99-8332. Exportation of Used Motor Vehicles  

  • [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
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
5/6/1999
Published:
04/06/1999
Department:
Customs Service
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final rule.
Document Number:
99-8332
Dates:
May 6, 1999.
Pages:
16635-16640 (6 pages)
Docket Numbers:
T.D. 99-34
RINs:
1515-AC19: Exportation of Used Motor Vehicles
RIN Links:
https://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/1515-AC19/exportation-of-used-motor-vehicles
PDF File:
99-8332.pdf
CFR: (8)
19 CFR 192.2(b)
19 CFR 192.2(b)(3)(iii)
19 CFR 192.2(c)
19 CFR 178.2
19 CFR 192.1
More ...