Exportation of Used Motor Vehicles

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