Automated Commercial Environment (ACE): National Customs Automation Program Test of Automated Truck Manifest for Truck Carrier Accounts; Deployment Schedule, 53789-53790 [E7-18527]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 182 / Thursday, September 20, 2007 / Notices
authentication modes to be used at
specific MARSEC levels has been
removed and available authentication
modes have been clarified.
2. Section 4, TWIC Modes of
Operation. Ability to configure specific
authentication modes depending on a
given perimeter security requirement
and to be used at differing MARSEC
levels has been added.
3. Section 4, TWIC Modes of
Operation. Verification of CHUID
signature changed to mandatory. CHUID
signature is either verified once, either
when the card holder’s CHUID is
registered in a local PACS, or read by
the TWIC reader each time the card is
presented for access.
4. Section 5.1.1, Device Dimensions.
Note added to stress contactless reader
sensitivity to location and
electromagnetic conditions of their
environment.
5. Section 6, Portable Reader
Requirements. Requirements for
confidentiality and authentication
added for wireless devices used in
physical access systems.
6. Section 7, Operational
Requirements. Contactless transmission
speed requirement changed to support
106kbit/s, 212kbit/s or 424kbit/s, based
on the card’s capabilities.
7. Section 7, Operational
Requirements. Requirement added to
reject transaction if multiple cards are
simultaneously detected in the reader’s
contactless field.
8. Section 8, Performance
Requirements. Support for biometric
liveness detection strengthened from
‘‘may’’ to ‘‘should’’ indicating a strong
preference for liveness detection.
9. Appendix A.1, CHUID
Authentication. CHUID authentication
clarified.
10. Appendix A.2, TWIC Biometric
Authentication. Biometric
authentication clarified.
11. Appendix A.3, Card
Authentication Key Authentication.
Card Authentication data object
reference corrected.
12. Appendix A.3, Card
Authentication Key Authentication.
Card Authentication Key usage clarified
to indicate that it is only available via
the PIV application, and is not shared
with the TWIC application.
13. Appendix D, TWIC Reader
Compatibility with Other Card Types.
Reader compatibility and default card
support clarified and modified to allow
configuration of default AID.
14. Appendix E.4, Alternate
Implementations. Minor clarifications to
PACS enrollment.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:50 Sep 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
15. Appendix F, Proposed TWIC AID
Structure. TSA RID added, AID
structure clarified.
D. Future Changes to Specification
TSA and Coast Guard will continue to
evaluate and test the working
specification as we implement the TWIC
Pilot Program. We anticipate that, as
with any testing program, we will
encounter technical issues that can be
corrected by making minor changes to
the working specification. We will make
such changes available to the public as
they occur, through use of the following
link/Web site: www.tsa.gov/twic. In
addition, we will address any necessary
changes to the working specification
prior to finalizing the regulations
requiring TWIC readers.
Issued in Arlington, Virginia, on
September 14, 2007.
Stephanie Rowe,
Assistant Administrator, Transportation
Threat Assessment and Credentialing,
Transportation Security Administration.
[FR Doc. 07–4649 Filed 9–19–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection
Automated Commercial Environment
(ACE): National Customs Automation
Program Test of Automated Truck
Manifest for Truck Carrier Accounts;
Deployment Schedule
Customs and Border Protection;
Department of Homeland Security.
ACTION: General notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Customs and Border
Protection (CBP), in conjunction with
the Department of Transportation,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, is currently conducting
a National Customs Automation
Program (NCAP) test concerning the
transmission of automated truck
manifest data. This document
announces the final group, or cluster, of
ports to be deployed for this test.
DATES: The ports identified in this
notice, in the state of Alaska, are
expected to be fully deployed for testing
no earlier than August 30, 2007.
Comments concerning this notice and
all aspects of the announced test may be
submitted at any time during the test
period to the contact listed below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
James Swanson via e-mail at
james.d.swanson@dhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53789
Background
The National Customs Automation
Program (NCAP) test concerning the
transmission of automated truck
manifest data for truck carrier accounts
was announced in a notice published in
the Federal Register (69 FR 55167) on
September 13, 2004. That notice stated
that the test of the Automated Truck
Manifest would be conducted in a
phased approach, with primary
deployment scheduled for no earlier
than November 29, 2004.
A series of Federal Register notices
have announced the implementation of
the test, beginning with a notice
published on May 31, 2005 (70 FR
30964). As described in that document,
the deployment sites for the test have
been phased in as clusters. The ports
identified belonging to the first cluster
were announced in the May 31, 2005
notice. Additional clusters were
announced in subsequent notices
published in the Federal Register
including: 70 FR 43892, published on
July 29, 2005; 70 FR 60096, published
on October 14, 2005; 71 FR 3875,
published on January 24, 2006; 71 FR
23941, published on April 25, 2006; 71
FR 42103, published on July 25, 2006;
71 FR 77404, published on December
26, 2006; 72 FR 5070, published on
February 2, 2007; 72 FR 7058, published
on February 14, 2007; 72 FR 14127,
published on March 26, 2007; and 72 FR
32135, published on June 11, 2007.
New Cluster
Through this notice, CBP announces
that the final cluster of ports to be
brought up for purposes of deployment
of the test, to be fully deployed no
earlier than August 30, 2007, will be the
following land border ports in the state
of Alaska: Alcan, Dalton Cache, and
Skagway. This group of ports is the last
remaining group, nationwide, to be
tested; the ACE truck manifest test will
be complete once it is effectuated in
Alaska.
This deployment is for purposes of
the test of the transmission of automated
truck manifest data only; the Automated
Commercial Environment (ACE) Truck
Manifest System is not yet the mandated
transmission system for these ports. The
ACE Truck Manifest System will
become the mandatory transmission
system in these ports only after
publication in the Federal Register of 90
days notice, as explained by CBP in the
Federal Register notice published on
October 27, 2006 (71 FR 62922).
Previous NCAP Notices Not Concerning
Deployment Schedules
On Monday, March 21, 2005, a notice
was published in the Federal Register
E:\FR\FM\20SEN1.SGM
20SEN1
53790
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 182 / Thursday, September 20, 2007 / Notices
(70 FR 13514) announcing a
modification to the NCAP test to clarify
that all relevant data elements are
required to be submitted in the
automated truck manifest submission.
That notice did not announce any
change to the deployment schedule and
is not affected by publication of this
notice. All requirements and aspects of
the test, as set forth in the September 13,
2004 notice, as modified by the March
21, 2005 notice, continue to be
applicable.
Dated: September 13, 2007.
Thomas S. Winkowski,
Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field
Operations.
[FR Doc. E7–18527 Filed 9–19–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–14–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
[USCBP–2006–0021; CBP Dec. 07–78]
Interpretive Rule Concerning
Classification of Unisex Footwear
U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Final interpretion.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document adopts as
final, with minor changes, a proposed
interpretive rule regarding the criteria to
be used by U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to determine
whether footwear is considered to be
‘‘commonly worn by both sexes’’
(unisex) for tariff classification purposes
under Heading 6403 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’) that was published in the
Federal Register on July 24, 2006. The
rates of duty applicable to footwear ‘‘For
other persons’’ (i.e., ‘‘unisex’’) are about
1.5 percent higher than the rates of duty
applicable to footwear ‘‘For men, youths
and boys.’’ The criteria set forth in this
document will promote uniformity in
the classification of subject footwear,
thereby ensuring that proper duties are
collected.
DATES: Effective Date: October 22, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alexandra (Sasha) Kalb, Tariff
Classification and Marking Branch,
Regulations and Rulings, Office of
International Trade, (202) 572–8791.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This document sets forth the criteria
to be used by CBP to determine whether
footwear should be considered ‘‘unisex’’
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:50 Sep 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
for tariff classification purposes.
Chapter 64, HTSUS, covers footwear,
gaiters and the like, and parts of such
articles. Disparities in the duty rates
applicable to some provisions under
Heading 6403 in Chapter 64 are based
on the gender of the user. Additional
U.S. Note 1(b) and Statistical Note 1(b)
to Chapter 64, HTSUS, provide that
footwear ‘‘for men, youths and boys’’
covers footwear of certain men’s and
youths’ sizes, not including unisex
footwear (i.e., ‘‘footwear commonly
worn by both sexes’’). Statistical Note
1(c) to Chapter 64, HTSUS, provides
that footwear ‘‘for women’’ covers
footwear of certain women’s sizes,
whether for females or of types
commonly worn by both sexes (i.e.,
unisex). Elsewhere in the HTSUS (in
subheadings 6403.99.75 and 6403.99.90,
for example), footwear is classified as
‘‘for other persons,’’ a definition that
also includes unisex footwear. The
determination of whether footwear is
classifiable as ‘‘for men, youths and
boys’’ rather than ‘‘for women’’ or ‘‘for
other persons,’’ therefore, often rests on
whether the footwear is truly for men,
youths and boys or is, in fact, unisex.
The rates of duty applicable to footwear
‘‘For other persons’’ (i.e. unisex) are
about 1.5 percent higher than the rates
applicable to footwear ‘‘For men, youths
and boys.’’
It is noted that many types of footwear
may be, and in fact are, worn by both
sexes. In addition, many types of shoes
in male sizes do not feature physical
characteristics to designate that the
footwear is intended exclusively for
males. The standards employed for
purposes of determining whether
footwear is considered unisex had been
developed and applied by CBP on an ad
hoc, case-by-case basis. This approach,
while effective in individual cases, had
provided only limited guidance to the
importing community and to CBP
officers with respect to other import
transactions involving different factual
circumstances.
Request From Public To Provide
Enhanced Guidance
In a letter dated September 17, 1999,
the footwear importing public,
represented by the Footwear
Distributors and Retailers of America
(‘‘FDRA’’), requested that CBP take steps
to provide enhanced guidance in
determinations concerning unisex
issues. The FDRA specifically requested
that CBP set forth the criteria for
determining whether footwear claimed
to be ‘‘for men, youths and boys’’ is
considered ‘‘commonly worn by both
sexes’’ and therefore classifiable as
footwear ‘‘for other persons.’’ The FDRA
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
additionally requested that CBP ensure
the uniform interpretation and
application of those criteria by CBP field
offices.
Preliminary Notice
After receiving the above-referenced
letter, CBP published a general notice in
the Federal Register (67 FR 18303) on
April 15, 2002. In that document, CBP
set forth its criteria for determining
what constitutes unisex footwear for
tariff classification purposes as well as
the criteria proposed by the FDRA. In
addition, CBP solicited comments on
the appropriateness of the standards
proposed by the FDRA and on the
extent to which any standards followed
by CBP in the past should be retained.
Suggestions for alternative standards
were also invited. Four comments were
received in response to the preliminary
notice.
Proposed Interpretive Rule
CBP published a proposed
interpretive rule in the Federal Register
(71 FR 41822) on July 24, 2006. In the
proposed interpretive rule, CBP
reiterated its traditional criteria for
determining what constitutes unisex
footwear, addressed the four comments
received in response to the preliminary
notice, and proposed new criteria for
purposes of determining whether
footwear should be considered unisex
for tariff classification purposes. The
criteria set forth by CBP in the proposed
interpretive rule, to be applied in
sequential order, are:
(1) Footwear in sizes for men, youths
and boys will not be considered to be
‘‘commonly worn by both sexes’’ (i.e.,
‘‘unisex’’) if marked ‘‘MEN’S SIZE
ll’’, ‘‘YOUTHS’ SIZE ll’’, or
‘‘BOYS’ SIZE ll’’.
(2) Even if not marked as described in
criterion 1, footwear in sizes for men,
youths or boys will not be considered to
be ‘‘commonly worn by both sexes’’
(i.e., ‘‘unisex’’) if:
a. The importer imports the same shoe
for women and girls, or;
b. Evidence is provided in the form of
marketing material, retail
advertisements, or other convincing
documentation demonstrating that the
same shoe for women and girls is
available in the U.S. marketplace.
(3) A style of footwear in sizes for
males will not be presumed to be
‘‘commonly worn by both sexes’’ (i.e.,
‘‘unisex’’) unless evidence of marketing
establishes that at least one pair in four
(25 percent) of that style is sold to and/
or worn by females.
(4) A determination that footwear is
‘‘commonly worn by both sexes’’ will
E:\FR\FM\20SEN1.SGM
20SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 182 (Thursday, September 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53789-53790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-18527]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
Automated Commercial Environment (ACE): National Customs
Automation Program Test of Automated Truck Manifest for Truck Carrier
Accounts; Deployment Schedule
AGENCY: Customs and Border Protection; Department of Homeland Security.
ACTION: General notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Customs and Border Protection (CBP), in conjunction with the
Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, is currently conducting a National Customs Automation
Program (NCAP) test concerning the transmission of automated truck
manifest data. This document announces the final group, or cluster, of
ports to be deployed for this test.
DATES: The ports identified in this notice, in the state of Alaska, are
expected to be fully deployed for testing no earlier than August 30,
2007. Comments concerning this notice and all aspects of the announced
test may be submitted at any time during the test period to the contact
listed below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James Swanson via e-mail at
james.d.swanson@dhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) test concerning the
transmission of automated truck manifest data for truck carrier
accounts was announced in a notice published in the Federal Register
(69 FR 55167) on September 13, 2004. That notice stated that the test
of the Automated Truck Manifest would be conducted in a phased
approach, with primary deployment scheduled for no earlier than
November 29, 2004.
A series of Federal Register notices have announced the
implementation of the test, beginning with a notice published on May
31, 2005 (70 FR 30964). As described in that document, the deployment
sites for the test have been phased in as clusters. The ports
identified belonging to the first cluster were announced in the May 31,
2005 notice. Additional clusters were announced in subsequent notices
published in the Federal Register including: 70 FR 43892, published on
July 29, 2005; 70 FR 60096, published on October 14, 2005; 71 FR 3875,
published on January 24, 2006; 71 FR 23941, published on April 25,
2006; 71 FR 42103, published on July 25, 2006; 71 FR 77404, published
on December 26, 2006; 72 FR 5070, published on February 2, 2007; 72 FR
7058, published on February 14, 2007; 72 FR 14127, published on March
26, 2007; and 72 FR 32135, published on June 11, 2007.
New Cluster
Through this notice, CBP announces that the final cluster of ports
to be brought up for purposes of deployment of the test, to be fully
deployed no earlier than August 30, 2007, will be the following land
border ports in the state of Alaska: Alcan, Dalton Cache, and Skagway.
This group of ports is the last remaining group, nationwide, to be
tested; the ACE truck manifest test will be complete once it is
effectuated in Alaska.
This deployment is for purposes of the test of the transmission of
automated truck manifest data only; the Automated Commercial
Environment (ACE) Truck Manifest System is not yet the mandated
transmission system for these ports. The ACE Truck Manifest System will
become the mandatory transmission system in these ports only after
publication in the Federal Register of 90 days notice, as explained by
CBP in the Federal Register notice published on October 27, 2006 (71 FR
62922).
Previous NCAP Notices Not Concerning Deployment Schedules
On Monday, March 21, 2005, a notice was published in the Federal
Register
[[Page 53790]]
(70 FR 13514) announcing a modification to the NCAP test to clarify
that all relevant data elements are required to be submitted in the
automated truck manifest submission. That notice did not announce any
change to the deployment schedule and is not affected by publication of
this notice. All requirements and aspects of the test, as set forth in
the September 13, 2004 notice, as modified by the March 21, 2005
notice, continue to be applicable.
Dated: September 13, 2007.
Thomas S. Winkowski,
Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations.
[FR Doc. E7-18527 Filed 9-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
