Announcement of Change to Merchandise Eligibility Requirements for Participation in Remote Location Filing Prototype Two, 16510-16511 [05-6397]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
16510
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 61 / Thursday, March 31, 2005 / Notices
conditions experienced by waterway
users during daytime, nighttime and
reduced visibility, in addition to any
navigational hazards experienced by
vessel operators.
The following specific waterways will
be analyzed, as follows:
(1) Brewerton Channel, Fort McHenry
Channel, Canton Elevator and Coal
Channel, Hawkins Point Channel, Coal
Pier Channel, Locust Point East and
West Channels, Craighill Channel,
Marine Pier Channel, Curtis Bay
Channel, Northwest Harbor, Curtis
Creek, Pennwood Channel, Dundalk
East and West Channels, Port Covington
Basin, Elevator Channel, Seagirt East
and West Channels, Ferry Bar Channel,
and Sparrows Point Steel Works
Channel.
(2) Chesapeake Channel (middle
Chesapeake Bay).
(3) Potomac River, Upper Potomac
River, Anacostia River, Hains Point
(Washington) Channel and Alexandria
Channel.
(4) Choptank River to Cambridge,
Cambridge Channel, Nanticoke River,
Wicomico River, Pocomoke River,
Pocomoke Sound and Tangier Sound.
(5) Brewerton Channel East Extension,
Upper Chesapeake Channel, Upper
Chesapeake Bay, Elk River, Back Creek
and the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal.
As part of these studies, we will
consider previous WAMS studies. It is
possible that the studies may validate
continued applicability of existing aids
to navigation and conclude that no
changes are necessary. It is also possible
that the studies may recommend
changes to enhance marine navigational
safety, effectiveness and efficiency.
requirements for participation in
Remote Location Filing (RLF) Prototype
Two. RLF will now be permitted for
cargo that will be moved using
immediate transportation (IT) and
transportation and export (T & E) inbond procedures. CBP has determined
that the security risks previously
associated with in-bond transactions
have been greatly reduced due to the
significant security and cargoprocessing gains accomplished by the
advance cargo information regulations
set forth in CBP Dec. 03–32, published
in the Federal Register (68 FR 68140) on
December 5, 2003. CBP also realizes that
as in-bond transactions are a mainstay
of international transactions, permitting
RLF in an in-bond context will enhance
the Prototype’s usefulness to the trade
while simultaneously furthering CBP’s
modernization objectives.
DATES: The change to Remote Location
Filing (RLF) Prototype Two will go into
effect March 31, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and
applications to participate in the
Prototype should be addressed to the
Remote Filing Team, Office of Field
Operations, Customs and Border
Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Room 5.2–B, Washington, DC
20229. Comments may also be
submitted to Sherri Braxton via e-mail
at remote.filing@dhs.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
systems or automation issues: Steve
Linnemann (202) 344–1975 or Jennifer
Engelbach (562) 366–5593. For
operational or policy issues: Sherri
Braxton via e-mail at
remote.filing@dhs.gov.
Dated: March 22, 2005.
Curtis A. Springer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Baltimore,
Maryland.
[FR Doc. 05–6391 Filed 3–30–05; 8:45 am]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection
Announcement of Change to
Merchandise Eligibility Requirements
for Participation in Remote Location
Filing Prototype Two
Customs and Border Protection,
Homeland Security.
ACTION: General notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice announces a
change to the merchandise eligibility
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:30 Mar 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
Background
RLF Authorized by the National
Customs Automation Program (NCAP)
Title VI of the North American Free
Trade Agreement Implementation Act,
Pub. L. 103–182, 107 Stat. 2057
(December 8, 1993), contains provisions
pertaining to Customs Modernization
(107 Stat. 2170). Subpart B of Title VI
of the Act concerns the National
Customs Automation Program (NCAP),
an electronic system for the processing
of commercial imports. Within subpart
B, section 631 of the Act added section
414 (19 U.S.C. 1414), which provides for
Remote Location Filing (RLF), to the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. RLF
permits an eligible NCAP participant to
elect to file electronically a formal or
informal consumption entry with
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
from a remote location within the
customs territory of the United States
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
other than the port of arrival, or from
within the port of arrival with a
requested designated examination site
outside the port of arrival.
RLF Prototype Two
In accordance with § 101.9(b) of the
CBP Regulations (19 CFR 101.9(b)), CBP
has developed and tested two RLF
prototypes. A chronological listing of
Federal Register publications detailing
developments in the RLF prototypes
follows:
• On April 6, 1995, CBP announced
in the Federal Register (60 FR 17605) its
plan to conduct the first of at least two
RLF test prototypes. The first RLF test,
designated Prototype One, began on
June 19, 1995.
• On February 27, 1996, CBP
announced in the Federal Register (61
FR 7300) the expansion of Prototype
One and its extension until the
implementation of RLF Prototype Two.
• RLF Prototype Two commenced on
January 1, 1997. See document
published in the Federal Register (61
FR 60749) on November 29, 1996.
• CBP announced in the Federal
Register (62 FR 64043), on December 3,
1997, the extension of RLF Prototype
Two until December 31, 1998.
• On December 7, 1998, CBP
announced in the Federal Register (63
FR 67511) that Prototype Two would
remain in effect until concluded by
notice in the Federal Register.
• On July 6, 2001, CBP announced in
the Federal Register (66 FR 35693)
changes to the RLF Prototype Two
eligibility requirements.
• On November 16, 2001, CBP
announced in the Federal Register (66
FR 57774) a deadline extension for
customs brokers participating in RLF to
submit their national broker permit
numbers to CBP.
• On February 25, 2003, CBP
announced in the Federal Register (68
FR 8812) that line release entries would
no longer be permitted for purposes of
RLF Prototype Two, and set forth a
comprehensive and updated list of
current RLF eligibility requirements and
a description of a new simplified
application process.
Change to RLF Prototype Two
Merchandise Eligibility Criteria
This notice announces a change to the
merchandise eligibility requirements for
participation in RLF Prototype Two,
whereby RLF will now be permitted for
cargo that will be moved using
immediate transportation (IT) or
transportation and export (T & E) inbond procedures. This was not allowed
under the original terms of RLF
Prototype Two because CBP was
E:\FR\FM\31MRN1.SGM
31MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 61 / Thursday, March 31, 2005 / Notices
concerned with the general lack of
security associated with in-bond
transactions.
Upon further review, CBP has
determined that permitting RLF for
cargo that has already been moved using
immediate transportation in-bond
procedures, or any other transportation
entry in-bond, is acceptable as the risks
previously associated with in-bond
transactions have been greatly reduced
due to the significant security and
cargo-processing gains accomplished by
the advance cargo information
regulations set forth in CBP Dec. 03–32,
published in the Federal Register (68
FR 68140) on December 5, 2003. CBP
also realizes that in-bond transactions
are a mainstay of international
transactions. For this reason, CBP views
permitting RLF in an in-bond context as
a means of broadening the scope of RLF
and thereby enhancing the program’s
usefulness to the trade while
simultaneously furthering the Bureau’s
modernization objectives.
It is noted that with the exception of
the change to the RLF Prototype Two
merchandise eligibility criteria
involving in-bond transportation
procedures, discussed above, all other
Prototype eligibility requirements,
procedures, terms and conditions, as set
forth in the document published on
February 25, 2003, in the Federal
Register (68 FR 8812), remain in effect.
Dated: March 25, 2005.
Jayson P. Ahern,
Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field
Operations.
[FR Doc. 05–6397 Filed 3–30–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection
[CBP Dec. 05–11]
Interpretive Rule Concerning
Classification of Baseball-Style Caps
With Ornamental Braid
Customs and Border Protection,
Homeland Security.
ACTION: Final interpretive rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document concerns the
proper classification under the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) of baseball-style
caps featuring ornamental braid located
between peak and crown. In an effort to
achieve uniformity in the classification
of this commodity, Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) has adopted as final a
proposed interpretive rule whereby
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:30 Mar 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
ornamental braid on a baseball-style
cap, located between peak and crown in
a width of 1⁄8 of an inch or greater, will
render the cap classifiable in the HTSUS
as ‘‘wholly or in part of braid.’’
Conversely, such braid in a width of less
than 1⁄8 of an inch will result in a cap
being classifiable in the HTSUS as ‘‘not
in part of braid.’’
DATES: Effective Date: May 2, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Theresa Frazier, Textiles Branch, Office
of Regulations and Rulings, Customs
and Border Protection, Tel. (202) 572–
8821.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This document concerns the proper
classification under the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) of baseball-style caps featuring
ornamental braid located between peak
and crown. The specific issue presented
is how wide ornamental braid on a
baseball-style cap must be in order to
render the cap classifiable in the HTSUS
as either ‘‘wholly or in part of braid’’ or
‘‘not in part of braid.’’
Baseball-style caps are classifiable in
heading 6505 of the HTSUS which
provides for, in pertinent part, ‘‘hats and
other headgear, knitted or crocheted, or
made up from lace, felt or other textile
fabric, in the piece (but not in strips),
whether or not lined or trimmed;
* * *.’’ Within heading 6505, HTSUS,
two subheadings differentiate between
hats and other headgear that are
‘‘wholly or in part of braid’’ and those
that are ‘‘not in part of braid.’’ See
HTSUS subheadings 6505.90.50 and
6505.90.70 which provide for, in
pertinent part, hats and other headgear
‘‘wholly or in part of braid,’’ and
HTSUS subheadings 6505.90.60 and
6505.90.80 which provide for hats and
other headgear which are ‘‘not in part of
braid.’’ It is noted that hats and other
headgear that are classifiable as ‘‘not in
part of braid’’ carry a higher rate of duty
than those that are classifiable as
‘‘wholly or in part of braid.’’
In cases where baseball-style caps
feature ornamental braid located
between the peak and crown, the
determinative issue is whether the braid
impacts classification at the subheading
level so as to render the cap classifiable
as either ‘‘in part of braid’’ or ‘‘not in
part of braid.’’ The 2004 HTSUS defines
the term ‘‘in part of’’ in General Note
3(h)(v)(B), HTSUS, which states that ‘‘in
part of’’ or ‘‘containing’’ means that the
goods contain a significant quantity of
the named material and that ‘‘with
regard to the application of the
quantitative concepts specified above, it
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16511
is intended that the de minimis rule
apply.’’
The de minimis rule is applicable in
customs practice principally in
determining whether the presence of
some ingredient in an imported
commodity affects its classification. See
Ruth F. Sturm, A Manual of Customs
Law 182 (1974). The rule stands for the
proposition that:
Certain amounts of an ingredient, although
substantial, may be ignored for classification
purposes, depending upon many different
circumstances, including the purpose which
Congress sought to bring about by the
language used and whether or not the
amount used has really changed or affected
the nature of the article, and of course, its
salability.
Varsity Watch Company v. United
States, 43 Cust. Ct. 1, C.D. 2094
(1959), appeal dismissed, 47 CCPA
173 (1959).
On August 27, 2004, a document was
published in the Federal Register (69
FR 52726) in which Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) solicited public
comment as to the appropriateness of a
proposed interpretive rule whereby
ornamental braid on a baseball-style
cap, located between peak and crown in
a width of 1⁄8 of an inch or greater, will
render the cap classifiable as ‘‘wholly or
in part of braid.’’ Conversely, CBP
proposed that such braid in a width of
less than 1⁄8 of an inch would result in
a cap being classifiable as ‘‘not in part
of braid.’’ The proposed standard was
based on several previously issued
Headquarters Rulings Letters which had
adopted the 1⁄8 of an inch standard for
purposes of applying the de minimis
rule to this type of commodity. The
proposed interpretive rule set forth in
69 FR 52726 was offered as a means of
ensuring the uniform application of the
de minimis rule and providing
consistency in the classification of
baseball-style caps with braid trim.
Discussion of Comment
No comments were received in
response to the solicitation of public
comment in 69 FR 52726.
Conclusion
Upon due consideration, CBP has
decided to adopt as final the proposed
interpretive rule published in the
Federal Register (69 FR 52726) on
August 27, 2004.
Drafting Information
The principal author of this document
was Ms. Suzanne Kingsbury,
Regulations Branch, Office of
Regulations and Rulings, Customs and
Border Protection. However, personnel
E:\FR\FM\31MRN1.SGM
31MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 61 (Thursday, March 31, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16510-16511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-6397]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
Announcement of Change to Merchandise Eligibility Requirements
for Participation in Remote Location Filing Prototype Two
AGENCY: Customs and Border Protection, Homeland Security.
ACTION: General notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces a change to the merchandise eligibility
requirements for participation in Remote Location Filing (RLF)
Prototype Two. RLF will now be permitted for cargo that will be moved
using immediate transportation (IT) and transportation and export (T &
E) in-bond procedures. CBP has determined that the security risks
previously associated with in-bond transactions have been greatly
reduced due to the significant security and cargo-processing gains
accomplished by the advance cargo information regulations set forth in
CBP Dec. 03-32, published in the Federal Register (68 FR 68140) on
December 5, 2003. CBP also realizes that as in-bond transactions are a
mainstay of international transactions, permitting RLF in an in-bond
context will enhance the Prototype's usefulness to the trade while
simultaneously furthering CBP's modernization objectives.
DATES: The change to Remote Location Filing (RLF) Prototype Two will go
into effect March 31, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and applications to participate in the
Prototype should be addressed to the Remote Filing Team, Office of
Field Operations, Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Room 5.2-B, Washington, DC 20229. Comments may also be
submitted to Sherri Braxton via e-mail at remote.filing@dhs.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For systems or automation issues:
Steve Linnemann (202) 344-1975 or Jennifer Engelbach (562) 366-5593.
For operational or policy issues: Sherri Braxton via e-mail at
remote.filing@dhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
RLF Authorized by the National Customs Automation Program (NCAP)
Title VI of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation
Act, Pub. L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057 (December 8, 1993), contains
provisions pertaining to Customs Modernization (107 Stat. 2170).
Subpart B of Title VI of the Act concerns the National Customs
Automation Program (NCAP), an electronic system for the processing of
commercial imports. Within subpart B, section 631 of the Act added
section 414 (19 U.S.C. 1414), which provides for Remote Location Filing
(RLF), to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. RLF permits an eligible
NCAP participant to elect to file electronically a formal or informal
consumption entry with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from a
remote location within the customs territory of the United States other
than the port of arrival, or from within the port of arrival with a
requested designated examination site outside the port of arrival.
RLF Prototype Two
In accordance with Sec. 101.9(b) of the CBP Regulations (19 CFR
101.9(b)), CBP has developed and tested two RLF prototypes. A
chronological listing of Federal Register publications detailing
developments in the RLF prototypes follows:
On April 6, 1995, CBP announced in the Federal Register
(60 FR 17605) its plan to conduct the first of at least two RLF test
prototypes. The first RLF test, designated Prototype One, began on June
19, 1995.
On February 27, 1996, CBP announced in the Federal
Register (61 FR 7300) the expansion of Prototype One and its extension
until the implementation of RLF Prototype Two.
RLF Prototype Two commenced on January 1, 1997. See
document published in the Federal Register (61 FR 60749) on November
29, 1996.
CBP announced in the Federal Register (62 FR 64043), on
December 3, 1997, the extension of RLF Prototype Two until December 31,
1998.
On December 7, 1998, CBP announced in the Federal Register
(63 FR 67511) that Prototype Two would remain in effect until concluded
by notice in the Federal Register.
On July 6, 2001, CBP announced in the Federal Register (66
FR 35693) changes to the RLF Prototype Two eligibility requirements.
On November 16, 2001, CBP announced in the Federal
Register (66 FR 57774) a deadline extension for customs brokers
participating in RLF to submit their national broker permit numbers to
CBP.
On February 25, 2003, CBP announced in the Federal
Register (68 FR 8812) that line release entries would no longer be
permitted for purposes of RLF Prototype Two, and set forth a
comprehensive and updated list of current RLF eligibility requirements
and a description of a new simplified application process.
Change to RLF Prototype Two Merchandise Eligibility Criteria
This notice announces a change to the merchandise eligibility
requirements for participation in RLF Prototype Two, whereby RLF will
now be permitted for cargo that will be moved using immediate
transportation (IT) or transportation and export (T & E) in-bond
procedures. This was not allowed under the original terms of RLF
Prototype Two because CBP was
[[Page 16511]]
concerned with the general lack of security associated with in-bond
transactions.
Upon further review, CBP has determined that permitting RLF for
cargo that has already been moved using immediate transportation in-
bond procedures, or any other transportation entry in-bond, is
acceptable as the risks previously associated with in-bond transactions
have been greatly reduced due to the significant security and cargo-
processing gains accomplished by the advance cargo information
regulations set forth in CBP Dec. 03-32, published in the Federal
Register (68 FR 68140) on December 5, 2003. CBP also realizes that in-
bond transactions are a mainstay of international transactions. For
this reason, CBP views permitting RLF in an in-bond context as a means
of broadening the scope of RLF and thereby enhancing the program's
usefulness to the trade while simultaneously furthering the Bureau's
modernization objectives.
It is noted that with the exception of the change to the RLF
Prototype Two merchandise eligibility criteria involving in-bond
transportation procedures, discussed above, all other Prototype
eligibility requirements, procedures, terms and conditions, as set
forth in the document published on February 25, 2003, in the Federal
Register (68 FR 8812), remain in effect.
Dated: March 25, 2005.
Jayson P. Ahern,
Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations.
[FR Doc. 05-6397 Filed 3-30-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P
