[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