' is used, Customs
means a duplicate or photocopy of the original document. However, such
a copy must be a true and complete copy, which means that a photocopy
of the backside of the original document must also be presented where
there is any writing on the backside of the original document (see
discussion below regarding assignment). To reflect the requirement that
both sides of the document must be copied where the original document
contains any writing on its backside, Customs uses the phrase
``complete copies'.
Comment: Where there has been an assignment of an original title,
some commenters questioned whether this circumstance will require that
a new Certificate of Title be issued before the vehicle can be
exported.
Customs Response: Where there has been an assignment of vehicle
ownership with the back of the original title showing a proper transfer
(with all required information regarding the assignment of ownership
completed and legible) of the vehicle from one party to another,
Customs believes that a new Certificate of Title need not be issued.
The original title will be accepted by Customs, provided complete
copies of the original title are submitted for authentication. Customs
agrees that requiring an exporter of an assigned vehicle to re-title
the used vehicle in his name prior to export would create an undue time
and cost burden. However, if requested, the exporter should present the
bill of sale with the assigned title.
Comment: Concerning vehicles that are leased or have liens recorded
on the original title, one commenter (representing a state licensing
authority) requests that Customs make it clear in the regulations that
the required letter from the owner of the vehicle is in addition to
providing a certified copy of the original title.
Customs Response: For vehicles that are leased or for which a
recorded lien exists in the U.S., Customs will require additional
documentation that proves consent by such third-parties-in-interest
that the vehicles presented may be exported. This third-party proof of
consent must be in writing, give express permission for the vehicle to
be exported, and bear the original signature of the third-party. The
writing must be on the third-party's letterhead and include the date, a
description of the vehicle which includes the VIN, the name of the
owner of the leased vehicle or the lienholder, and a telephone number
at which the owner or lienholder may be contacted. The exporter must
provide this separate document with the original title or certified
copy of the title to Customs at the time of presentation. If the
original title or certified copy of the title shows that the lien has
been properly released, then no written authorization from the
lienholder will be required to be presented.
Comment: Another commenter (representing an agency of the federal
government) requests that U.S. government personnel on official travel
be exempt from the proposed documentary presentment rules because the
processing of large numbers of relocations by the agency's internal
travel office would be severely hampered by complying with Customs
proposed reporting procedure. Further, the commenter states that there
is no risk that these vehicles are stolen.
Customs Response: Because vehicles belonging to U.S. Government
personnel temporarily reassigned abroad pursuant to official travel
orders are processed and exported pursuant to official government
travel department procedures and because the federal government
employee on official travel is normally required to present documentary
proof of vehicle ownership to the sponsoring agency's internal office
prior to shipping, Customs agrees with the commenter that the threat of
such vehicles being stolen is extremely low. Customs also agrees that
to require U.S. Government employees to reestablish ownership of the
vehicle at the time of export merely duplicates a procedure without
benefit to the employee or Customs law enforcement responsibilities.
Accordingly, Customs is amending the general documentation
requirement procedures at Sec. 192.2(b)(1) to provide a general
exception for U.S. Government military or civilian employees who are
shipping their vehicles abroad in conjunction with official
reassignment orders. Such personnel are presumed to have complied with
the general documentation requirements of Sec. 192.2(b), so long as the
employee's official travel orders indicate that there has been
compliance with the sponsoring agency's internal travel department
procedures for vehicle export.
2. Acceptable ownership documents for new or Original Equipment
Manufacture (OEM) vehicles not titled but issued a Manufacturer's
Statement of Origin (MSO); vehicles contained in in-bond movements; or
vehicles in a salvage, junk, or scrap condition.
Comment: Many comments were received discussing the need for
Customs to generally clarify the provisions of Part 192 concerning such
issues as definitions and other self-propelled ``used'' vehicle
identification numbers, and whether an exporter of parts or components
of used self-propelled vehicles is obligated to meet the Customs
reporting requirements. One commenter recommended that Customs
undertake a review of the regulations--presumably Sec. 192.2--to
address basic requirements for vehicles identified with Product
Identification Numbers (PINs) and Hull Identification Numbers (HINs).
Another commenter requested that the modifier ``used'' be inserted
immediately before the term ``vehicles'' and before the specific
listing of ``automobiles, trucks, vans, minivans, motorcycles and
buses'' contained in 19 CFR part 192 subpart A. This same commenter
pointed out that the terms, ``used vehicles'', ``vehicles'' and
``vehicle'' are ambiguous and are used interchangeably.
Concerning newly manufactured vehicles, one commenter noted that
some states (California and Michigan) do not issue MSOs for newly
purchased vehicles, and requests that Customs
[[Page 16637]]
accept substitute documents, such as a dealer's invoice.
Concerning vehicles exported in a salvage, junk, or scrap
condition, one commenter recommended that Customs remove the word
``satisfactory'' as regards the burden of proof exporters must bear to
prove ownership of the vehicle, stating that Customs is not fully aware
of all state laws regarding the titling, or lack thereof, of such
vehicles and that giving such discretion to Customs agents promotes a
lack of uniformity at the ports of exit.
Customs Response: Customs agrees that the modifier ``used'' should
be inserted immediately before the term ``vehicles'' contained in
Sec. 192.2(b). As concerns the listing of specific types of vehicles
(``automobiles, trucks, vans, minivans, motorcycles and buses''), see
the discussion below concerning the revised organization of the
regulations.
Vehicles which do not meet Customs definition of ``used'' are
considered new or OEM vehicles and do not have to be reported to
Customs before the vehicle is exported. The question presented by these
types of vehicles is whether title has been transferred by a
manufacturer, distributor, or dealer to an ultimate purchaser, either
legally or equitably, prior to the vehicle's exportation.
If the legal or equitable title of the vehicle has been transferred
prior to the vehicle's export, then the new or OEM vehicle must be
reported to Customs before the vehicle can be exported; the vehicle
having become ``used'' and subject to these export reporting
regulations. In these cases, Customs will require the following
documentation before export can occur: the Manufacturer's Statement of
Origin (MSO) or, in cases where the vehicle is manufactured in a state
by a company that does not issue MSOs for newly purchased vehicles, a
document such as a dealer's invoice that proves ownership. In this
latter instance, the burden of proof will be on the exporter to
establish that the jurisdiction from where the vehicle comes does not
have any ownership documentation requirements regarding such vehicles,
and the exporter will be required to provide an original document
showing his basis for ownership of the vehicle.
Regarding the comment as to whether an exporter of parts or
components of used, self-propelled vehicles is obligated to meet the
Customs reporting requirements of Part 192, these amendments are only
concerned with the exportation of entire vehicles, not component parts.
Accordingly, the comment is outside the scope of this final rule and no
change to the regulations will be made. However, it is noted that the
importation and exportation of stolen parts and components of vehicles
renders the importer or exporter subject to the penalty and seizure and
forfeiture provisions of 19 U.S.C. 1627a(a), as implemented by 19 CFR
192.3(c) and (d).
Vehicles that are exported from the U.S. as part of an in-bond
movement are not subject to these export reporting requirements. In-
bond movements, however, are subject to inspection at the discretion of
Customs.
Regarding vehicles exported in a salvage, junk, or scrap condition,
Customs is not concerned with the condition of the vehicle exported,
but rather the type and status of the documentation for the vehicle.
Since there is no national requirement concerning the titling of such
vehicles and frequently government-issuing authorities have
inconsistent or varying certification requirements for such vehicles,
Customs must require of these vehicles the most authentic documents
available to establish ownership of the vehicle to be exported.
Accordingly, in those cases where the vehicle was issued an original
Certificate of Title or a Salvage Title which remains in force, Customs
will require presentation of that original title document pursuant to
the provisions of Sec. 192.2(b)(1). Also, in those cases where the
vehicle was issued a junk or scrap certificate by a government
authority that remains in force, Customs will require presentation of
that original document pursuant to the provisions of
Sec. 192.2(b)(3)(iii). But, in those cases where the vehicle was not
issued a Certificate of Title, a Salvage Title, or a junk or scrap
certificate, or the title or certificate is no longer in force, Customs
will accept such documents as a Bill of Sale as establishing ownership
pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 192.2(b)(3)(iv), provided: (1) The
owner certifies to Customs in writing that the government-issuing
authority for the jurisdiction has no registration/certification
requirements for such vehicles, and (2) the owner attests in writing to
the bona fides of the sale and that the vehicle presented for export is
not stolen. Because a government-issuing authority will not necessarily
be involved in the issuance of Bills of Sale, the burden of proof
Customs places on exporters in this regard is not deemed unreasonable.
Regarding the commenter's observation that the word
``satisfactory'' (from proposed Sec. 192.2(b)(3)) gives too much
discretion to Customs agents and promotes a lack of uniformity at the
ports of exit, Customs disagrees. Since the exporter is in a better
position to report on the titling practices/requirements of the
particular jurisdiction from where the vehicle comes, Customs believes
that use of the word ``satisfactory'' does not place an undue burden on
the exporter. Proof of a jurisdiction's titling practices/requirements
requires merely a letter from the government agency responsible for
titling vehicles that applicable regulations either exist or do not
exist.
As discussed below, Customs is revising the heading and text of
proposed Sec. 192.2(b)(4) to more directly address the documentary
requirements for exporting vehicles not titled, including ``junk'' and
``scrap'' vehicles.
3. The security of original documents presented to Customs.
Comment: Some commenters were concerned about the security, i.e.,
safe return, of original title documents left with Customs over the
course of the 72-hour reporting requirement. While the risk of loss was
cited as the overriding concern, liability issues, the burden of
replacing the original, and additional costs in the form of additional
exporter processing costs and the potential for lost business were also
raised.
Customs Response: If the timely return and risk of loss of original
title documents are primary concerns with the process of presenting
such documents to Customs, it is recommended that the exporter timely
present the required documentation and wait while Customs verifies the
authenticity of the documents. Then Customs can directly return the
documents to the exporter. Exporters must understand Customs believes
that the original title document is the single most important document
needed to prevent the illegal export of stolen vehicles and that these
regulatory changes are designed to tighten Customs enforcement against
the exportation of stolen cars.
Regarding the commenters' issues of liability, the burden of
replacing the original, and additional exporter processing costs, in
those cases where the original title document was presented to and
retained by Customs and cannot be found prior to the vehicle's export,
the exporter's authenticated copy of the original documentation serves
as evidence of compliance with the reporting requirements. However,
where the original title document was returned to the exporter, then
the exporter is liable for replacing the documents and bearing any
processing costs associated with such replacement. While Customs is
willing to work with individual exporters to address problems they may
be experiencing at certain ports of entry,
[[Page 16638]]
no systemic change to the documentation procedures provided herein will
be made.
4. The time requirement for submitting documents, and presenting
the vehicle for inspection at a place other than at the port of export.
Comment: Several comments were received inquiring as to the time
for document presentation and the beginning point of the required 72-
hour time period. One exporter stated that the requirement for
exporters at seaports to submit all original documentation to Customs
72 hours prior to export, while the requirement for exporters at land
borders to submit copies of documentation to Customs 72 hours prior to
export, subject to presentation of originals at the time of export, did
not seem very equitable. Another commenter suggested the following
procedure at land borders regarding cars purchased at auction:
1. At the time of purchase, the auction will complete the Shipper's
Export Declaration (SED) with attached certified copies of invoices
and/or bills of sale (separate bills of sale are required by California
law, but not other states);
2. The auction will give a copy of the SED to the purchasing motor
vehicle dealer;
3. The auction will forward the original SED to a designated land
border crossing (a specialized facility equipped to follow the
procedures to expedite the legitimate export of used motor vehicles
into Mexico); and
4. Customs will allow export 72 hours following receipt of the
original SED, upon presentation of the motor vehicle with the copy of
the SED by the purchasing Dealer.
Additional comments were received inquiring whether a vehicle could
be inspected and certified at its point of origin, and whether a
vehicle's documents could be verified at the point of export.
Customs Response: Regarding the suggested auction procedure,
Customs does not consider the SED document to be as trustworthy a
document as the original Certificate of Title issued by a government
agency, for the reasons discussed above under Customs first response.
Further, the SED is a document protected by the Commerce laws with the
result that Customs is generally precluded from sharing the information
with other law enforcement agencies. The exporter who is required to
complete the SED may or may not be the auto auction. Therefore, as an
enforcement tool, the value of the SED is significantly lowered in
Customs stated objective to more efficiently and effectively deter the
export of stolen vehicles. Lastly, copies of invoices and/or bills of
sale that are certified by an auto auction business do not meet the
documentation requirements of these regulations for purposes of
exporting a vehicle.
Accordingly, no change to the regulations will be made to
accommodate this suggested documentation procedure.
Regarding the beginning of the required 72-hour time period,
Customs notes that the proposed regulation provides that the original
document and the vehicle be presented to Customs at least (emphasis
supplied) 72 hours, to include not less than two full business days,
prior to lading or in the case of the land border ports, prior to the
intended date of export. This 72-hour time period is a statutory
minimum time period. Customs has reconsidered its proposal to further
delineate when this 72-hour time period begins or whether a time
period, i.e., the concept of ``business days,'' falls within this time
period minimum because, in fact, port directors can require greater
time periods within which exporters must submit required documentation.
The purpose of requiring the documentation at least 72-hours before
export of the vehicle is so that Customs can cross-check the VIN with
information entered into the NCIC on stolen vehicles. Accordingly, the
provisions of proposed Sec. 192.2(c) will be revised to remove the ``2
full business days'' concept so that the provisions of redenominated
paragraph (d), which allow port directors to establish the locations
and hours of operation for exporters to present required documentation,
will not be compromised.
Regarding the different document and vehicle presentation
requirements at seaports and land border ports, the operational
differences at land border and seaports concerning vehicle presentation
were explained in Treasury Decision 90-71, when the provisions of
Sec. 192.2(c) were first amended concerning this issue. However, the
one commenter's observation that the proposed requirement for exporters
at seaports to submit all original documentation to Customs 72 hours
prior to export, while the proposed requirement for exporters at land
borders to submit copies of documentation to Customs 72 hours prior to
export, subject to presentation of originals at the time of export, did
not seem very equitable, is valid and Customs agrees that
implementation of the Act requires a uniform approach regarding
presentment of documentation. Accordingly, the provisions of
Sec. 192.2(c) concerning the presentment of documentation are amended
to require that exporters at land borders submit original documentation
at least 72 hours before export of the vehicle, to parallel the
requirement for exporters at seaports.
Concerning the presentation of a vehicle for inspection at a place
other than at the port of export, Customs has recently amended its
regulations at Part 118, which concerns Centralized Examination
Stations, to authorize their use in the export of merchandise (see, 63
FR 16683, dated April 6, 1998; T.D. 98-29). Accordingly, Customs can
direct that vehicles be inspected at locations other than at the port
of export.
Other Changes
After review of the comments and further consideration of the
proposal, Customs has decided to restructure Sec. 192.2(b) to present a
clearer understanding of the specific documentation required for
certain used vehicles to be exported. Accordingly, instead of heading
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) as they were proposed to be headed,
the headings are changed to clearly direct readers to the requirements
for (1) U.S.-titled vehicles; (2) foreign-titled vehicles; and (3)
untitled vehicles. Under the heading for untitled vehicles, there are
subparagraphs for the following categories: (1) Newly-manufactured
vehicles issued an MSO; (2) newly-manufactured vehicles not issued an
MSO; (3) vehicles issued a junk or scrap certificate; and (4) vehicles
issued a title or certificate that is not in force or are otherwise not
registered. These changes are non-substantive.
With the restructuring of paragraph (b), Customs is not enumerating
vehicle types such as automobiles, trucks, buses, etc., in the
substantive documentation requirements portion of this final rule
document. Customs believes that the definition of ``Self-propelled
vehicle'' at Sec. 192.1 is broad enough to cover any vehicle used or
designated for running on land and that paragraphs (b)(1) through
(b)(3) are applicable as drafted to all self-propelled vehicles that
fall within the definition. Accordingly, the one comment suggesting
that Customs incorporate by reference the generic vehicle's terminology
used by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and/or the
Environmental Protection Agency to indicate which vehicles are subject
to the regulations rather than list specific types of vehicles is not
adopted.
It is also noted that Customs has decided to reverse the order of
proposed paragraphs (d) and (e) of Sec. 192.2 for
[[Page 16639]]
organizational clarity. Thus, amended paragraph (d) will address where
documents are to be presented and amended paragraph (e) will provide
for the authentication of documents procedure.
Also, the general authority citation for Part 192 is revised to add
the applicable Anti Car Theft Act provisions, and minor word changes to
Sec. 192.1 are made for clarity.
To reflect the paperwork requirements contained at Sec. 192.2(b),
part 178 of the Customs Regulations is also amended.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866
In so far as the amendments are intended to assist Customs exercise
its law enforcement responsibilities in prohibiting the export of
stolen vehicles and to place a minimum burden on legitimate exporters
of used vehicles, pursuant to the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), it is certified that the
amendments will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Accordingly, the amendment is not subject to
the regulatory analysis or other requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
The amendment does not meet the criteria for a ``significant regulatory
action'' as specified in E.O. 12866.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The collection of information contained in this final rule has been
reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507)
under control number 1515-0157. An agency may not conduct or sponsor,
and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB.
The clarification of the collection of information in this final
rule is in Sec. 192.2. This information is necessary so that Customs
can exercise its law enforcement responsibilities in prohibiting the
export of stolen vehicles. Respondents or recordkeepers are already
required by statute or regulation to maintain the vast majority of the
information covered in this regulation. The likely respondents or
recordkeepers are business organizations including importers, exporters
and manufacturers.
The estimated average annual burden associated with the collection
of information in this final rule is 10 minutes 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, Information Services Group, Office of Finance, 1300
Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20229; and to OMB, Attention:
Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20503.
Drafting Information
The principal author of this document was Gregory R. Vilders,
Attorney, Regulations Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings, U.S.
Customs Service. However, personnel from other offices participated in
its development.
List of Subjects
19 CFR Part 178
Administrative practice and procedure, Collections of information,
Exports, Imports, Paperwork requirements, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
19 CFR Part 192
Administrative practice and procedure, Customs duties and
Inspection, Exports, Government employees, Motor Vehicles, Penalties.
Amendments to the Regulations
For the reasons stated above, parts 178 and 192 of the Customs
Regulations (19 CFR parts 178 and 192) is amended as set forth below:
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 revising the text of the listing for
``Part 192'' to read as follows:
Sec. 178.2 Listing of OMB control numbers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB
19 CFR section Description control
No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Sec. 192.2................. Documentation requirements for 1515-0157
exporting used, self-
propelled vehicles, vessels,
and aircraft.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 192--EXPORT CONTROL
1. The authority citation for part 192, Customs Regulations (19 CFR
part 192), is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1624, 1627a, 1646a, 1646b, 1646c.
2. Section 192.1 is amended by adding two new definitions, in
appropriate alphabetical order, to read as follows:
Sec. 192.1 Definitions.
* * * * *
Certified. ``Certified'' when used with reference to a copy means a
document issued by a government authority that includes on it a signed
statement by the authority that the copy is an authentic copy of the
original.
Copy. ``Copy'' refers to a duplicate or photocopy of an original
document. Where there is any writing on the backside of an original
document, a ``complete copy'' means that both sides of the document are
copied.
* * * * *
3. Section 192.2 is amended as follows:
a. In the first sentence of paragraph
(a), remove the words ``a document'' and add in their place the
words ``the required documentation'; and
b. Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 192.2 Requirements for exportation.
* * * * *
(b) Documentation required.--(1) For U.S.-titled vehicles.--
(i)Vehicles issued an original certificate of title. For used, self-
propelled vehicles issued, by any jurisdiction in the United States, a
Certificate of Title or a Salvage Title that remains in force, the
owner must provide to Customs, at the time and place specified in this
section, the original Certificate of Title or a certified copy of the
Certificate of Title and two complete copies of the original
Certificate of Title or certified copy of the original.
(ii) Where title evidences third-party ownership/claims. If the
used, self-propelled vehicle is leased or a recorded lien exists in the
U.S., in addition to complying with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this
section, the provisional owner must provide to Customs a separate
writing from the third-party-in-interest which expressly provides that
the subject vehicle may be exported. This writing must be on the third-
party's letterhead paper, and contain a complete description of the
vehicle including the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), the name of
the owner or lienholder of the leased vehicle, and the telephone
numbers at which that owner or lienholder may be contacted. The writing
must bear an original signature of the third-party and state the date
it was signed.
(iii) Where U.S. Government employees are involved. If the used,
self-propelled vehicle is owned by a U.S.
[[Page 16640]]
government employee and is being exported in conjunction with that
employee's reassignment abroad pursuant to official travel orders,
then, in lieu of complying with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section,
the employee may be required to establish that he has complied with the
sponsoring agency's internal travel department procedures for vehicle
export.
(2) For foreign-titled vehicles. For used, self-propelled vehicles
that are registered or titled abroad, the owner must provide to
Customs, at the time and place specified in this section, the original
document that provides satisfactory proof of ownership (with an English
translation of the text if the original language is not in English),
and two complete copies of that document (and translation, if
necessary).
(3) For untitled vehicles.--(i) Newly-manufactured vehicles issued
an MSO. For newly-manufactured, self-propelled vehicles that are
purchased from a U.S. manufacturer, distributor, or dealer that become
used, as defined in this subpart, and are issued a Manufacturer's
Statement of Origin (MSO), but not issued a Certificate of Title by any
jurisdiction of the United States, the owner must provide to Customs,
at the time and place specified in this section, the original MSO and
two complete copies of the original MSO.
(ii) Newly-manufactured vehicles not issued an MSO. For newly-
manufactured, self-propelled vehicles purchased from a U.S.
manufacturer, distributor, or dealer that become used, as defined in
this subpart, and not issued an MSO or a Certificate of Title by any
jurisdiction of the United States, the owner must establish that the
jurisdiction from where the vehicle comes does not have any ownership
documentation requirements regarding such vehicles and provide to
Customs, at the time and place specified in this section, an original
document that proves ownership, such as a dealer's invoice, and two
complete copies of such original documentation.
(iii) Vehicles issued a junk or scrap certificate. For used, self-
propelled vehicles for which a junk or scrap certificate issued, by any
jurisdiction of the United States, remains in force, the owner must
provide to Customs, at the time and place specified in this section,
the original certificate or a certified copy of the original document
and two complete copies of the original document or certified copy of
the original.
(iv) Vehicles issued a title or certificate that is not in force or
are otherwise not registered. For used, self-propelled vehicles that
were issued, by any jurisdiction of the United States, a title or
certificate that is no longer in force, or that are not required to be
titled or registered, and for which an MSO was not issued, the owner
must establish that the jurisdiction from where the vehicle comes does
not have any ownership documentation requirements regarding such
vehicles and provide to Customs, at the time and place specified in
this section, the original document that shows his basis for ownership
or right of possession, such as a bill of sale, and two complete copies
of that original document. Further, the owner must certify in writing
to Customs that the procurement of the vehicle was a bona fide
transaction, and that the vehicle presented for export is not stolen.
(c) When presented.--(1) Exportation by vessel or aircraft. For
those vehicles exported by vessel or aircraft, the required
documentation and the vehicle must be presented to Customs at least 72
hours prior to export.
(2) Exportation at land border crossing points. For those vehicles
exported by rail, highway, or under their own power:
(i) The required documentation must be submitted to Customs at
least 72 hours prior to export; and
(ii) The vehicle must be presented to Customs at the time of
exportation.
(d) Where presented. Port directors will establish locations at
which exporters must present the required documentation and the
vehicles for inspection. Port directors will publicize these locations,
including their hours of operation.
(e) Authentication of documentation. Customs will determine the
authenticity of the documents submitted. Once the authenticity of the
documents is established, Customs will mark the documents. In most
cases the original document(s) will be returned to the exporter. In
those cases where the original title document was presented to and
retained by Customs and cannot be found prior to the vehicle's export,
the exporter's authenticated copy of the original documentation serves
as evidence of compliance with the reporting requirements.
Approved: March 16, 1999.
Raymond W. Kelly,
Commissioner of Customs.
John P. Simpson,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 99-8332 Filed 4-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P