OT:RR:CTF:VS H192143 BGK
Mr. Edie Dean
Customs Compliance Department
American Airlines
P.O. Box 582809
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74159-2809
RE: Ability to use former EASA Form 1 as “blanket certificate”; Civil Aircraft Agreement
Dear Mr. Dean:
This is in response to your request for a binding ruling concerning the acceptability of the use of an European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Form 1 from a previous entry as documentary support for a claim under the Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft (ATCA), also known in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) as the Civil Aircraft Agreement (CAA), in a future entry.
FACTS:
American Airlines entered merchandise considered to be civil aircraft in entries dated April 2, 2010 and June 23, 2010. ATCA claims were filed with both entries. American Airlines substantiated their ATCA claims with EASA Form 1’s, also known as Authorized Release Certificates, as the merchandise was exported from the United Kingdom.
In the April 2, 2010 entry, the information on EASA Form 1’s matches the commercial invoice, including the manufacturer part number, description, and work order number. You claim the serial numbers also match, but it appears from the form they are a few numbers off. In the June 23, 2010 entry, the information on the EASA Form 1 matches the commercial invoice information, including the manufacturer part number, description, quantity, and work order number. The parts did not contain serial or batch numbers. You submitted the Entry Summary, invoice, and EASA Form 1(s) for both the April 2, 2010 and June 23, 2010 entries.
ISSUE:
Whether an EASA Form 1 from a previous entry may be used to support ATCA claims in future entries that involve the same manufacturer part number and description but involve different serial numbers and/or work order numbers.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
The ATCA was implemented by Title VI, "Civil Aircraft Agreement" of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Sec. 601, Pub. L. 96 39, 93 Stat. 144, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 1979), effective January 1, 1980, and became headnote 3 to schedule 6, part 6, Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS). Headnote 3 to schedule 6, part 6, TSUS, became General Note (GN) 3(c)(iv) when the HTSUS was enacted, and became GN 6, HTSUS, with minimal changes in 1995. GN 6, HTSUS, was then amended by section 12 of the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-295, 110 Stat. 3514 (Oct. 11, 1996). Subsection (a) of GN 6, HTSUS, provides:
(a) Whenever a product is entered under a provision for which the rate of duty “Free (C)” appears in the “Special” subcolumn and a claim for such rate of duty is made, the importer--
(i) shall maintain such supporting documentation as the Secretary of the Treasury may require; and
(ii) shall be deemed to certify that the imported article is a civil aircraft, or has been imported for use in a civil aircraft and will be so used.
In order to be considered a “civil aircraft” under GN 6(a)(ii), the product must meet the description of “civil aircraft”, as laid out in GN 6(b)(i), HTSUS:
For purposes of the tariff schedule, the term “civil aircraft” means any aircraft, aircraft engine, or ground flight simulator (including parts, components, and subassemblies thereof) - -
(A) that is used as original or replacement equipment in the design, development, testing, evaluation, manufacture, repair, maintenance, rebuilding, modification, or conversion of aircraft; and
(B) (1) that is manufactured or operated pursuant to a certificate issued by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration under [49 U.S.C. § 44704], or pursuant to the approval of the airworthiness authority in the country of exportation, if such approval is recognized by the FAA as an acceptable substitute for such an FAA certificate; . . .
The regulations implementing GN 6, HTSUS, are enumerated in 19 C.F.R. § 10.183, and the documentation requirements are in subsection 10.183(e). Subsection 10.183(e) provides that each entry claiming duty-free treatment under GN 6 as “civil aircraft” must be supported by documentation verifying that claim, including the written order or contract and other evidence. The regulation states that:
Evidence that the merchandise qualifies under the general note includes evidence of compliance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section concerning use of the merchandise and evidence of compliance with the airworthiness certification requirement of paragraph (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), or (a)(2)(iii) of this section, including, as appropriate in the circumstances, an FAA certification; [and/or] approval of airworthiness by an airworthiness authority in the country of export and evidence that the FAA recognizes that approval as an acceptable substitute for an FAA certification. . . .
19 C.F.R. 10.183(e). The regulation proceeds to state that this documentation does not need to be filed with the entry, but must be maintained in accordance with the general note and the recordkeeping requirements of 19 C.F.R. Part 163. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) may also request production at any time to verify the ATCA claim. See 19 C.F.R. § 10.183(e).
In this case, you would like to use EASA Form 1s from previous entries to substantiate ATCA claims in future entries that contain merchandise with the same manufacturer part number and description, but involve different serial numbers and/or work order numbers. It is important to note, our ruling here is limited to the use of the Authorized Release Certificate as evidence of the imported merchandise’s eligibility for duty-free treatment under the ATCA, and is not a statement on the documentation required or accepted by the FAA to import an aircraft engine, propeller, or article into the U.S.
EASA Form 1 is issued by EASA, and the forms at issue deal with merchandise approved by the Civil Aviation Authority United Kingdom (CAA UK). EASA Form 1 is an Authorized Release Certificate, like the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Form 8130-3, also known as an Airworthiness Approval or Export Airworthiness Approval. Therefore, for EASA Form 1 to be an acceptable piece of evidence under 19 C.F.R. § 10.183(e) the form must prove that the good was manufactured pursuant to a certificate issued under 49 U.S.C. § 44704, and the EASA/CAA UK approval must be recognized by the FAA as an acceptable substitute for the FAA certificate.
49 U.S.C. § 44704 covers Type Certificates, Supplemental Type Certificates, Production Certificates, Airworthiness Certificates, and Design Organization Certificates. See 49 U.S.C. § 440704. The Authorized Release Certificate does not fall into any of these categories. The Authorized Release Certificate is a certificate issued by an airworthiness authority in the country of export indicating that a new aircraft engine, propeller, or article that is manufactured conforms to its approved design and is in a condition for safe operation. See 14 C.F.R. § 21.331. In Block 14 on the Authorized Release Certificate there is a box to check if the items identified on the certificate were manufactured in conformity to “approved design data and are in condition for safe operation[.]” “Approved design data” is defined as “applicable design data that has been granted an approval (for example, type certificate, supplemental type certificate, technical standard order authorization, parts manufacturer approval, or equivalent) by the relevant civil aviation authority.” FAA, Order 8130.21G Procedures for Completion and Use of the Authorized Release Certificate, FAA Form 8130-3, Airworthiness Approval Tag Annex B-1 (October 26, 2009). Therefore, as the Authorized Release Certificate evidences that the imported merchandise was manufactured in conformity with design data covered by a certificate issued by the FAA under 49 U.S.C. § 44704, an Authorized Release Certificate, with the appropriate box checked, may be provided as documentary evidence for purposes of GN 6(b)(i)(B)(1) and 19 C.F.R. § 10.183(e). In this case, the box evidencing that the imported articles were manufactured in conformity to “approved design data and are in condition for safe operation[.]” is checked on the provided Authorized Release Certificates.
Next, we must decide whether an Authorized Release Certificate on EASA Form 1 issued by the CAA UK is recognized by the FAA as an acceptable substitute for such an FAA Certificate. See GN 6(b)(i)(B)(1). A bilateral agreement between the U.S. and the European Community, the Agreement between the United States of America and the European Community on Cooperation in the Regulation of Civil Aviation Safety, went into effect on May 1, 2011. See FAA, Authorized Release Certificate, FAA Form 8130-3, Airworthiness Approval Tag, Questions and Answers Q1 (May 2011) available at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/international/export_aw_approval/
media/8130-3qa.pdf, and Agreement between the United States of America and the European Community on Cooperation in the Regulation of Civil Aviation Safety, June 30, 2008, available at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/international/bilateral_
agreements/baa_basa_listing/media/EU-US-agreement-R0.pdf [hereinafter US-EC Bilateral Agreement]. This Agreement provides for the reciprocal acceptance of Authorized Release Certificates. See US-EC Bilateral Agreement, Annex 1 §§ 3.4.5, 3.5.1, and Appendix. Therefore, an EASA Form 1 may be provided as documentary evidence to support an ATCA claim, as required by GN 6(b)(i)(B)(1) and 19 C.F.R. § 10.183(e).
You have asked us whether an EASA Form 1 from a previous entry may be used to support ATCA claims in future entries that involve the same manufacturer part number and description but involve different serial numbers and/or work order numbers. As the Authorized Release Certificate acts as evidence that the imported merchandise was manufactured pursuant to approved design data, and it is the design data that is important under GN 6(b)(i)(B)(1), an EASA Form 1 from a previous entry may be used to support ATCA claims in future entries that involve the same manufacturer part number and description, as long as the underlying design data remains approved by the relevant airworthiness authority. We would like to reiterate that this ruling only applies to the acceptability of the EASA Form 1 as documentary evidence to support an ATCA claim, and should not be used as a statement or interpretation of FAA requirements.
HOLDING:
An EASA Form 1 from a previous entry may be used to support ATCA claims in future entries that involve the same manufacturer part number and description, as long as the underlying design data remains approved by the relevant airworthiness authority.
A copy of this ruling letter should be attached to the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is entered. If the documents have been filed without a copy, this ruling should be brought to the attention of the Customs officer handling the transaction.
Sincerely,
Monika R. Brenner
Chief, Valuation & Special Programs Branch