|
A Cryptome DVD is offered by Cryptome. Donate $25 for a DVD of the Cryptome 11.5-years archives of 43,000 files from June 1996 to January 2008 (~4.5 GB). Click Paypal or mail check/MO made out to John Young, 251 West 89th Street, New York, NY 10024. Archives include all files of cryptome.org, jya.com, cartome.org, eyeball-series.org and iraq-kill-maim.org. Cryptome offers with the Cryptome DVD an INSCOM DVD of about 18,000 pages of counter-intelligence dossiers declassified by the US Army Information and Security Command, dating from 1945 to 1985. No additional contribution required -- $25 for both. The DVDs will be sent anywhere worldwide without extra cost. |
3 January 2008
[Federal Register: January 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 1)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 90-113]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02ja08-22]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
19 CFR Parts 4, 12, 18, 101, 103, 113, 122, 123, 141, 143, 149 and
192
[USCBP-2007-0077]
RIN 1651-AA70
Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements
AGENCY: Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To help prevent terrorist weapons from being transported to
the United States, vessel carriers bringing cargo to the United States
are currently required to transmit certain information to Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) about the cargo they are transporting prior to
lading that cargo at foreign ports of entry. This document proposes to
require both importers and carriers to submit additional information
pertaining to cargo before the cargo is brought into the United States
by vessel. CBP must receive this information by way of a CBP-approved
electronic data interchange system. The information required is
reasonably necessary to further improve the ability of CBP to identify
high-risk shipments so as to prevent smuggling and ensure cargo safety
and security. The proposed regulations are specifically intended to
fulfill the requirements of section 203 of the Security and
Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act of 2006 and section 343(a) of
the Trade Act of 2002, as amended by the Maritime Transportation
Security Act of 2002.
DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before March 3, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number, by one
of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments via docket number
Dept: [INSERT DOCKET NUMBER].
Mail: Border Security Regulations Branch, Office of Trade,
U.S Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. (Mint
Annex), Washington, DC 20229.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and document number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
``Public Participation'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Submitted comments
may also be inspected on regular business days between the hours of 9
a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Office of International Trade, Customs and
Border Protection, 799 9th Street, NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC.
Arrangements to inspect submitted comments should be made in advance by
calling Mr. Joseph Clark at (202) 572-8768.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Di Nucci, Office of Field
Operations, (202) 344-2513.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Public Participation
II. Background
A. Current Requirements and CBP Authority for Issuance of
Proposed Rule
(1) 24 Hour Rule
(2) Trade Act Regulations
(3) SAFE Port Act
B. Statutory Factors Governing Development of Regulations
C. Carrier and Importer Requirements Presented Separately
III. Proposed Carrier Requirements Relating to Vessel Cargo Destined
to the United States
A. Overview; Vessel Stow Plan
B. Overview; Container Status Messages
1. Events Requiring a CSM, Effective Upon Implementation of the
Final Rule
2. Additional Events Requiring a CSM, Effective 90 Days After
CBP Publishes a Notice in the Federal Register
IV. Proposed Importer Requirement for Vessel Cargo Destined to the
United States
A. Overview; Required Elements
1. Shipments Other Than FROB, IE Shipments, and T&E Shipments
2. FROB, IE shipments, and T&E shipments
B. Public Comments; Required Elements
C. Overview; Master Bills/House Bills
D. Public Comments; Master Bills/House Bills
E. Overview; CBP-approved Electronic Interchange System
F. Public Comments; CBP-approved Electronic Interchange System
G. Overview; Authorized Agents
H. Public Comments; Authorized Agents
I. Public Comments; Requested Exemptions/Exclusions From
Importer Security Filing Requirements
1. Bulk and Break Bulk Cargo
2. Foreign Cargo Remaining on Board, In-bond Shipments, and
Instruments of International Traffic
J. Overview; Updating an Importer Security Filing
K. Public Comments; Withdrawing an Importer Security Filing
L. Overview; Importer Security Filing, Entry, and Application
for FTZ Admission
1. Importer Security Filing and Entry
2. Importer Security Filing and Application for FTZ Admission
M. Public Comments; Importer Security Filing, Entry, and
Application for FTZ Admission
V. General Public Comments
A. Economic Analysis; Cost, Benefit, and Feasibility Study
B. Protection of Confidential Information Presented to CBP
C. Test of Concept and Phase-in Enforcement
D. Other General Comments
VI. Amendments to Bond Conditions
A. Bond Conditions Related to the Proposed Importer Security
Filing, Vessel Stow Plan, and Container Status Message Requirements
B. Bond Conditions Related to the Trade Act Regulations
VIII. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Unfunded Mandated Reform Act
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
IX. Signing Authority
X. Proposed Regulatory Amendments
Abbreviations and Terms Used in This Document
AAEI--American Association of Exporters and Importers
AAPA--American Association of Port Authorities
ABI--Automated Broker Interface
ACE--Automated Commercial Environment
AMS--Automated Manifest System
ANSI--American National Standards Institute
ATDI--Advance Trade Data Initiative
ATS--Automated Targeting System
CBP--Customs and Border Protection
COAC--Departmental Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations of
Customs and Border Protection and Related Homeland Security
Functions
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CSI--Container Security Initiative
CSM--Container status message
C-TPAT--Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism
DDP--Delivered duty paid
DDU--Delivered duty unpaid
DHS--U.S. Department of Homeland Security
EIN--Employer identification number
FAQ--Frequently asked questions
[[Page 91]]
FROB--Foreign cargo remaining on board
FTZ--Foreign trade zone
HTSUS--Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
ICPA--International Compliance Professionals Association
IE--Immediate exportation
IIT--Instruments of international traffic
IMO--International Maritime Organization
IRS--Internal Revenue Service
ITDS--International Trade Data System
JIG--Joint Industry Group
MID--Manufacturer identification
MTSA--Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002
NAM--National Association of Manufacturers
NCBFAA--National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of
America
NVOCC--Non-vessel operating common carrier
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
Pub. L.--Public Law
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
RILA--Retail Industry Leaders Association
SAFE Port Act--Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of
2006
SBREFA--Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
SSN--Social security number
T&E--Transportation and exportation
TSN--Trade Support Network
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
UN EDIFACT--United Nations rules for Electronic Data Interchange For
Administration, Commerce and Transport
U.S.C.--United States Code
WCO--World Customs Organization
WSC--World Shipping Council
I. Public Participation
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by
submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the
notice of proposed rulemaking. The Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental,
or federalism effects that might result from this proposal. Comments
that will provide the most assistance to the Department in developing
these procedures will reference a specific portion of the proposal,
explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data,
information, or authority that support such recommended change.
II. Background
A. Current Requirements and CBP Authority for Issuance of Proposed Rule
1. 24 Hour Rule
Section 1431 of title 19, United States Code (19 U.S.C. 1431)
requires that every vessel bound for the United States and required to
make entry under 19 U.S.C. 1434 have a manifest that meets the
requirements that are prescribed by regulation. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C.
1431, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a final rule in the
Federal Register (67 FR 66318) on October 31, 2002, which amended the
regulations in title 19, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), to require,
among other things, the advance and accurate presentation of certain
manifest information 24 hours prior to lading of containerized and non-
exempt break bulk cargo at a foreign port and to encourage the
presentation of this information electronically, commonly known as the
24 Hour Rule. The advance information required pursuant to the October
31, 2002, final rule is required in order to enable CBP to evaluate the
potential risk of smuggling weapons of mass destruction through the use
of oceangoing cargo containers before goods are loaded on vessels
destined to the United States. This advance information ensures
compliance with U.S. law and enables CBP to facilitate the prompt
release of legitimate cargo following its arrival in the United States.
The information assists CBP in increasing the security of the global
trading system and, thereby, reducing potential threats to the United
States and world economy.
2. Trade Act Regulations
Pursuant to section 343(a) of the Trade Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 2071
note), as amended by section 108 of the Maritime Transportation
Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064), CBP published a
final rule in the Federal Register (68 FR 68140) on December 5, 2003,
which, among other things, amended the 24 Hour Rule regulations to
require the transmission of this information by way of the CBP Vessel
Automated Manifest System (AMS). See 19 CFR 4.7 and 4.7a. The advance
electronic transmission of cargo information required was determined to
be reasonably necessary for CBP to identify high-risk shipments to
prevent smuggling and ensure cargo safety and security.
3. SAFE Port Act
On October 13, 2006, the President signed into law the Security and
Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-347, 120 Stat
1884) (SAFE Port Act). Pursuant to Section 203 of the SAFE Port Act (6
U.S.C. 943), the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the
Commissioner of CBP must promulgate regulations to require the
electronic transmission of additional data elements for improved high-
risk targeting, including appropriate security elements of entry data
for cargo destined to the United States by vessel prior to loading of
such cargo on vessels at foreign seaports. This NPRM proposes to
require the electronic transmission of additional data for improved
high-risk targeting.\1\ Some of these data elements would be required
from carriers and others would be required from ``importers,'' as that
term is defined for purposes of these regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Information on cargo feeds into CBP's Automated Targeting
System (ATS) and is run against the system's protocols to evaluate
all cargo shipments headed to the United States. ATS uses algorithms
and anomaly analysis to identify high-risk targets. The system
screens 100 percent of all cargo shipments. Using risk management
principles and strategic intelligence, analysts use the system to
identify shipments that pose a potential terrorist threat. One
hundred percent of all high-risk shipments are inspected on arrival
at ports of entry in the United States or in Container Security
Initiative affiliated ports overseas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to enactment of the SAFE Port Act, CBP had already undertaken
an internal review of its targeting and inspection processes.
Consequently, CBP had implemented a comprehensive strategy designed to
enhance national security while protecting the economic vitality of the
United States. The Container Security Initiative (CSI), the 24 Hour
Rule, and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) are
cornerstone approaches implemented to further this goal. Additionally,
CBP has developed cargo risk assessment capabilities in its Automated
Targeting System (ATS) to screen all maritime containers before they
are loaded aboard vessels in foreign ports. Each of these initiatives
is dependent upon data supplied by trade entities, including carriers,
non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOCCs), brokers, importers or
their agents.
The information that CBP currently analyzes to generate its risk
assessment prior to vessel loading contains the same data elements that
were originally established by the 24 Hour Rule. For the most part,
this is the ocean carrier's or NVOCC's cargo declaration. While this
was a sound initial approach to take after the tragic events of
September 11th, internal and external government reviews have concluded
that more complete advance shipment data would produce even more
effective and more vigorous cargo risk assessments.
In late 2004, the Departmental Advisory Committee on Commercial
Operations of Customs and Border Protection and Related Homeland
Security Functions (COAC) forwarded to the Department of Homeland
Security and CBP one of its subcommittees' recommendations, which
provided that: ``For ATS to provide enhanced security screening, the
system should acquire additional shipment data to be used in the pre-
vessel loading security screening
[[Page 92]]
process.'' COAC recommended that CBP undertake a thorough review of the
data element recommendations with the Trade Support Network (TSN) to
determine what data elements the government required to improve the
agency's risk assessment and targeting capabilities.
Accordingly, CBP undertook further internal review and analysis of
its targeting and inspection processes and worked with the TSN on this
issue. Based upon its analysis, as well as the requirements under the
SAFE Port Act, CBP is proposing to require the electronic transmission
of additional data for improved high-risk targeting.
B. Statutory Factors Governing Development of Regulations
Pursuant to section 203(d) of the SAFE Port Act, DHS is required to
adhere to the parameters applicable to the development of regulations
under section 343(a) of the Trade Act of 2002, including provisions
relating to consultation, technology, analysis, use of information,
confidentiality, and timing requirements.
Under section 343(a) of the Trade Act of 2002, as amended, the
requirement to provide information to CBP is generally to be imposed
upon the party likely to have direct knowledge of the required
information. However, where doing so is not practicable, CBP in the
proposed regulations must take into account how the party on whom the
requirement is imposed acquires the necessary information under
ordinary commercial practices, and whether and how this party is able
to verify the information it has acquired. Where the party is not
reasonably able to verify the information, the proposed regulations
must allow the party to submit the information on the basis of what it
reasonably believes to be true.
Furthermore, in developing the regulations, CBP, as required, has
taken into consideration the remaining parameters set forth in the
statute, where applicable, including:
--The existence of competitive relationships among parties upon which
the information collection requirements are imposed;
--Different commercial practices and operational characteristics, and
the technological capacity to collect and transmit information
electronically;
--The need for interim requirements to reflect the technology that is
available at the time of promulgation of the regulations for purposes
of the parties transmitting, and CBP receiving and analyzing,
electronic information in a timely fashion;
--That the use of the additional information collected pursuant to
these regulations is to be only for ensuring cargo safety and security
and preventing smuggling and not for determining merchandise entry or
for any other commercial enforcement purposes;
--The protection of the privacy of business proprietary and any other
confidential cargo information that CBP receives under these
regulations, with the exception that a limited portion of certain
manifest information may be required to be made available for public
disclosure pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1431(c);
--Balancing the impact on the flow of commerce with the impact on cargo
safety and security in determining the timing for transmittal of
required information;
--Where practicable, avoiding requirements in the regulations that are
redundant with one another or with requirements under other provisions
of law; and
--The need, where appropriate, for different transition periods for
different classes of affected parties to comply with the electronic
filing requirements in the regulations.
Additionally, the statute requires that a broad range of parties,
including importers, exporters, carriers, customs brokers, and freight
forwarders, among other interested parties likely to be affected by the
regulations, be consulted and their comments obtained and evaluated as
a prelude to the development and promulgation of the regulations. In
furtherance of this requirement, CBP met with COAC and other industry
groups, including the American Association of Exporters and Importers
(AAEI), the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), the Joint
Industry Group (JIG), the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM),
the National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America
(NCBFAA), the International Compliance Professionals Association
(ICPA), the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), the TSN, the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the World Shipping Council (WSC). In
meetings and during conference calls, members of the importing and
exporting community made many significant observations, insights, and
suggestions as to what CBP should consider and how CBP should proceed
in composing the proposed regulations. CBP presented to these groups a
document entitled ``CBP Proposal for Advance Trade Data Elements'' (the
``10+2 Strawman''). CBP also posted the 10+2 Strawman on the CBP Web
site along with a request for comments from the public. The Strawman
was known as 10+2 because ten of the elements are to come from
importers, as defined in these regulations, describing the cargo, and
two of the elements are to come from carriers including information
regarding the containers and conveyances in which the cargo is loaded.
Numerous commenters responded to the 10+2 Strawman. At CBP's
request, the COAC Advance Data Subcommittee also prepared and presented
recommendations to CBP. Indeed, input and recommendations from those
members of the trade who participated in the meetings discussed above,
the various workgroups of the COAC subcommittee, as well as the views
expressed in the many e-mail submissions on this matter, were
considered in the development of these proposed regulations.
In this document, CBP responds to comments that were received in
response to the 10+2 Strawman and the recommendation of the COAC
Advance Data Subcommittee. General comments and responses are presented
in Section III of this document. Comments relating to specific aspects
of the proposal are presented in the section of this document that
discusses CBP's proposal relating to that particular aspect.
C. Carrier and Importer Requirements Presented Separately
Under the proposed regulations, carriers would be generally
required to submit a vessel stow plan and container status messages
regarding certain events relating to containers loaded on vessels
destined to the United States (the ``2'' of ``10+2''). Importers, as
defined in these regulations, would be required to submit an Importer
Security Filing containing certain data elements (the ``10'' of
``10+2''). For purposes of the proposed regulations, importer means the
party causing goods to arrive within the limits of a port in the United
States. For foreign cargo remaining on board (FROB), the importer is
construed as the carrier. For immediate exportation (IE) and
transportation and exportation (T&E) in-bond shipments, and goods to be
delivered to a foreign trade zone (FTZ), the importer is construed as
the party filing the IE, T&E, or FTZ documentation with CBP. Because
the proposed requirements for carriers and importers are different in
scope and timing, they are presented separately below.
[[Page 93]]
III. Proposed Carrier Requirements Relating to Vessel Cargo Destined to
the United States
A. Overview; Vessel Stow Plan
Pursuant to the authority granted in section 343(a) of the Trade
Act of 2002, as amended by the Maritime Transportation Security Act of
2002 (MTSA), CBP is proposing to require carriers to submit a vessel
stow plan for vessels destined to the United States. The vessel stow
plan is used to transmit information about the physical location of
cargo loaded aboard a vessel, which enhances the security of the
maritime environment. Under the proposed regulations, CBP must receive
the stow plan for vessels transporting containers and/or break bulk
cargo no later than 48 hours after departure from the last foreign
port. For voyages less than 48 hours in duration, CBP must receive the
stow plan prior to the vessel's arrival at the first port in the United
States. Bulk carriers would be exempt from this requirement for vessels
exclusively carrying bulk cargo. The vessel stow plan must be submitted
via the CBP-approved electronic data interchange system. The current
approved electronic data interchange system for the vessel stow plan is
vessel AMS. If CBP approves of different or additional electronic data
interchange systems, CBP will publish a notice in the Federal Register.
Under the proposed regulations, the vessel stow plan must include
standard information relating to the vessel and each container and unit
of break bulk cargo laden on the vessel. The vessel stow plan must
include the following standard information: With regard to the vessel,
(1) Vessel name (including international maritime organization
(IMO) number);
(2) Vessel operator; and
(3) Voyage number.
With regard to each container or unit of break bulk cargo,
(1) Container operator, if containerized;
(2) Equipment number, if containerized;
(3) Equipment size and type, if containerized;
(4) Stow position;
(5) Hazmat-UN code;
(6) Port of lading; and
(7) Port of discharge.
B. Overview; Container Status Messages
Pursuant to section 343(a) of the Trade Act of 2002, CBP is
proposing to require carriers to submit container status messages
(CSMs) daily for certain events relating to all containers laden with
cargo destined to arrive within the limits of a port in the United
States by vessel. Container status messages serve to facilitate the
intermodal handling of containers by streamlining the information
exchange between trading partners involved in administration, commerce,
and transport of containerized shipments.
Container status messages will provide CBP with additional
transparency into the custodial environment through which inter-modal
containers are handled and transported before arrival in the United
States. This enhanced view (in corroboration with other advance data
messages) into the international supply chain will contribute to the
security of the United States and in the international supply chain
through which containers and import cargos reach ports in the United
States.
The messages are used to report terminal container movements (e.g.,
loading and discharging the vessel) and to report the change in status
of containers (e.g., empty or full). There are two basic standards
governing the formation of CSMs. These are the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) X.12 standard and the United Nations rules
for Electronic Data Interchange For Administration, Commerce and
Transport (UN EDIFACT) standard. Under the proposed regulations, CSMs
created under either standard will be acceptable.
Under the proposed regulations, carriers must submit a CSM when any
of the required events occurs if the carrier creates or collects a CSM
in its equipment tracking system reporting that event. The proposed
regulations would not require a carrier create or collect any CSM data
other than that which the carrier already creates or collects on its
own and maintains in its electronic equipment tracking system. CSMs
must be submitted no later than 24 hours after the message is entered
into the carrier's equipment tracking system.
The events for which CSMs would be required are:
(1) When the booking relating to a container which is destined to
arrive within the limits of a port in the United States by vessel is
confirmed;
(2) When a container which is destined to arrive within the limits
of a port in the United States by vessel undergoes a terminal gate
inspection;
(3) When a container, which is destined to arrive within the limits
of a port in the United States by vessel, arrives or departs a facility
(These events take place when a container enters or exits a port,
container yard, or other facility. Generally, these CSMs are referred
to as ``gate-in'' and ``gate-out'' messages.);
(4) When a container, which is destined to arrive within the limits
of a port in the United States by vessel, is loaded on or unloaded from
a conveyance (This includes vessel, feeder vessel, barge, rail and
truck movements. Generally, these CSMs are referred to as ``loaded on''
and ``unloaded from'' messages);
(5) When a vessel transporting a container, which is destined to
arrive within the limits of a port in the United States by vessel,
departs from or arrives at a port (These events are commonly referred
to as ``vessel departure'' and ``vessel arrival'' notices);
(6) When a container which is destined to arrive within the limits
of a port in the United States by vessel undergoes an intra-terminal
movement;
(7) When a container which is destined to arrive within the limits
of a port in the United States by vessel is ordered stuffed or
stripped;
(8) When a container which is destined to arrive within the limits
of a port in the United States by vessel is confirmed stuffed or
stripped; and
(9) When a container which is destined to arrive within the limits
of a port in the United States by vessel is shopped for heavy repair.
CBP is aware that it may be cost beneficial for some carriers to
transmit all CSMs, rather than filter out CSMs relating to containers
destined to the United States or relating only to the required events.
Accordingly, CBP is proposing to allow carriers to transmit their
``global'' CSM messages, including CSMs relating to containers that do
not contain cargo destined for importation into the United States and
CSMs relating to events other than the required events. By transmitting
CSMs in addition to those required by the proposed regulations, a
carrier authorizes CBP to access and use that data.
For each CSM submitted, the following information must be included:
(1) Event code being reported, as defined in the ANSI X.12 or UN
EDIFACT standards;
(2) Container number;
(3) Date and time of the event being reported;
(4) Status of the container (empty or full);
(5) Location where the event took place; and
(6) Vessel identification associated with the message.
Carriers would be exempt from the CSM requirement for bulk and
break
[[Page 94]]
bulk cargo. Under the proposed regulations, CSMs must be submitted via
the CBP-approved electronic data interchange system. The current
approved electronic data interchange system for CSMs is vessel AMS. CBP
is continuing to consider additional electronic interchange systems. If
CBP approves of a different or additional electronic data interchange
system, CBP will publish notice in the Federal Register.
IV. Proposed Importer Requirements for Vessel Cargo Destined to the
United States
A. Overview; Required Elements
Pursuant to the authority of section 343(a) of the Trade Act of
2002 and section 203 of the SAFE Port Act, in order to enhance the
security of the maritime environment, CBP is proposing to require
importers, as defined in these regulations, or their agents, to
transmit an Importer Security Filing to CBP, for cargo other than
foreign cargo remaining on board (FROB), no later than 24 hours before
cargo is laden aboard a vessel destined to the United States. Because
FROB is frequently laden based on a last-minute decision by the
carrier, the Importer Security Filing for FROB would not be required 24
hours prior to lading. Rather, the Importer Security Filing for FROB
would be required any time prior to lading.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ CBP is not proposing to amend the timing requirements in 19
CFR part 4 requiring submission of advance manifest information 24
hours prior to lading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the proposed regulations, 10 elements are required for
shipments consisting of goods intended to be entered into the United
States and goods intended to be delivered to a foreign trade zone
(FTZ). For goods to be delivered to an FTZ, the importer is construed
as the party filing the FTZ documentation with CBP. These 10 elements
must be transmitted by the importer, as defined in these regulations,
or its agent. Five elements are required for shipments consisting
entirely of FROB and shipments consisting entirely of goods intended to
be ``transported'' as immediate exportation (IE) or transportation and
exportation (T&E) in-bond shipments.
For FROB, the importer is construed as the international carrier of
the vessel arriving in the United States. For IE and T&E in-bond
shipments, the importer is construed as the party filing the IE or T&E
documentation with CBP.
1. Shipments Other Than FROB, IE Shipments, and T&E Shipments
Under the proposed regulations, for the Importer Security Filing
for shipments other than those consisting entirely of FROB and goods
intended to be ``transported'' in-bond as an IE or T&E, 10 elements
must be provided, unless specifically exempted. The manufacturer (or
supplier) name and address, country of origin, and commodity HTSUS
number must be linked to one another at the line item level.
The ten required elements are:
(1) Manufacturer (or supplier) name and address. Name and address
of the entity that last manufactures, assembles, produces, or grows the
commodity or name and address of the supplier of the finished goods in
the country from which the goods are leaving. In the alternative, the
name and address of the manufacturer (or supplier) that is currently
required by the import laws, rules and regulations of the United States
(i.e., entry procedures) may be provided (this is the information that
is used to create the existing manufacturer identification (MID) number
for entry purposes).
(2) Seller name and address. Name and address of the last known
entity by whom the goods are sold or agreed to be sold. If the goods
are to be imported otherwise than in pursuance of a purchase, the name
and address of the owner of the goods must be provided.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The party required for this element is consistent with the
information required on the invoice of imported merchandise. See 19
CFR 141.86(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Buyer name and address. Name and address of the last known
entity to whom the goods are sold or agreed to be sold. If the goods
are to be imported otherwise than in pursuance of a purchase, the name
and address of the owner of the goods must be provided.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The party required for this element is consistent with the
information required on the invoice of imported merchandise. See 19
CFR 141.86(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Ship to name and address. Name and address of the first
deliver-to party scheduled to physically receive the goods after the
goods have been released from customs custody.
(5) Container stuffing location. Name and address(es) of the
physical location(s) where the goods were stuffed into the container.
For break bulk shipments, the name and address(es) of the physical
location(s) where the goods were made ``ship ready'' must be provided.
(6) Consolidator (stuffer) name and address. Name and address of
the party who stuffed the container or arranged for the stuffing of the
container. For break bulk shipments, the name and address of the party
who made the goods ``ship ready'' or the party who arranged for the
goods to be made ``ship ready'' must be provided.
(7) Importer of record number / FTZ applicant identification
number. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) number, Employer Identification
Number (EIN), Social Security Number (SSN), or CBP assigned number of
the entity liable for payment of all duties and responsible for meeting
all statutory and regulatory requirements incurred as a result of
importation. For goods intended to be delivered to an FTZ, the IRS
number, EIN, SSN, or CBP assigned number of the party filing the FTZ
documentation with CBP must be provided. The importer of record number
for Importer Security Filing purposes is the same as ``importer
number'' on CBP Form 3461.
(8) Consignee number(s). Internal Revenue Service (IRS) number,
Employer Identification Number (EIN), Social Security Number (SSN), or
CBP assigned number of the individual(s) or firm(s) in the United
States on whose account the merchandise is shipped. This element is the
same as the ``consignee number'' on CBP Form 3461.
(9) Country of origin. Country of manufacture, production, or
growth of the article, based upon the import laws, rules and
regulations of the United States. This element is the same as the
``country of origin'' on CBP Form 3461.
(10) Commodity HTSUS number. Duty/statistical reporting number
under which the article is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS number is required to be
provided to the 6 digit level. The HTSUS number may be provided up to
the 10 digit level. This element is the same as the ``H.S. number'' on
CBP Form 3461 and can only be used for entry purposes, if it is
provided at the 10 digit level or greater.
2. FROB, IE Shipments, and T&E Shipments
Under the proposed regulations, for the Importer Security Filing
for shipments consisting entirely of FROB and shipments consisting
entirely of goods intended to be ``transported'' in-bond as an IE or
T&E, five elements must be provided in order to enhance the security of
the maritime environment.
The five required elements are:
(1) Booking party name and address. Name and address of the party
who is paying for the transportation of the goods.
(2) Foreign port of unlading. Port code for the foreign port of
unlading at the intended final destination.
[[Page 95]]
(3) Place of delivery. City code for the place of delivery.
(4) Ship to name and address. Name and address of the first
deliver-to party scheduled to physically receive the goods after the
goods have been released from customs custody.
(5) Commodity HTSUS number. Duty/statistical reporting number under
which the article is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS number must be provided to the 6
digit level. The HTSUS number is required to be provided up to the 10
digit level.
B. Public Comments; Required Elements
Comment
The Importer Security Filing should be based on the best
information available at the time of filing. CBP, in consultation with
the trade, should develop a process to amend a filing prior to arrival.
An entry (CBP Form 3461, 7501 or 214) filed prior to arrival should be
accepted as the amendment, except to change the name and address of the
consolidator and/or place of container stuffing. CBP should issue
frequently asked questions (FAQs) clarifying when an amendment is
required or recommended.
CBP Response
Pursuant to existing 19 CFR 4.7(b)(3)(iii) and proposed 19 CFR
149.2(c), CBP will take into consideration how, in accordance with
ordinary commercial practices, the presenting party acquired Importer
Security Filing information and whether and how the presenting party is
able to verify this information. Where the presenting party is not
reasonably able to verify such information, CBP will permit the party
to electronically present the information on the basis of what the
party reasonably believes to be true.
Under the proposed regulations the party who filed the Importer
Security Filing is required to update the Importer Security Filing if,
after the filing and before the goods enter the limits of a port in the
United States, there are changes to the information filed.
Permission to divert T&E and IE shipments would be required. Such
permission would only be granted upon receipt by CBP of a complete
Importer Security Filing.
Finally, in order to maintain the integrity of the differences
between the Importer Security Filing and commercial documents and to
facilitate compliance with the Trade Act requirement not to use
security information for trade compliance purposes, CBP will not accept
CBP Forms 3461, 7501, or 214 in lieu of an amendment to an Importer
Security Filing.
Comment
CBP needs to provide instruction to the trade as to how to handle
those situations where despite due diligence, all of the necessary data
elements are simply not available 24 hours prior to loading. For
example, importers may not know the container stuffing location,
consolidator name and address, country of origin, and 6 digit HTSUS
number 24 hours prior to lading.
CBP Response
CBP understands that, in some cases, business practices may have to
be altered to obtain the required information in a timely fashion. CBP,
however, will provide guidance in the form of FAQs, postings on the CBP
website, and other outreach to the trade.
If an importer, as defined in these regulations, does not know an
element that is required pursuant to the proposed regulations, the
importer must take steps necessary to obtain the information. For
example, the 6 digit HTSUS number is sometimes provided by members of
the trade community on T&E and IE in-bond movements. Under the proposed
rulemaking, CBP would allow importers to submit the HTSUS number at the
6 digit level. CBP recognizes that, for most importers, this
information is known well before the placement of the order for their
goods because of the need to determine duty cost and admissibility
status prior to finalizing the purchase contract or shipment contract.
Comment
Tier 3 C-TPAT members should be exempt from the Importer Security
Filing requirement or, in the alternative, should be required to submit
fewer than all of the required Importer Security Filing elements. Tier
3 C-TPAT supply chains have already been vetted by CBP. Why does CBP
intend to repeat its risk assessment on each individual shipment?
CBP Response
CBP will use the Importer Security Filing to assess the risk of
individual shipments. For purposes of this rulemaking, all cargo
arriving to the United States by vessel, regardless of the parties
involved, would be subject to the Importer Security Filing
requirements. CBP is not proposing to allow exemption from, or
alteration of, the requirement that C-TPAT partners submit Importer
Security Filing information in advance of arrival. CBP believes that
compliance with these regulations complements supply chain security and
efficiency procedures being implemented by C-TPAT partners.
Furthermore, it is emphasized that C-TPAT membership will continue to
be viewed in a positive light for targeting purposes. It is more likely
that shipments made by C-TPAT members will be readily and expeditiously
cleared, and not be delayed for greater CBP scrutiny. Other related
perquisites of C-TPAT partnership may include essential security
benefits for suppliers, employees, and customers, such as a reduction
in the number and extent of border inspections and eligibility for
account-based processes.
Comment
The Importer Security Filing should be done by a single party;
however that party should be permitted to rely on information from more
than one source for the purpose of preparing the filing. CBP and the
trade should remain open to proposals for any viable means by which a
single Importer Security Filing could be done by more than one party.
CBP Response
Under the proposed regulations, the importer, as defined in these
regulations, is ultimately responsible for the timely, accurate, and
complete submission of the Importer Security Filing. CBP is proposing
to require that one party aggregate and submit all required elements.
In response to requests from the trade, CBP is proposing to allow
importers to designate an agent to submit the filing on behalf of the
importer. While CBP understands that some business practices may need
to be altered to obtain the required information at an earlier point,
CBP does not anticipate that these changes will be unduly burdensome.
Comment
CBP's current layered targeting approach, along with the additional
Importer Security Filing data elements, such as container stuffing and
consolidator data, provide CBP with the needed information with which
to determine the last country of manufacture, production, assembly or
shipping. Therefore, the current regulatory definition of country of
origin as articulated by existing CBP regulations and free trade
agreements should remain an option for satisfying the Importer Security
Filing definition of country of origin.
[[Page 96]]
CBP Response
CBP agrees. Under the proposed regulations, the country of origin
is required to be provided for all goods that have been listed at least
at the 6 digit HTSUS level. The proposed definition for this element is
consistent with the country of origin as required on CBP Form 3461.
Comment
The security filing should require an HTSUS number at only the 6
digit level; however the system used for filing should be capable of
accepting up to a 10 digit HTSUS number.
CBP Response
CBP agrees. Under the proposed regulations, the importer, as
defined in these regulations, is required to provide the HTSUS number
24 hours prior to lading at the HTSUS number at the 6 digit level.
However, importers may submit the HTSUS number up to the 10 digit level
(they must use the 10 digit level if they plan to use the Importer
Security Filing as part of an entry filing).
Comment
There should be no mandatory linking of the HTSUS number to the
country of origin and manufacturer (or supplier) name and address data
elements. If this linking is proposed by CBP in its NPRM, the agency
must first ensure this specific topic is addressed in a separate cost/
benefit analysis, with the participation of the trade, and the results
separately reported, because the linking would potentially impose a
significant cost burden on the trade both from a programming
perspective and a service provider fee perspective. The data in
question is also generally not provided at the line item level to
foreign entities such as freight forwarders.
CBP Response
CBP disagrees. Under the proposed regulations, the manufacturer (or
supplier) name and address, country of origin, and commodity HTSUS
number elements must be linked to one another at the line item level.
CBP has considered the economic impacts of this proposed rule in its
cost, benefit, and feasibility study. A summary of this analysis is
presented below, and the complete analysis can be found on the CBP
website and the public docket for this rulemaking (see
http://www.regulations.gov). Regarding the potential burden, the data is
already provided to CBP at the line item level for entry and entry
summary purposes. If an importer, as defined in these regulations,
chooses to use a foreign freight forwarder as an agent for Importer
Security Filing purposes, the importer will need to provide this data
to that party at the line item level.
Comment
The CBP proposal and data elements must include a bill of lading
number.
CBP Response
The bill of lading number is necessary to link the carrier's
submissions with the Importer Security Filing submission. Under the 24
Hour Rule, the carrier is required to provide the bill of lading number
24 hours prior to lading. Therefore, the importer, as defined in these
regulations, or its authorized agent would be required to submit the
bill of lading number when the importer elements are submitted.
Comment
The Importer Security Filing data elements and definitions should
align with those of the World Customs Organization (WCO) SAFE
Framework.
CBP Response
CBP agrees. CBP is working with the WCO to develop an amendment
process that will enable the WCO Framework of Standards to adapt to
changes in the international security environment. In addition, CBP
will seek to make data elements consistent with (or have data elements
included in) the WCO Data Model. CBP is concerned with ensuring that,
to the maximum extent possible, the data elements and definitions
required under the proposed Importer Security Filing regulations are
consistent with the data elements and their meaning as currently
required of importers under the commercial entry procedures.
Comment
The Importer Security Filing data elements and definitions should
align with the ISO UNTEDE 2005 7372:2005 definitions and the Automated
Commercial Environment (ACE)/International Trade Data System (ITDS)
definitions.
CBP Response
CBP has considered, and will continue to consider, ISO definitions
and the ITDS requirements during the development of the Security Filing
initiative. As discussed in response to a comment above, CBP is
preliminarily concerned with ensuring that, to the maximum extent
possible, the data elements and definitions required under the proposed
Importer Security Filing regulations are consistent with the data
elements and their meaning as currently required of importers under the
commercial entry procedures.
Comment
Where possible the name and address of the actual manufacturer
should be required. Where this is not known or the shipment consists of
commingled articles, filers should indicate the name and address of the
supplier in their security filing.
CBP Response
CBP agrees. Based on input from the trade, CBP is proposing to
require the importer, as defined in these regulations, or his
authorized agent, to provide the name and address of either the
manufacturer or supplier of the finished goods in the country from
which the goods are leaving.
Comment
The manufacturer identification (MID) number, as defined in CBP
directives, should be accepted in lieu of the manufacturer (or
supplier) name and address.
CBP Response
CBP disagrees. In general, the MID does not include the complete
address of the manufacturer. CBP believes that the complete
manufacturer's name and address (sometimes supplier in the country from
which the goods are leaving in lieu of manufacturer) is a critical
piece of information to effectively target high risk cargo. CBP
believes that this information is readily available to importers
because this is the underlying information necessary for creating the
MID which is required for filing entry. The trade already has access to
software that electronically converts the manufacturer's full name and
address into the MID.
Comment
CBP should more clearly define the term ``shipper'' as used in the
data definitions.
CBP Response
``Shipper'' is not one of the data elements required under the
proposed regulations, nor is it used in the definitions for the
required elements.
C. Overview; Master Bills/House Bills
Under the proposed regulations, an Importer Security Filing is
required for each shipment, at the lowest bill of lading level (i.e.,
at the house bill of lading level, if applicable). Generally speaking,
a master bill of lading refers to the bill of lading that is generated
by the incoming carrier covering a consolidated shipment. A
consolidated
[[Page 97]]
shipment would consist of a number of separate shipments that have been
received and consolidated into one shipment by a party, such as a
freight forwarder or a NVOCC for delivery as a single shipment to the
incoming carrier. The consolidated shipment would be covered under the
incoming carrier's master bill. However, each of the shipments thus
consolidated would be covered by what is referred to as a house bill.
It is information from the relevant house bill that CBP is seeking for
targeting purposes.
D. Public Comments; Master Bills/House Bills
Comment
When one shipment to one importer of record includes multiple bills
of lading, only one security filing should be required. The multiple
bills of lading should not be required to be identified at the line
item level.
CBP Response
CBP agrees. Under the proposed rule, one Importer Security Filing
can satisfy multiple bills of lading. However, the manufacturer (or
supplier) name and address, country of origin, and commodity HTSUS
number elements must be linked to one another at the line item level.
Comment
There should be capability for the Importer Security Filing to be
done at the house bill of lading level with no reference to the master
bill of lading.
CBP Response
CBP disagrees with this comment. It is necessary for the filer to
reference the master bill of lading number in the Importer Security
Filing in order for the house bill and master bill to be linked at a
later date.
Comment
In the case of transshipped goods, the system programming should
allow reporting at the house bill of lading level based upon the feeder
vessel at time of loading, which can then be married to the arriving/
mother vessel through AMS filing by that arriving/mother vessel.
CBP Response
CBP disagrees. Under the proposed rule, CBP is requiring that the
Importer Security Filing be submitted at the lowest bill level, down to
the house bill, and is requiring that the bill be the one under which
the cargo is brought to the United States.
Comment
CBP should establish account profiles for importers of repetitive
shipments. These accounts could be based on the ACE account example or
the BRASS (line release) example at the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico
borders. A repetitive low-security risk importer would then give its
account information, together with anything unique/different about the
specific shipment, in lieu of the full security filing.
CBP Response
CBP disagrees. CBP will use the Importer Security Filing to assess
the risk of individual shipments. For purposes of this rulemaking, each
and every shipment arriving to the United States by vessel would be
subject to the Importer Security Filing requirements. As CBP continues
to develop ACE, the agency will continue to make enhanced flexibility
for the trade a top priority.
E. Overview; CBP-approved Electronic Interchange System
Under the proposed regulations, importers, as defined in these
regulations, or their agents, would be required to transmit the
Importer Security Filing via a CBP-approved electronic data interchange
system. The current approved electronic data interchange systems for
the Importer Security Filing are the Automated Broker Interface (ABI)
and the Vessel Automated Manifest System (AMS). If CBP approves a
different or additional electronic data interchange system, CBP will
publish notice in the Federal Register.
F. Public Comments; CBP-approved Electronic Interchange System
Comment
CBP should delay the implementation of the regulations until they
can be implemented through ACE.
CBP Response
CBP disagrees. Pursuant to Section 203 of the SAFE Port Act, the
Secretary of Homeland Security is required to promulgate regulations
requiring additional data elements for improved high-risk targeting.
After careful consideration, DHS has determined that immediate action
is necessary to increase the security of containers entering the United
States by vessel by improving CBP's risk assessment capabilities. CBP
will take into account systems changes made by the trade to comply with
this proposed rulemaking as ACE is developed.
Comment
Current access requirements to CBP systems need to be changed. CBP
must eliminate the requirement that ABI filers have custom house broker
licenses or be self-filers.
CBP Response
Pursuant to 19 CFR 143.1, importers, brokers, and ABI service
bureaus are permitted to participate in ABI. In addition, other parties
currently access ABI to transmit protests, forms relating to in-bond
movements (CBP Form 7512), and applications for FTZ admission (CBP Form
214). CBP is proposing to amend 19 CFR 143.1 to clarify that importers,
brokers, and, if they do not participate in ``customs business,'' ABI
service bureaus are permitted to participate in ABI for entry purposes.
In addition, upon approval by CBP, any party may gain access to ABI for
other purposes, including transmission of protests, forms relating to
in-bond movements (CBP Form 7512), and applications for FTZ admission
(CBP Form 214). In addition, CBP is proposing to amend 19 CFR 143.1 to
permit any Importer Security Filing filer to gain access to ABI for the
purpose of transmitting the Importer Security Filing if that party
obtains a bond.
Comment
Flexibility of who may send the Importer Security Filing should be
enhanced by allowing other formats and interfaces in addition to ABI
and AMS.
CBP Response
CBP disagrees. As stated above, filing of the data elements through
ABI and AMS is not limited to licensed customs brokers or importers
filing their own submissions (ABI) or bonded carriers (AMS). CBP will
continue to make enhanced flexibility for the trade a top priority as
ACE is developed and is continuing to look at additional electronic
interchange systems for transmission of CSMs.
Comment
CBP should transmit a confirmation or acceptance message confirming
that the Importer Security Filing has been successfully filed. The
acceptance message is not expected to validate the data transmitted,
simply to confirm that it has been received in the required format.
In addition, query functionality should be designed into the system
to provide the importer of record or its authorized agent visibility as
to whether an Importer Security Filing has been made for a specific
shipment. At the
[[Page 98]]
same time, the system should be designed so that importers have full
visibility, meaning they are able to read the actual data elements as
filed and also who made the filing.
CBP Response
CBP agrees in part. CBP will provide, to the filer, electronic
acknowledgement that the filer's submission has been received according
to ABI and AMS standards. However, ABI and AMS filers will not have the
ability to query whether an Importer Security Filing is complete, the
actual data elements, or the identity of the party who filed the
elements. CBP believes that communication between importers, as defined
in these regulations, and their designated agents will be sufficient to
inform the importer regarding the completeness and contents of a
filing.
G. Overview; Authorized Agents
CBP is proposing to allow an importer, as defined in these
regulations, as a business decision, to designate an authorized agent
to file the Importer Security Filing on the importer's behalf. Under
the proposed regulations, a party can act as an authorized agent for
purposes of filing the Importer Security Filing if that party obtains
access to ABI or AMS and obtains a bond.
H. Public Comments; Authorized Agents
Comment
It is unfair to hold the importer liable for data filed by a
foreign party, such as a foreign freight forwarder. The foreign filing
party may make typographic errors for which the importer may be liable.
The importer may not have any method of even checking the advance trade
data that has been filed.
CBP Response
In response to requests from the trade, CBP is proposing to allow
an importer, as defined in these regulations, to use an agent of the
importer's choosing to submit the Importer Security Filing. CBP is not
requiring the use of an agent. The importer is ultimately responsible
for the timely, accurate, and complete submission of the Importer
Security Filing.
Comment
Foreign freight forwarders need to be allowed to file the Importer
Security Filing. The final rule needs to state that filing the Importer
Security Filing does not constitute ``customs business.''
CBP Response
The Importer Security Filing would be a filing for security
purposes, not for any of the purposes identified under 19 U.S.C. 1641
or 19 CFR part 111. As such, the transmission of the Importer Security
Filing alone would not constitute ``customs business.'' As discussed
below, if an importer chooses to have applicable elements of the
Importer Security Filing used for entry purposes, the Importer Security
Filing must be self-filed by the importer or filed by a licensed
customs broker.
I. Public Comments; Requested Exemptions/Exclusions From Importer
Security Filing Requirements
Comment
The security filing process should be created in such a way as to
allow the capability to designate that the security filing for a
specific type of shipment involves a transaction for which all the
required information cannot be provided at time of filing. Examples
include, but are not limited to: carnets, direct duty paid (DDP)/direct
duty unpaid (DDU) shipments, consigned goods, returned goods, and
samples.
CBP Response
CBP generally agrees. However, the examples provided by the
commenter will not be automatically exempt from submitting the required
importer elements. The proposed regulations require the importer, as
defined in these regulations, or its authorized agent, to submit the
importer elements of the Importer Security Filing. If an importer does
not know an element that is required pursuant to the proposed
regulations and CBP guidance, the importer must take steps necessary to
obtain the information. If an importer believes that a required
Importer Security Filing data element does not exist for a non-exempt
transaction type, the importer should request a ruling from CBP prior
to the time required for the Importer Security Filing. If the filing is
for a shipment type that CBP has specifically designated exempt from an
element or elements, CBP will allow the filer to designate the filing
as one of several ``exemption'' types, including FROB and IE and T&E
in-bond shipments. These ``exemptions'' are discussed more in-depth
below. CBP will publish technical requirements regarding the input of
data in ABI and AMS on the CBP Web site.
1. Bulk and Break Bulk Cargo
Comment
How should bulk and break bulk shipments be handled?
CBP Response
Under the proposed regulations, importers of bulk cargo are exempt
from the proposed importer and carrier requirements for bulk goods when
the goods are exempt from the requirement that the carrier file the
cargo declaration 24 hours prior to loading.
For Importer Security Filing purposes, CBP is proposing to model
the treatment of approved break bulk cargo as per the Trade Act
regulations in 19 CFR 4.7(b)(4). CBP is proposing to require an
Importer Security Filing for break bulk shipments, when the goods are
exempt from the requirement that the carrier file the cargo declaration
24 hours prior to loading, 24 hours prior to arrival in the United
States. For break bulk shipments, the name and address(es) of the
physical location(s) where the goods were made ``ship ready'' must be
provided for the container stuffing location element and the name and
address of the party who arranged for the goods to be made ``ship
ready'' must be provided for the consolidator (stuffer) name and
address element.
2. Foreign Cargo Remaining on Board, IE and T&E In-bond Shipments, and
Instruments of International Traffic
Comment
Foreign cargo remaining on board (FROB), Immediate Exportation (IE)
and Transportation and Exportation (T&E) in-bond shipments, and
instruments of international traffic (IIT) (e.g., containers, racks,
pallets) should be exempt from the Importer Security Filing requirement
in the near term. The final regulations should define additional
transactions exempt from the Importer Security Filing including types
of transactions identified by CBP in consultation with the trade.
CBP Response
CBP is not proposing to require an Importer Security Filing for
IIT. However, CBP is proposing to require an Importer Security Filing
for all other shipments arriving in the United States by vessel,
including FROB and in-bond shipments, unless specifically exempted
under the regulations. Under the proposed regulations, an Importer
Security Filing is required for FROB, but because FROB is not destined
to be received in the United States, the carrier would be required to
submit the following data elements: booking party name and address,
foreign port of unlading, place of delivery, ship to name and address,
and commodity 6 digit HTSUS number.
Under the proposed regulations, an Importer Security Filing is
required for
[[Page 99]]
IE and T&E in-bond shipments. Because IE and T&E shipments are not
destined to remain in the United States, CBP is proposing to require
the party taking delivery in the United States to submit the following
data elements: booking party name and address, foreign port of
unlading, place of delivery, ship to name and address, and commodity 6
digit HTSUS number.
CBP is proposing to amend the regulations to require that, if at
the time of submission of the Importer Security Filing, the goods are
intended to be moved in-bond as an IE or T&E shipment, but later a
decision is made to divert the goods, permission to divert the in-bond
movement to a port other than the listed port of destination or export
or to change the in-bond entry into a consumption entry must be
obtained from the port director of the port in which the original in-
bond documents were filed. Such permission would only be granted upon
receipt by CBP of a complete Importer Security Filing.
J. Overview; Updating an Importer Security Filing
As discussed above, under the proposed regulations, the party who
filed the Importer Security Filing is required to update the Importer
Security Filing if, after the filing and before the goods arrive within
the limits of a port in the United States, there are changes to the
information filed or more accurate information becomes available.
K. Public Comments; Withdrawing an Importer Security Filing
Comment
CBP should establish a procedure for cancellation of an Importer
Security Filing for goods not shipped, changes in itineraries, etc.
CBP Response
CBP agrees. The proposed regulations allow for the withdrawal of an
Importer Security Filing when a shipment is no longer intended to
arrive within the limits of a port in the United States.
L. Overview; Importer Security Filing, Entry, and Application for FTZ
Admission
1. Importer Security Filing and Entry
Four of the Importer Security Filing elements are identical to
elements submitted for entry (CBP Form 3461) and entry summary (CBP
Form 7501) purposes. These elements are the importer of record number,
consignee number, country of origin, and commodity HTSUS number when
provided at the 10 digit level. In an effort to minimize the redundancy
of data transmitted to CBP, after further consideration and in response
to public comments, CBP is proposing to allow an importer to submit
these elements once to be used for both Importer Security Filing and
entry/entry summary purposes. If an importer chooses to have these
elements used for entry/entry summary purposes, the Importer Security
Filing and entry/entry summary must be self-filed by the importer or
filed by a licensed customs broker in a single transmission to CBP. In
addition, the HTSUS number must be provided at the 10 digit level.
Choosing this option does not relieve the requirement to submit all
remaining Importer Security Filing elements (including the manufacturer
(supplier) name and address) and entry and/or entry summary elements
(including the manufacturer identification (MID) number).
Under the proposed rule, an importer can choose to do the
following: (1) Submit the Importer Security Filing and entry and/or
entry summary data with no connection between them; or (2) Submit the
entry and/or entry summary data via the same electronic transmission as
the Importer Security Filing. If the importer chooses this option, the
importer would only be required to submit the 4 elements listed above
once to be applied to the Importer Security Filing as well as the entry
and/or entry summary. CBP will publish technical information regarding
the transmission of entry and Importer Security Filing data in the
appropriate guidance documents and on the CBP Web site.
2. Importer Security Filing and Application for FTZ Admission
Two of the Importer Security Filing elements are identical to
elements submitted for application to admit goods to an FTZ (CBP Form
214). These elements are the country of origin and commodity HTSUS
number when provided at the 10 digit level. In an effort to minimize
the redundancy of data transmitted to CBP, the proposed regulations
allow a filer to submit the Importer Security Filing and CBP Form 214
in the same electronic transmission to CBP and to submit the country of
origin and commodity HTSUS number once to be used for both Importer
Security Filing and FTZ admission purposes. If the party submitting the
Importer Security Filing chooses to have this element used for FTZ
admission purposes, the HTSUS number must be provided at the 10 digit
level.
M. Public Comments; Importer Security Filing, Entry, and Application
for FTZ Admission
Comment
CBP should allow for entry to be made when the Importer Security
Filing is submitted.
CBP Response
CBP agrees. Under the proposed rule, an importer would be able to
submit the entry and/or entry summary data via the same electronic
transmission as the Importer Security Filing. If an importer chooses to
do so, the consolidated submission of both the Importer Security Filing
and entry must be filed by the party entitled to make entry pursuant to
19 U.S.C. 1484 on its own behalf or a licensed customs broker.
Comment
The regulations should allow an importer to submit, in lieu of an
Importer Security Filing, CBP Forms 3461, 7501, or 214. In the
alternative, the regulations should allow an importer to submit, in
lieu of an Importer Security Filing, CBP Forms 3461, 7501, or 214 along
with the consolidator (stuffer) name and address and container stuffing
location.
CBP Response
CBP appreciates the suggestions in this comment but disagrees.
Importers, as defined in these regulations, or their authorized agents,
are responsible for providing the complete Importer Security Filing 24
hours prior to lading. The other options suggested do not satisfy the
proposed Importer Security Filing requirements. CBP Forms 3461, 7501,
and 214, alone or in combination with the consolidator (stuffer) name
and address and container stuffing location, do not contain the
required elements. However, as discussed above, CBP is proposing to
allow an importer to submit the entry and/or entry summary data via the
same electronic transmission as the Importer Security Filing. In
addition, CBP is proposing to allow applicants for FTZ admission to
submit the country of origin and HTSUS number (when provided at the 10
digit level) once for both Importer Security Filing and FTZ admission
purposes.
Comment
The advance trade data required represents a redundancy of
information.
CBP Response
As discussed above, in an effort to reduce the redundancy of
information presented to CBP, CBP is proposing to allow an importer to
submit certain
[[Page 100]]
elements once to be used for both Importer Security Filing and entry
purposes and to allow applicants for FTZ admission to submit the
country of origin and HTSUS number once to be used for both Importer
Security Filing and FTZ admission purposes. To the extent feasible, CBP
will continue to explore ways and methods to harmonize and synchronize
information collection requirements.
Comment
CBP should extend the five-day minimum entry and selectivity time
frame for entry release and FTZ admission purposes to after confirmed
departure of the vessel from its last foreign port to the United
States.
CBP Response
CBP disagrees. CBP does not propose to amend, at this time, the
regulations generally governing entry release and FTZ admission of
imported goods.
V. General Public Comments
A. Economic Analysis; Cost, Benefit, and Feasibility Study
Comment
Regulations compelling the advance submission of Importer Security
Filing elements would impose substantial reprogramming and process
redesign costs on importers. Furthermore, the compliance costs for an
importer importing multiple products per container would be
substantial. CBP should complete a cost/benefit and feasibility study
and report, as recommended by the SAFE Port Act, before the final rule
is published.
CBP Response
CBP has conducted a cost, benefit, and feasibility analysis as
required under the SAFE Port Act. This analysis meets the requirements
of Executive Order 12866 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Circular A-4 and has been reviewed by OMB. A summary of this analysis
is presented below, and the complete analysis can be found on the CBP
Web site and the public docket for this rulemaking (see
http://www.regulations.gov). CBP is seeking comments on this analysis.
Comment
CBP has not had sufficient discussions with the trade community,
particularly in view of the enormous impact that the proposal will have
on the United States economy.
CBP Response
CBP disagrees. CBP has engaged and will continue to engage the
trade through the rulemaking process and through consultation as
required by Section 203 of the SAFE Port Act (incorporating the
requirements of Section 343(a) of the Trade Act of 2002). CBP has met
with groups representing the trade while developing the proposal,
including: the COAC, the American Association of Exporters and
Importers (AAEI), the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA),
the Joint Industry Group (JIG), the National Association of
Manufacturers (NAM), the National Customs Brokers and Forwarders
Association of America (NCBFAA), the International Compliance
Professionals Association (ICPA), the Retail Industry Leaders
Association (RILA), the TSN, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the
World Shipping Council (WSC). CBP also posted a ``strawman'' proposal
on the CBP Web site along with a request for comments from the trade.
Comment
CBP has not provided any indication that it is in compliance with
the requirements of section 343 of the Trade Act of 2002, including the
requirement that the agency: ``[account] for the extent to which the
technology necessary for parties to transmit, and for CBP to receive
and analyze, data in a timely fashion, is available.''
CBP Response
CBP is modifying existing systems to accommodate the proposed
requirements. CBP has included the impacts to the trade to modify its
processes as part of the cost, benefit, and feasibility study.
B. Protection of Confidential Information Presented to CBP
Comment
CBP should keep all the security filing data confidential from
disclosure. The data should be held as not eligible for disclosure
under 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. or any other statute or regulation. For
example, many U.S. firms do not want their federal tax identification
number made available to others. The importer may not want the seller
to know who the ultimate ``deliver to'' party is. The importer may fear
back solicitation by the seller/exporter. In addition, the seller may
not want the buyer to know the name and address of the actual
manufacturer.
In lieu of the importer of record and/or consignee number, the
filer should be able to indicate the name and address of the importer
of record and ultimate consignee. American companies remain concerned
about the misuse of the importer of record number by parties to whom
such information is generally not provided for business confidential
and other similar reasons.
CBP Response
CBP agrees that we should keep Importer Security Filing, vessel
stow plan, and container status message information confidential,
except to the extent required by law. Pursuant to the authority under
both section 343(a) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2071 note) and section
203(d) of the SAFE Port Act (6 U.S.C. 943(d)), CBP is proposing to
amend 19 CFR 103.31a to include the Importer Security Filing elements
(including the importer of record number), vessel stow plan
information, and container status message information to the list of
information that is per se exempt from disclosure under 19 CFR
103.12(d), unless CBP receives a specific request for such records
pursuant to 19 CFR 103.5, and the owner of the information expressly
agrees in writing to its release.
While the importer, as defined in these regulations, is proposed to
be responsible for providing the Importer Security Filing 24 hours
prior to lading, CBP is proposing to allow the importer to use a
licensed customs broker, in addition to other parties, to submit the
Importer Security Filing. CBP recognizes the concerns of parties in
these instances about sharing their confidential business information.
If an importer with confidential business interests chooses to use an
agent to file, the importer may choose to execute confidentiality
agreements to protect those interests. Pursuant to 19 CFR 111.24,
customs brokers are required to keep information pertaining to the
business of clients serviced by the broker confidential.
C. Test of Concept and Phase-in Enforcement
Comment
There should be a test of the concept and the mechanics of the
advance data elements filing with a volunteer group before the concept
moves to the phase-in period. The test should involve the proposed data
set and should include the approved interfaces (such as ABI and AMS)
for initial programming. In order for the test results to have the
greatest validity, CBP should seek participation from parties in the
supply chain who ship from varying parts of the world and include
small, medium and large companies as well as those who ship using
forwarders and those who do not. An invitation to participate in the
testing should be published in the
[[Page 101]]
Federal Register and on the CBP Web site.
CBP Response
As part of CBP's pre-existing Advance Trade Data Initiative (ATDI),
CBP is working with a wide variety of volunteers from the world trade
community to test the trade's ability to provide data, including some
elements of the Importer Security Filing, to CBP. The ATDI test results
will assist CBP in understanding the various formats that are being
used in the international trade community to share supply chain
information. Under the foregoing circumstances, we do not believe that
a new or separate test is needed to evaluate the practical requirements
of this rule.
Comment
Once the final regulations are effective, CBP should adopt a phase-
in period, during which CBP should publish FAQs addressing issues
associated with the regulations and specific guidelines on how the
phase-in will work and what rules will apply. CBP should include
outreach to other countries.
CBP Response
CBP agrees. Regardless of when the regulations on this subject go
into effect, CBP will adopt a phase-in enforcement process similar to
that which was utilized when the 24-Hour Rule and Trade Act regulations
were implemented. Depending on the circumstances, CBP may take an
``informed compliance'' approach following the effective date of this
rule. Through the phase-in enforcement process, CBP will work with the
trade to ensure informed compliance. CBP will continue to update the
trade on issues associated with the proposed regulations in the form of
FAQs, postings on the CBP website, other outreach to the trade, and
consultation with foreign countries.
Comment
During any test period or phase-in period, CBP should consider
requiring fewer than all of the Importer Security Filing elements and
carrier elements.
CBP Response
CBP disagrees. Through discussions with the trade and through the
development of ATDI, CBP has found that the elements required under the
proposed regulations are generally available. Moreover, CBP does not
agree that a phase-in period requiring fewer than all of the required
Importer Security Filing elements and carrier elements would fulfill
the goal of enhancing the government's risk assessment capabilities.
D. Other General Comments
Comment
Some importers may not be aware of the Importer Security Filing
requirement, especially those traveling overseas who happen to buy
something to ship.
CBP Response
Under the proposed regulations, the importer, as defined in these
regulations, is ultimately responsible for the timely, accurate, and
complete submission of the Importer Security Filing. CBP will conduct
outreach to the public and the trade, including postings to the CBP
website to promote widespread knowledge of this requirement during the
phase-in enforcement period following the final rule.
Comment
Shipments may be diverted to Canada or Mexico to avoid the proposed
requirements.
CBP Response
CBP disagrees. This proposal is focused on ocean cargo primarily
pursuant to the requirements under the SAFE Port Act. As such, this
proposal is an incremental step toward meeting the goal of securing
shipments to the United States. CBP does not expect shipments to be
diverted to Canada or Mexico to avoid the proposed requirements. CBP
will continue to evaluate the effectiveness of this rule and will
consider additional steps, including expanding the advance data
requirements for other transportation modes.
Comment
If containers cannot be laden aboard the vessel, based on existing
service contracts, companies quite possibly will face delays while they
await another vessel for the specified contract service. These types of
delays would create additional security risks.
CBP Response
With regard to the concern that the proposed rule may adversely
affect the efficiency of international shipping operations, CBP
recognizes this legitimate concern and has taken steps to address it in
the development of this rulemaking. First, it is important to note that
under the proposed regulations, it is the information about the
contents of a shipping container, not the container itself, that must
be presented to CBP 24 hours prior to lading at a foreign seaport.
Under this proposed rule, so long as the Importer Security Filing is
provided to CBP 24 hours in advance of lading, the container itself may
be brought to the seaport at a later time. Second, the development of
this proposal has been designed to take advantage of the existing
shipping cycle. In most foreign seaports, containers destined to the
United States are often stored at terminals for several hours or
several days before lading. This provides ample opportunity for CBP and
its foreign CSI partners to identify and screen potentially high-risk
containers within the normal shipping cycle and without causing any
unnecessary delays. Third, by screening potentially high-risk
containers at foreign seaports during the normal shipping cycle, CBP
will use the additional advance information to further expedite low
risk shipments. This should not only reduce delays associated with
targeting and screening containers for security purposes upon arrival
in the United States; it should also add greater predictability to the
movement of containers through domestic seaports.
CBP recognizes that some changes to business practices may be
required in order to transmit the data required under this proposed
rule. For example, although much, if not all, of the data required by
CBP is available prior to lading, CBP recognizes that businesses
currently may not be configured to collect and transmit such
information in compliance with the rule. This is one of the reasons
that CBP is proposing to phase in enforcement of the rule--to strike an
appropriate balance between the needs of business and the need of the
government to address the immediate threat that international terrorist
organizations pose to the United States and the global economy.
Comment
CBP should ensure that the information collected pursuant to the
proposed regulations will be used exclusively for ensuring
transportation safety and security, and not for any other commercial
enforcement purposes.
CBP Response
CBP agrees. If the proposed regulations are adopted as final,
pursuant to section 343(a)(3)(F) of the Trade Act of 2002, as amended
by the MTSA, CBP will use the data required by this rule ``exclusively
for ensuring cargo safety and security and preventing smuggling'' and
will not use the data for ``determining merchandise entry or for
[[Page 102]]
any other commercial enforcement purposes.''
VI. Amendments to Bond Conditions
In order to provide a clear enforcement mechanism for the proposed
requirements, CBP is proposing to amend regulations covering certain
bond conditions to include agreements to pay liquidated damages for
violations of the new proposed regulations. CBP is also proposing to
amend the bond conditions for violations of the advance cargo
information requirements under the Trade Act regulations in order to
make the liquidated damages amounts for those violations consistent
with the liquidated damages amounts for violations of the proposed
requirements. As discussed above, upon implementation of the final
rule, CBP will adopt a phase-in enforcement process for the new
requirements similar to that which was utilized when the 24-Hour Rule
and Trade Act regulations were implemented.
A. Bond Conditions Related to the Proposed Importer Security Filing,
Vessel Stow Plan, and Container Status Message Requirements
The proposed regulations would add a new condition to those
provisions in 19 CFR 113.62 required to be included in a basic
importation and entry bond. Specifically, CBP is proposing to amend 19
CFR 113.62 to include a condition whereby the principal agrees to
comply with the proposed Importer Security Filing requirements. If the
principal fails to comply with the proposed Importer Security Filing
requirements, the principal and surety (jointly and severally) would
pay liquidated damages equal to the value of the merchandise involved
in the default.
The proposed regulations would also amend those provisions in 19
CFR 113.64 required to be included in an international carrier bond.
Specifically, CBP is proposing to amend 19 CFR 113.64 to include three
new conditions. First, a new condition would be added whereby the
principal agrees to comply with the proposed Importer Security Filing
requirements if the principal elects to provide the Importer Security
Filing on behalf of an importer, as defined in these regulations. If
the principal fails to comply with the proposed Importer Security
Filing requirements, the principal and surety (jointly and severally)
would agree to pay liquidated damages equal to the value of the
merchandise involved in the default. Second, a new condition would be
added whereby the principal agrees to comply with the proposed vessel
stow plan requirements. If the principal fails to comply with the
proposed vessel stow plan requirements, the principal and surety
(jointly and severally) would agree to pay liquidated damages of
$50,000 for each vessel arrival. Third, a new condition would be added
whereby the principal agrees to comply with the proposed container
status message requirements. If the principal fails to timely provide
CSMs for all events that occur relating to a container, for which the
carrier creates or collects CSMs in its equipment tracking system, the
principal and surety (jointly and severally) would pay liquidated
damages of $5,000 for each violation, to a maximum of $100,000 per
vessel arrival.
Lastly, the proposed regulations would amend those provisions in 19
CFR 113.73 required to be included in a foreign trade zone operator
bond. Specifically, CBP is proposing to amend 19 CFR 113.73 to include
a condition whereby the principal agrees to comply with the Importer
Security Filing requirements. If the principal fails to comply with the
proposed Importer Security Filing requirements, the principal and
surety (jointly and severally) would pay liquidated damages equal to
the value of the merchandise involved in the default.
B. Bond Conditions Related to the Trade Act Regulations
The proposed regulations would also amend the liquidated damages
amounts for violations of the advance cargo information requirements
under 19 CFR 4.7 and 4.7a in order to make those amounts consistent
with the liquidated damages amounts for violations of the proposed
container status message requirements ($5,000 for each violation) and
more in line with the liquidated damages for violations of the proposed
Importer Security Filing requirements. Accordingly, CBP is proposing to
amend 19 CFR 4.7, 4.7a, and 113.64 to include liquidated damages
amounts of $5,000 for each violation of the advance cargo information
requirements, to a maximum of $100,000 per conveyance arrival.
VIII. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866
This rule is considered to be an economically significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 because it may result in
the expenditure of over $100 million in any one year. Accordingly, this
proposed rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). The following summary presents the costs and benefits of the
proposed rule plus a range of alternatives considered. (The
``Regulatory Assessment'' can be found in the docket for this
rulemaking: http://www.regulations.gov; see also http://www.cbp.gov).
In this analysis, we first estimate current and future baseline
conditions in the absence of the proposed rule using 2005 shipping
data. In this baseline analysis, we characterize and estimate the
number of unique shipments, carriers, and vessel-trips potentially
affected by the proposed rule. We then identify the incremental
measures that importers and carriers will take to meet the requirements
of the proposed rule and estimate the costs of these activities, as
well as the cost to CBP of implementing the rule. Next, relying on
published literature, we identify hypothetical scenarios describing
representative terrorist attacks potentially prevented by this
regulation and estimate the economic costs (i.e., the consequences) of
these events. We compare these consequences to the costs of the
proposed regulation and estimate the reduction in the probability of a
successful terrorist attack resulting from the proposed regulation that
would be required for the benefits of the regulation to equal the costs
of the regulation. Finally, we consider the distribution of costs to
sensitive subgroups such as small entities and the energy sector.
As of the projected effective date of the regulation, we estimate
that approximately 11 million import shipments conveyed by 1,200
different carrier companies operating 50,000 unique voyages or vessel-
trips to the United States will be subject to the proposed rule. Table
1 summarizes the results of the regulatory analysis. We consider and
evaluate the following four alternatives:
Alternative 1 (the chosen alternative): Importer Security Filings
and Additional Carrier Requirements are required. Bulk cargo is exempt
from the Importer Security Filing requirements;
Alternative 2: Importer Security Filings and Additional Carrier
Requirements are required. Bulk cargo is not exempt from the Importer
Security Filing requirements;
Alternative 3: Only Importer Security Filings are required. Bulk
cargo is exempt from the Importer Security Filing requirements; and,
Alternative 4: Only the Additional Carrier Requirements are
required.
[[Page 103]]
Table 1.--Summary of Findings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
reduction in
baseline risk Number of these events
Discount rate Annualized costs Terrorist attack scenario that must be that must be avoided for Comment
(2008-2017, $2007) achieved for benefits to equal costs
benefits to
equal costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 1 (chosen alternative): Importer Security Filings and Additional Carrier Requirements, bulk cargo exempt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3%............................... $390 million to $620 Actual West Coast Port 25.6 to 41.0 One event in 2 to 4 Preferred Alternative:
million. Shutdown (12-days). years. Most favorable
combination of cost and
stringency.
Hypothetical Nuclear 0.1 to 0.2 One event in 700 to
Attack. 1,100 years.
Hypothetical Biological 0.9 to 1.4 One event in 70 to 100
Attack. years.
7%............................... $390 million to $630 Actual West Coast Port 26.1 to 42.0 One event in 2 to 4
million. Shutdown (12-days). years.
Hypothetical Nuclear 0.1 to 0.2 One event in 600 to
Attack. 1,000 years.
Hypothetical Biological 0.9 to 1.4 One event in 70 to 100
Attack. years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 2: Importer Security Filings and Additional Carrier Requirements, bulk cargo not exempt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3%............................... $390 million to $620 Actual West Coast Port 25.7 to 41.3 One event in 2 to 4 More stringent than
million. Shutdown (12-days). years. Alternative 1, but
limited expected
additional benefit for
increased cost.
Hypothetical Nuclear 0.1 to 0.2 One event in 700 to
Attack. 1,100 years.
Hypothetical Biological 0.9 to 1.4 One event in 70 to 100
Attack. years.
7%............................... $400 million to $640 Actual West Coast Port 26.3 to 42.3 One event in 2 to 4
million. Shutdown (12-days). years.
Hypothetical Nuclear 0.1 to 0.2 One event in 600 to
Attack. 1,000 years.
Hypothetical Biological 0.9 to 1.5 One event in 70 to 100
Attack. years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 3: Importer Security Filings only, bulk cargo exempt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3%............................... $380 million to $610 Actual West Coast Port 25.5 to 40.3 One event in 3 to 4 Similar cost to
million. Shutdown (12-days). years. Alternative 1 with
decreased
effectiveness. Importer
Security Filings and
Additional Carrier
Requirements are not
working in tandem.
Hypothetical Nuclear 0.1 One event in 700 to
Attack. 1,100 years.
Hypothetical Biological 0.9 to 1.4 One event in 70 to 100
Attack. years.
7%............................... $390 million to $620 Actual West Coast Port 26.1 to 41.2 One event in 2 to 4
million. Shutdown (12-days). years.
Hypothetical Nuclear 0.1 to 0.2 One event in 700 to
Attack. 1,000 years.
Hypothetical Biological 0.9 to 1.4 One event in 70 to 100
Attack. years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 4: Additional Carrier Requirements only
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3%............................... $3 million to $12 Actual West Coast Port 0.2 to 0.8 One event in 100 to 600 Least cost, but also
million. Shutdown (12-days). years. least effective
alternative. Does not
meet the statutory
requirements of Section
203 of the SAFE Port
Act nor provide data on
shipment history.
Importer Security
Filings and Additional
Carrier Requirements
are not working in
tandem.
Hypothetical Nuclear <0.1 One event in 33,000 to Attack. 160,000 years. Hypothetical Biological < 0.1 One event in 4,000 to Attack. 18,000 years. [[Page 104]] 7%............................... $3 million to $13 Actual West Coast Port 0.2 to 0.9 One event in 100 to 600 million. Shutdown (12-days). years. Hypothetical Nuclear < 0.1 One event in 31,000 to Attack. 150,000 years. Hypothetical Biological < 0.1 One event in 3,000 to Attack. 16,000 years. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The annualized cost range presented in each cell results from varying assumptions about the estimated security filing transaction costs or fees charged to the importers by the filing parties, the potential for supply chain delays, and the estimated costs to transmit Vessel Stow Plans and CSMs to CBP. We estimate costs separately for the Importer Security Filing requirements (up to 10 importer data elements) and the additional carrier requirements (Vessel Stow Plans and CSMs). The estimated costs for the Importer Security Filing requirements are developed on a per- shipment basis and applied to the estimated number of shipments annually for a period of 10 years (2008 through 2017). The 10-year calculation likely reflects the maximum time frame that we could reasonably project trends in international shipping. In addition, we estimate costs associated with potential delays in the supply chain that may result from having to meet the proposed filing deadline of 24 hours prior to lading at the foreign port. The estimated costs for the additional carrier requirements are developed on per-carrier and per vessel-trip bases and applied to the estimated number of carriers and vessel-trips in each year of the 10-year analysis period. To estimate the full range of the total estimated costs for complying with the proposed rule, for the four alternatives we develop a high cost scenario and a low cost scenario by assuming certain values for the key cost factors. Annualized costs for Alternatives 1 through 3 range from $380 million to $640 million, depending on the discount rate applied, the cost scenario, whether or not bulk shipments are exempt, and whether or not the Additional Carrier Requirements are required. The annualized costs for Alternative 4 are substantially lower, ranging from $3 million to $13 million. However, this alternative is the least stringent and effective option, because it only collects data on the conveyance of the shipment. Further, it does not meet the statutory requirements of Section 203 of the SAFE Port Act. Because costs are likely to exceed $100 million annually, the proposed regulation represents an economically significant regulatory action as defined by E.O. 12866. Ideally, the quantification and monetization of the benefits of this regulation would involve estimating the current level of risk of a successful terrorist attack, absent this regulation, and the incremental reduction in risk resulting from implementation of the proposed regulation. We would then multiply the change by an estimate of the value individuals place on such a risk reduction to produce a monetary estimate of direct benefits. However, existing data limitations and a lack of complete understanding of the true risks posed by terrorists prevent us from establishing the incremental risk reduction attributable to this rule. As a result, we undertake a ``break-even'' analysis to inform decision-makers of the necessary incremental change in the probability of such an event occurring that would result in direct benefits equal to the costs of the proposed rule. In the break-even analysis, we identify three types of terrorist attack scenarios that may be prevented by the regulation and obtain cost estimates of the consequences of these events from published literature. The analysis compares the annualized costs of the regulation to the avoided costs of each event to estimate the reduction in the probability of such events (also presented in terms of ``odds,'' e.g., a 0.25 reduction in the probability of an event occurring in a single year implies that one additional event must be avoided in a four-year period) that must be achieved for the benefits of the regulation to equal the costs. The reduction in the odds of terrorist events are rough estimates that do not take into account changes in risk through time or factors that may affect willingness to pay to avoid the consequences of these events, such as changes in income. For each attack scenario, Table 1 indicates what would need to occur for the costs of each alternative to equal its benefits, assuming the alternative only reduces the risk of a single event of that type of attack. As summarized in Table 1, the break-even risk reductions for Alternative 4 are significantly lower than the other three alternatives, reflecting the significantly lower costs associated with requiring only the Additional Carrier Requirements. The break-even results for the remaining three alternatives are similar because the costs of these options are not very different. For the most severe attack scenario (a hypothetical nuclear attack in a major city), the proposed regulation must result in the avoidance of one such event in a time period of 600 to 1,100 years for the benefits of the regulation to equal the costs. For the least severe of the three hypothetical attack scenarios (costs of the actual 12-day West Coast port shutdown), the estimated costs of a single incident are closer in value to the annualized costs of the proposed regulation. As a result, if the rule only reduced the risk of a single attack on a port, a shutdown would need to be avoided once in a period of two to four years for the benefits of the rule to equal costs. The results expressed as percent reductions in baseline risk also show higher reductions needed if port attacks only are mitigated (about 26 to 42 percent) and lesser reductions associated with prevention of the more catastrophic events. We note that this analysis is highly sensitive to the chosen incident scenarios. Total present value costs of the proposed regulation are presented in Table 2, based on the cost projections we estimate for the 10-year analysis period, 2008 through 2017. Applying a social discount rate of three percent, the total costs of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are projected to range from $3.3 billion to $5.3 billion over 10 years depending on [[Page 105]] the cost scenario, whether or not bulk shipments are exempt, and whether or not Additional Carrier Requirements are required. If a social discount rate of seven percent is applied instead, total costs range from $2.7 billion to $4.5 billion. Under Alternative 2, which requires Importer Security Filings for both non-bulk cargo and bulk cargo, costs are not significantly higher because the number of bulk shipments is relatively small compared to the number of non-bulk shipments. Under Alternative 3, costs are not significantly lower because the estimated costs for the Additional Carrier Requirements are relatively small compared to the estimated costs for the Importer Security Filings. The estimated costs for Alternative 4 are significantly lower than the other three alternatives, ranging from $19 million to $104 million. Table 2.--Total Present Value Costs, 2008-2017 [$2007] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Discount rate Present value costs ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alternative 1 (chosen alternative): Importer Security Filings and Additional Carrier Requirements, bulk cargo exempt ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3%........................................ $3.3 billion to $5.3 billion 7%........................................ $2.8 billion to $4.4 billion ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alternative 2: Importer Security Filings and Additional Carrier Requirements, bulk cargo not exempt ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3%........................................ $3.3 billion to $5.3 billion 7%........................................ $2.8 billion to $4.5 billion ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alternative 3: Importer Security Filings only, bulk cargo exempt ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3%........................................ $3.3 billion to $5.2 billion 7%........................................ $2.7 billion to $4.4 billion ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alternative 4: Additional Carrier Requirements only ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3%........................................ $0.02 billion to $0.1 billion 7%........................................ $0.02 billion to $0.1 billion ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Again, the range presented in each cell results from varying assumptions about the estimated security filing transaction costs or fees charged to the importers by the filing parties, the potential for supply chain delays, and the estimated costs to transmit Vessel Stow Plans and CSMs to CBP. Annual undiscounted costs of the regulation are presented in Table 3. Table 3.--Annual Undiscounted Costs by Year, 2008-2017 [$2007, in millions] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alternative 1 (chosen Alternative 2: alternative): Importer security Importer security filings and Alternative 3: Alternative 4: Year filings and additional Importer security Additional additional carrier filings only, carrier carrier requirements, bulk cargo exempt requirements only requirements, bulk cargo not bulk cargo exempt exempt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2008................................ $300 to $520 $300 to $520 $290 to $490 $1 to $30 2009................................ 310 to 500 310 to 500 310 to 490 1 to 7 2010................................ 330 to 520 330 to 530 330 to 520 1 to 7 2011................................ 340 to 550 350 to 550 340 to 540 1 to 7 2012................................ 360 to 580 370 to 580 360 to 570 1 to 8 2013................................ 380 to 610 390 to 610 380 to 600 1 to 8 2014................................ 400 to 640 410 to 650 400 to 630 1 to 8 2015................................ 420 to 680 430 to 680 420 to 670 1 to 8 2016................................ 450 to 710 450 to 710 450 to 700 1 to 8 2017................................ 470 to 750 470 to 750 470 to 740 1 to 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As shown in Table 3, the annual discounted costs increase from year-to-year over the 10-year analysis period. This increase reflects our projected annual increases in the number of shipments, value of shipments, and vessel-trips into the United States potentially affected by the proposed rule. The results indicate that Alternative 1 provides the most favorable combination of cost and stringency. While Alternative 2 might be considered more stringent because it does not exempt bulk cargo from the Importer Security Filing requirements, the impact of this is expected to be slight, because the number of bulk shipments is relatively small compared to the number of non-bulk shipments. Alternative 3 is expected to have costs similar to Alternative 1, but will be less stringent because it only requires Importer Security Filings and does not include data that verify the information on the cargo manifest and identify and track the movement, location, and status of cargo (and in particular, containerized cargo) from the time its transport is booked until its arrival in the United States. Without the Additional Carrier Requirements, CBP will not be able to assess the specific risks associated with the many individual movements and transfers involved in shipping cargo to the United States. Thus, an important element of CBP's layered, risk-based approach to cargo
security would, consequently, be omitted.
Alternatives 3 and 4 are not chosen, in part, because it is CBP's judgment that neither of these options will be as effective as the selected option. Specifically, the Importer Security Filing requirements and the Additional Carrier Requirements work in tandem. The Additional Carrier Requirements focus on the conveyance of the goods and are distinct from the Importer Security Filing elements, which are focused on the merchandise and the parties involved in the acquisition process. Specifically, Vessel Stow Plans will assist CBP in validating other advanced cargo information submissions by allowing CBP to, among [[Page 106]] other things, better detect unmanifested containers without relying on physical verification methods that are manpower intensive and costly. CSMs will provide CBP with additional transparency into the custodial environment through which inter-modal containers are handled and transported before arrival in the United States. Because CSMs are created independently of the manifest, CBP can utilize them to corroborate other advanced data elements, including Importer Security Filings and those elements related to container and conveyance origin. This corroboration with other advanced data messages, including Importer Security Filings, and an enhanced view into the international supply chain will contribute to the security of the United States and the international supply chain through which containers and imported cargo are shipped to U.S. ports. Based on this analysis of alternatives, CBP has determined that Alternative 1 provides the most favorable balance between security outcomes and impacts to maritime transportation. As summarized in Table 4, the incremental costs of this regulation, on a per shipment basis, is a very small fraction of the value of a shipment. The relatively high cost of the rule over 10 years is driven by the large volume of shipments, not high per-transaction costs. Shipment data indicate that the median value of a shipment of goods imported into the United States is approximately $37,000. As shown in Table 4, the increase in costs of imported shipments will range from $20 to $38 per shipment, depending on the discount rate applied, the cost scenario, and whether or not bulk shipments are exempt. The added costs of this regulation are estimated to be only 0.05 percent to 0.10 percent of the median value of $37,000 per shipment. CBP welcomes comments on these conclusions and the regulatory alternatives considered. Table 4.--Costs per Shipment, Median Value of Shipment, Vessel-trip, and Carrier [$2007] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3% discount rate 7% discount rate ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Importer Security Filing Costs: Alternatives 1 and 3 (bulk cargo exempt) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Present Value Cost........ $3.3 billion to $2.7 billion to $5.2 billion. $4.4 billion Number of shipments (10-year 137 million....... 137 million total). Equivalent per shipment cost.... $24 to $38........ $20 to $32 Median value per shipment....... $36,900........... $36,900 Cost per median value........... 0.06 to 0.10 0.05 to 0.09 percent. percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Importer Security Filing costs: Alternative 2 (bulk cargo not exempt) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Present Value Cost........ $3.3 billion to $2.8 billion to $5.2 billion. $4.4 billion Number of shipments (10-year 138 million....... 138 million total). Equivalent per shipment cost.... $24 to $38........ $20 to $32 Median value per shipment....... $37,200........... $37,200 Cost per median value........... 0.06 to 0.10 0.05 to 0.09 percent. percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Vessel Stow Plan Costs: Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total present value cost........ $6 million to $35 $5 million to $30 million. million Number of non-bulk vessel-trips, 414,000........... 414,000 small and large carriers (10- year total). Equivalent per vessel-trip cost. $14 to $84........ $12 to $73 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Container Status Message Costs: Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total present value cost........ $0.3 million to $0.3 million to $54 million. $49 million Number of container carriers, 74................ 74 large. Equivalent per carrier cost..... $4,000 to $730,000 $4,000 to $660,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The proposed regulation may increase the time shipments are in transit, particularly for shipments consolidated in containers. For such shipments, the supply chain is generally more complex and the importer has less control of the flow of goods and associated security filing information. Foreign cargo consolidators may be consolidating multiple shipments from one or more shippers in a container destined for one or more buyers or consignees. In order to ensure that the security filing data is provided by the shippers to the importers (or their designated agents) and is then transmitted to and accepted by CBP in advance of the 24-hour deadline, consolidators may advance their cut-off times for receipt of shipments and associated security filing data. These advanced cut-off times would help prevent a consolidator or carrier from having to unpack or unload a container in the event the security filing for one of the shipments contained in the container is inadequate or not accepted by CBP. For example, consolidators may require shippers to submit, transmit, or obtain CBP approval of their security filing data before their shipments are stuffed in the container, before the container is sealed, or before the container is delivered to the port for lading. In such cases, importers would likely have to increase the times they hold their goods as inventory and thus incur additional inventory carrying costs to sufficiently meet these advanced cut-off times imposed by their foreign consolidators. The high end of the cost ranges presented in Table 4 assumes an initial supply chain delay of 1 day (24 hours) for the first year of implementation (2008) and a delay of 12 hours for years 2 through 10 (2009-2017). B. Regulatory Flexibility Act In response to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) and Executive Order [[Page 107]] 13272, entitled ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' Federal agencies must consider the potential distributional impact of rules on small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations during the development of their rules. Because the proposed rule affects all importers and carriers bringing goods to the United States, it likely affects a substantial number of small entities in each industry conducting these activities. However, due to data limitations, we cannot determine if these effects will be significant on a per-entity basis. Therefore, at this time, CBP cannot certify that the proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. CBP seeks comments on this conclusion. (The detailed Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis is contained in the ``Regulatory Assessment,'' which can be found in the docket for this rulemaking: http://www.regulations.gov; see also http://www.cbp.gov).
A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being
considered: the description of the proposed action is contained above.
A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the
proposed rule: Section 203(b) of the Security and Accountability for
Every Port Act (SAFE Port Act) of 2006 states that the Secretary of
Homeland Security ``shall require the electronic transmission to the
Department of additional data elements for improved high-risk
targeting, including appropriate elements of entry data * * * to be
provided as advanced information with respect to cargo destined for
importation into the United States prior to loading of such cargo on
vessels at foreign ports.'' The information required is that which is
reasonably necessary to enable high-risk shipments to be identified so
as to prevent smuggling and ensure cargo safety and security pursuant
to the laws enforced and administered by CBP. In addition, section
343(a) of the Trade Act of 2002 states that the Secretary of Homeland
Security ``shall promulgate regulations providing for the transmission
* * * of information pertaining to cargo destined for importation into
the United States * * *.''
A description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities to which the proposed rule will apply: The proposed rule
applies to all entities importing containerized, break-bulk, or Ro-Ro
shipments into the United States. Under the chosen alternative, bulk
shipments are exempt from the proposed rule. The proposed regulation
also applies to VOCCs transporting shipments via sea to the United
States. The majority of the affected entities are likely to be small.
A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other
compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of
the classes of small entities that will be subject to the requirement
and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the
report or record: The requirements of the proposed rule are expected to
be submitted electronically by importers or VOCCs (or an agent
representing either).
An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant
federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the
proposed rule: The data elements required to be submitted in this
proposed rule are, largely, already required under existing Federal
rules (e.g., the 24-Hour Advance Vessel Manifest Rule, customs entry
requirements). The main impact of this proposed rule, in addition to
increasing the number of required data elements, is to change the
timeframe prior to departure from the foreign port and prior to arrival
at the U.S. port in which submittal is required.
An establishment of any significant alternatives to the proposed
rule that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and
that minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on
small entities: CBP does not identify any significant alternatives to
the proposed rule that specifically address small entities. Alternative
1, under which bulk cargo is exempt, is the chosen alternative.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires
agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State,
local, and tribal governments and the private sector. The proposed
regulation is exempt from these requirements under 2 U.S.C. 1503
(Exclusions) which states that UMRA ``shall not apply to any provision
in a bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report
before Congress and any provision in a proposed or final Federal
regulation that is necessary for the national security or the
ratification or implementation of international treaty obligations.''
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
There are three proposed collections of information in this
document. The proposed collections are contained in 19 CFR 4.7c, 4.7d,
and 149.2. This information would be used by CBP to further improve the
ability of CBP to identify high-risk shipments so as to prevent
smuggling and ensure cargo safety and security. The likely respondents
and/or recordkeepers are individuals and businesses.
Under Sec. 4.7c, a vessel stow plan would be required from a
carrier when that carrier causes a vessel to arrive in the United
States. Vessel stow plans are used to transmit information about cargo
loaded aboard a vessel.
Under Sec. 4.7d, container status messages would be required from
an incoming carrier for all containers laden with cargo destined to be
transported by that carrier and to arrive within the limits of a port
in the United States by vessel. Container status messages serve to
facilitate the intermodal handling of containers by streamlining the
information exchange between trading partners involved in
administration, commerce, and transport of containerized shipments. The
messages can also be used to report terminal container movements (e.g.,
loading and discharging the vessel) and to report the change in status
of containers (e.g., empty or full). Container status messages would
provide CBP with additional transparency into the custodial environment
through which inter-modal containers are handled and transported before
arrival and after unlading in the U.S. This enhanced view (in
corroboration with other advance data messages) into the international
supply chain would contribute to the security of the United States and
in the international supply chain through which containers and import
cargos reach ports in the United States.
Under Sec. 149.2, an Importer Security Filing, consisting of
security elements of entry data for cargo destined to the United
States, would be required from the importer, as defined in these
regulations. For foreign cargo remaining on board (FROB), the importer
would be construed as the carrier. For immediate exportation (IE) and
transportation and exportation (T&E) in-bond shipments, and goods to be
delivered to a foreign trade zone (FTZ), the importer would be
construed as the party filing the IE, T&E, or FTZ documentation with
CBP.
The collection of information encompassed within this proposed rule
has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3507). An agency may not conduct, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of
information
[[Page 108]]
displays a valid control number assigned by OMB.
Estimated Burden for Carrier Requirements Under Sec. 4.7c
Estimated annual reporting and/or recordkeeping burden: 59,542
hours.
Estimated average annual burden per respondent/recordkeeper: 1 hour
per Vessel Stow Plan per carrier.
Estimated number of respondents and/or recordkeepers: 958.
Estimated annual frequency of responses: dependent on number of
vessel arrivals in the United States.
Estimated Burden for Carrier Requirements Under Sec. 4.7d
Estimated annual reporting and/or recordkeeping burden: 6,753
hours.
Estimated average annual burden per respondent/recordkeeper: 15
minutes per day per carrier.
Estimated number of respondents and/or recordkeepers: 958.
Estimated annual frequency of responses: dependent on number of
vessel arrivals in the United States.
Estimated Burden for Importer Requirements Under Sec. 149.2
Estimated annual reporting and/or recordkeeping burden: 10,482,907
hours.
Estimated average annual burden per respondent/recordkeeper: 52.3
hours.
Estimated number of respondents and/or recordkeepers: 200,438.
Estimated annual frequency of responses: dependent on number of
shipments to the United States.
Comments on the collection of information should be sent to the
Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer of the
Department of Homeland Security, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Washington, DC 20503. A copy should also be sent to the Border
Security Regulations Branch, Office of International Trade, U.S Customs
and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. (Mint Annex),
Washington, DC 20229. Comments should be submitted within the time
frame that comments are due regarding the substance of the proposal.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection is necessary
for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy
of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of the
information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on respondents, including through the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology; and (e) estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of
operations, maintenance, and purchases of services to provide
information.
The list of approved information collections, contained in 19 CFR
Part 178, would be revised to add an appropriate reference to sections
4.7c, 4.7d, and 149.2 upon adoption of the proposal as a final rule.
IX. Signing Authority
The signing authority for these amendments falls under 19 CFR
0.1(b). Accordingly, this document is signed by the Secretary of
Homeland Security (or his delegate).
X. Proposed Regulatory Amendments
List of Subjects
19 CFR part 4
Customs duties and inspection, Freight, Maritime carriers,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.
19 CFR part 12
Customs duties and inspection, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
19 CFR part 18
Common carriers, Customs duties and inspection, Freight, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
19 CFR part 101
Customs duties and inspection, Vessels.
19 CFR part 103
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Courts, Freedom of information, Law enforcement, Privacy,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
19 CFR part 113
Common carriers, Customs duties and inspection, Freight, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
19 CFR part 122
Administrative practice and procedure, Customs duties and
inspection, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
19 CFR part 123
Customs duties and inspection, Freight, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Vessels.
19 CFR part 141
Customs duties and inspection, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
19 CFR part 143
Customs duties and inspection, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
19 CFR part 149
Arrival, Declarations, Customs duties and inspection, Freight,
Importers, Imports, Merchandise, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Shipping, Vessels.
19 CFR part 192
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.
Amendments to the Regulations
It is proposed to amend parts 4, 12, 18, 101, 103, 113, 122, 123,
141, 143, 149, and 192 of title 19, Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR
parts 4, 12, 18, 101, 103, 113, 122, 123, 141, 143, 149, and 192), as
set forth below.
PART 4--VESSELS IN FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC TRADES
1. The general authority citation for part 4 is revised, the
relevant specific authority citations are revised, and the specific
authority citation for sections 4.7c and 4.7d is added to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1431, 1433, 1434, 1624,
2071 note; 46 U.S.C. 60105;
* * * * *
Section 4.7 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1581(a);
Section 4.7a also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1498, 1584;
* * * * *
Sections 4.7c and 4.7d also issued under 6 U.S.C. 943.
* * * * *
2. Amend Sec. 4.7 by:
a. Revising paragraph (b)(2); and
b. In paragraph (e), removing the phrase ``in addition to penalties
applicable under other provisions of law'' at the end of the first
sentence and adding in its place the phrase ``in addition to damages
under the international carrier bond of $5,000 for each violation
discovered'', and removing the phrase ``, in addition to any other
penalties applicable under other provisions of law'' at the end of the
paragraph and adding in its place ``of $5,000 for each violation
discovered''.
The revised paragraph (b)(2) reads as follows:
[[Page 109]]
Sec. 4.7 Inward foreign manifest; production on demand; contents and
form; advance filing of cargo declaration.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) In addition to the vessel stow plan requirements pursuant to
Sec. 4.7c of this part and the container status message requirements
pursuant to Sec. 4.7d of this part, subject to the effective date
provided in paragraph (b)(5) of this section, and with the exception of
any bulk or authorized break bulk cargo as prescribed in paragraph
(b)(4) of this section, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) must
receive from the incoming carrier, for any vessel covered under
paragraph (a) of this section, the CBP-approved electronic equivalent
of the vessel's Cargo Declaration (Customs Form 1302), 24 hours before
the cargo is laden aboard the vessel at the foreign port (see Sec.
4.30(n)(1)). The current approved system for presenting electronic
cargo declaration information to CBP is the Vessel Automated Manifest
System (AMS).
* * * * *
Sec. 4.7a [Amended]
3. Amend Sec. 4.7a(f) by removing the phrase ``in addition to
penalties applicable under other provisions of law'' at the end of the
first sentence and adding in its place ``in addition to damages under
the international carrier bond of $5,000 for each violation
discovered'', and removing the phrase ``, in addition to other
penalties applicable under other provisions of law'' at the end of the
paragraph and adding in its place ``of $5,000 for each violation
discovered''.
4. Add a new Sec. 4.7c, to read as follows:
Sec. 4.7c Vessel stow plan.
Vessel stow plan required. In addition to the advance filing
requirements pursuant to Sec. Sec. 4.7 and 4.7a of this part and the
container status message requirements pursuant to Sec. 4.7d of this
part, for all vessels subject to Sec. 4.7(a) of this part, except for
any vessel exclusively carrying bulk cargo as prescribed in Sec.
4.7(b)(4) of this part, the incoming carrier must submit a vessel stow
plan consisting of vessel, container, and break bulk cargo information
as specified in paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this section within the
time prescribed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section via the CBP-
approved electronic data interchange system.
(a) Time of transmission. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) must
receive the stow plan no later than 48 hours after the vessel departs
from the last foreign port. For voyages less than 48 hours in duration,
CBP must receive the stow plan prior to arrival at the first U.S. port.
(b) Vessel information required to be reported. The following
information must be reported for each vessel:
(1) Vessel name (including international maritime organization
(IMO) number);
(2) Vessel operator; and
(3) Voyage number.
(c) Container information required to be reported. The following
information must be reported for each container and unit of break bulk
cargo carried on each vessel:
(1) Container operator, if containerized;
(2) Equipment number, if containerized;
(3) Equipment size and type, if containerized;
(4) Stow position;
(5) Hazmat-UN code;
(6) Port of lading; and
(7) Port of discharge.
5. Add a new section 4.7d, to read as follows:
Sec. 4.7d Container status messages.
(a) Container status messages required. In addition to the advance
filing requirements pursuant to Sec. Sec. 4.7 and 4.7a of this part
and the vessel stow plan requirements pursuant to Sec. 4.7c of this
part, for all containers laden with cargo destined to arrive within the
limits of a port in the United States from foreign by vessel, the
incoming carrier must submit messages regarding the status of the
events as specified in paragraph (b) of this section if the carrier
creates or collects a container status message (CSM) in its equipment
tracking system reporting that event. CSMs must be transmitted to
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) within the time prescribed in
paragraph (c) of this section via a CBP-approved electronic data
interchange system. There is no requirement that a carrier create or
collect any CSM data under this paragraph that the carrier does not
otherwise create or collect on its own and maintain in its electronic
equipment tracking system.
(b) Events required to be reported. The following events must be
reported if the carrier creates or collects a container status message
in its equipment tracking system reporting that event:
(1) When the booking relating to a container which is destined to
arrive within the limits of a port in the United States by vessel is
confirmed;
(2) When a container which is destined to arrive within the limits
of a port in the United States by vessel undergoes a terminal gate
inspection;
(3) When a container, which is destined to arrive within the limits
of a port in the United States by vessel, arrives or departs a facility
(These events take place when a container enters or exits a port,
container yard, or other facility. Generally, these CSMs are referred
to as ``gate-in'' and ``gate-out'' messages.);
(4) When a container, which is destined to arrive within the limits
of a port in the United States by vessel, is loaded on or unloaded from
a conveyance (This includes vessel, feeder vessel, barge, rail and
truck movements. Generally, these CSMs are referred to as ``loaded on''
and ``unloaded from'' messages);
(5) When a vessel transporting a container, which is destined to
arrive within the limits of a port in the United States by vessel,
departs from or arrives at a port (These events are commonly referred
to as ``vessel departure'' and ``vessel arrival'' notices);
(6) When a container which is destined to arrive within the limits
of a port in the United States by vessel undergoes an intra-terminal
movement;
(7) When a container which is destined to arrive within the limits
of a port in the United States by vessel is ordered stuffed or
stripped;
(8) When a container which is destined to arrive within the limits
of a port in the United States by vessel is confirmed stuffed or
stripped; and
(9) When a container which is destined to arrive within the limits
of a port in the United States by vessel is shopped for heavy repair.
(c) Time of transmission. For each event specified in paragraph (b)
of this section that has occurred, and for which the carrier creates or
collects a container status message (CSM) in its equipment tracking
system reporting that event, the carrier must transmit the CSM to CBP
no later than 24 hours after the CSM is entered into the equipment
tracking system.
(d) Contents of report. The report of each event must include the
following:
(1) Event code being reported, as defined in the ANSI X.12 or UN
EDIFACT standards;
(2) Container number;
(3) Date and time of the event being reported;
(4) Status of the container (empty or full);
(5) Location where the event took place; and
(6) Vessel identification associated with the message.
(e) Additional container status messages. A carrier may transmit
other container status messages in addition to those required pursuant
to paragraph (b)
[[Page 110]]
of this section. By transmitting additional container status messages,
the carrier authorizes Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to access
and use that data.
PART 12--SPECIAL CLASSES OF MERCHANDISE
6. The general authority citation for part 12 and specific
authority citation for Sec. 12.3 continue to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i),
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1624;
* * * * *
Section 12.3 also issued under 7 U.S.C. 135h, 21 U.S.C. 381;
* * * * *
Sec. 12.3 [Amended]
7. Amend Sec. 12.3(b)(2) and (c) by removing references to ``Sec.
113.62(l)(1)'' and adding in their place ``Sec. 113.62(m)(1)''.
PART 18--VESSELS IN FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC TRADES
8. The general authority citation for part 18 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i),
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1551, 1552, 1553,
1623, 1624;
* * * * *
9. Amend Sec. 18.5 by:
a. In paragraph (a), removing the reference to ``paragraphs (c),
(d), (e) and (f)'' and adding in its place ``paragraphs (c), (d), (e),
(f), and (g)''; and
b. Adding a new paragraph (g).
The new paragraph (g) reads as follows:
Sec. 18.5 Diversion.
* * * * *
(g) For in-bond shipments which, at the time of transmission of the
Importer Security Filing as required by Sec. 149.2 of this chapter,
are intended to be entered as an immediate exportation (IE) or
transportation and exportation (T&E) shipment, permission to divert the
in-bond movement to a port other than the listed port of destination or
export or to change the in-bond entry into a consumption entry must be
obtained from the port director of the port of origin. Such permission
would only be granted upon receipt by Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) of a complete Importer Security Filing as required by part 149 of
this chapter.
PART 103--AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
10. The general authority citation for part 103 continues, and the
specific authority citation for Sec. 103.31a is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1624; 31
U.S.C. 9701.
* * * * *
Section 103.31a also issued under 19 U.S.C. 2071 note and 6
U.S.C. 943;
* * * * *
11. Revise Sec. 103.31a to read as follows:
Sec. 103.31a Advance electronic information for air, truck, and rail
cargo; Importer Security Filing information for vessel cargo.
The following types of advance electronic information are per se
exempt from disclosure under Sec. 103.12(d), unless CBP receives a
specific request for such records pursuant to Sec. 103.5, and the
owner of the information expressly agrees in writing to its release:
(a) Advance cargo information that is electronically presented to
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for inbound or outbound air, rail,
or truck cargo in accordance with Sec. 122.48a, 123.91, 123.92, or
192.14 of this chapter;
(b) Importer Security Filing information that is electronically
presented to CBP for inbound vessel cargo in accordance with Sec.
149.2 of this chapter;
(c) Vessel stow plan information that is electronically presented
to CBP for inbound vessels in accordance with Sec. 4.7c of this
chapter; and
(d) Container status message information that is electronically
presented for inbound containers in accordance with Sec. 4.7d of this
chapter.
PART 113--CUSTOMS BONDS
12. The general authority citation for part 113 continues to read
as follows:
Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1623, 1624.
* * * * *
13. Amend Sec. 113.62 by:
a. Redesignating paragraphs (j) through (l) as paragraphs (k)
through (m);
b. Adding new paragraph (j);
c. In redesignated paragraph (k)(2), removing the phrase ``$5,000
for each regulation violated'' and adding in its place ``$5,000 for
each violation''.
d. In newly designated paragraph (m)(1), removing the reference to
``paragraphs (a), (g), (i), (j)(2), or (k)'' and adding in its place
``paragraphs (a), (g), (i), (j), (k)(2), or (l)'';
e. In newly designated paragraph (m)(4), removing the reference to
``paragraph (l)(1)'' and adding in its place ``paragraph (m)(1)''; and
f. In newly designated paragraph (m)(5), removing the reference to
``paragraph (k)'' and adding in its place ``paragraph (l)''.
The new paragraph (j) reads as follows:
Sec. 113.62 Basic importation and entry bond conditions.
* * * * *
(j) The principal agrees to comply with all Importer Security
Filing requirements set forth in part 149 of this chapter including but
not limited to providing security filing information to Customs and
Border Protection in the manner and in the time period prescribed by
regulation. If the principal defaults with regard to any obligation,
the principal and surety (jointly and severally) agree to pay
liquidated damages equal to the value of the merchandise involved in
the default.
* * * * *
14. Amend Sec. 113.64 by:
a. Redesignating paragraphs (d) through (g) as paragraphs (h)
through (k);
b. Redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (d);
c. Adding new paragraphs (c), (e), (f), and (g); and
d. In redesignated paragraph (d), removing the phrase ``$5,000 for
each regulation violated'' and adding in its place ``$5,000 for each
violation''.
New paragraphs (c), (e), (f), and (g) read as follows:
Sec. 113.64 International carrier bond conditions.
* * * * *
(c) Agreement to provide advance cargo information. The incoming
carrier agrees to provide advance cargo information to CBP in the
manner and in the time period required under Sec. Sec. 4.7 and 4.7a of
this chapter. If the incoming carrier, as principal, defaults with
regard to these obligations, the principal and surety (jointly and
severally) agree to pay liquidated damages of $5,000 for each
violation, to a maximum of $100,000 per conveyance arrival.
* * * * *
(e) Agreement to comply with Importer Security Filing requirements.
If the principal elects to provide the Importer Security Filing
information to Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the principal
agrees to comply with all Importer Security Filing requirements set
forth in part 149 of this chapter including but not limited to
providing security filing information to CBP in the manner and in the
time period prescribed by regulation. If the principal defaults with
regard to any obligation, the principal and surety (jointly and
severally) agree to pay liquidated damages equal to the value of the
merchandise involved in the default.
[[Page 111]]
(f) Agreement to comply with vessel stow plan requirements. If the
principal causes a vessel to arrive within the limits of a port in the
United States, the principal agrees to submit a stow plan in the manner
and in the time period required pursuant to part 4.7c of this chapter.
If the principal defaults with regard to this obligation, the principal
and surety (jointly and severally) agree to pay liquidated damages of
$50,000 for each vessel arrival.
(g) Agreement to comply with container status message requirements.
If the principal causes a vessel to arrive within the limits of a port
in the United States, the principal agrees to submit container status
messages in the manner and in the time period required pursuant to part
4.7d of this chapter. If the principal defaults with regard to these
obligations, the principal and surety (jointly and severally) agree to
pay liquidated damages of $5,000 for each violation, to a maximum of
$100,000 per vessel arrival.
* * * * *
15. Amend Sec. 113.73 by:
a. Redesignating existing paragraphs (c) and (d) as paragraphs (d)
and (e); and
b. Adding a new paragraph (c).
The new paragraph (c) reads as follows:
Sec. 113.73 Foreign trade zone operator bond conditions.
* * * * *
(c) Agreement to comply with Importer Security Filing requirements.
The principal agrees to comply with all Importer Security Filing
requirements set forth in part 149 of this chapter including but not
limited to providing security filing information to Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) in the manner and in the time period prescribed by
regulation. If the principal defaults with regard to any obligation,
the principal and surety (jointly and severally) agree to pay
liquidated damages equal to the value of the merchandise involved in
the default.
* * * * *
PART 122--AIR COMMERCE REGULATIONS
16. The general authority citation for part 122 continues to read
as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 58b, 66, 1431, 1433, 1436,
1448, 1459, 1590, 1594, 1623, 1624, 1644, 1644a, 2071 note.
* * * * *
Sec. 122.48a [Amended]
17. Amend Sec. 122.48a(c)(2) by removing the reference to ``Sec.
113.62(j)(2)'' and adding in its place ``Sec. 113.62(k)(2)''.
PART 123--CUSTOMS RELATIONS WITH CANADA AND MEXICO
18. The general authority citation for part 123 continues to read
as follows:
Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1431, 1433, 1436,
1448, 1624, 2071 note.
* * * * *
Sec. 123.92 [Amended]
19. Amend Sec. 123.92(c)(2) by removing the reference to ``Sec.
113.62(j)(2)'' and adding in its place ``Sec. 113.62(k)(2)''.
PART 141--ENTRY OF MERCHANDISE
20. The general authority citation for part 141 and specific
authority citation for Sec. 141.113 continue to read as follows:
Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1448, 1484, 1624.
* * * * *
Section 141.113 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1499, 1623.
Sec. 141.113 [Amended]
21. Amend Sec. 141.113(b) by removing the reference to ``Sec.
113.62(l)(1)'' and adding in its place ``Sec. 113.62(m)(1)''.
PART 143--SPECIAL ENTRY PROCEDURES
24. The general authority citation for part 143 continues to read
as follows:
Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1481, 1484, 1498, 1624.
25. Revise Sec. 143.1 to read as follows:
Sec. 143.1 Eligibility.
The Automated Broker Interface (ABI) is a module of the Customs
Automated Commercial System (ACS) which allows participants to transmit
data electronically to CBP through ABI and to receive transmissions
through ACS. Its purposes are to improve administrative efficiency,
enhance enforcement of customs and related laws, lower costs and
expedite the release of cargo.
(a) Participants for entry and entry summary purposes. Participants
in ABI for the purposes of transmitting data relating to entry and
entry summary may be:
(1) Customs brokers as defined in Sec. 111.1 of this chapter;
(2) Importers as defined in Sec. 101.1 of this chapter; and
(3) ABI service bureaus, that is, an individual, partnership,
association or corporation which provides communications facilities and
data processing services for brokers and importers, but which does not
engage in the conduct of customs business as defined in Sec. 111.1 of
this chapter.
(b) Participants for Importer Security Filing purposes. Any party
may participate in ABI solely for the purposes of filing the Importer
Security Filing pursuant to Sec. 149.2 of this chapter if that party
fulfills the eligibility requirements contained in Sec. 149.5 of this
chapter. If a party other than a customs broker as defined in Sec.
111.1 of this chapter or an importer as defined 19 U.S.C. 1484 submits
the Importer Security Filing, no portion of the Importer Security
Filing can be used for entry or entry summary purposes pursuant to
Sec. 149.5 of this chapter.
(c) Participants for other purposes. Upon approval by CBP, any
party may participate in ABI for other purposes, including transmission
of protests, forms relating to in-bond movements (CBP Form 7512), and
applications for FTZ admission (CBP Form 214).
PART 146--FOREIGN TRADE ZONES
26. The general authority citation for part 146 continues to read
as follows:
Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 81a-81u, 1202 (General Note 3(i),
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1623, 1624.
27. Amend Sec. 146.32 by:
a. Removing all references to ``Customs Form 214'' and adding in
their place ``CBP Form 214'';
b. Redesignating paragraph (a) as paragraph (a)(1); and
c. Adding a new paragraph (a)(2).
The new paragraph (a)(2) reads as follows:
Sec. 146.32 Application and permit for admission of merchandise.
(a)(1) * * *
(2) CBP Form 214 and Importer Security Filing submitted via a
single electronic transmission. If an Importer Security Filing is filed
pursuant to part 149 of this chapter via the same electronic
transmission as CBP Form 214, the filer is only required to provide the
following fields once to be used for Importer Security Filing and CBP
Form 214 purposes:
(i) Country of origin; and
(ii) Commodity HTSUS number if this number is provided at the 10
digit level.
* * * * *
28. Add part 149 to chapter I to read as follows:
PART 149--IMPORTER SECURITY FILING
Sec.
149.1 Definitions.
149.2 Importer security filing--requirement, time of transmission,
verification of information, update, withdrawal.
149.3 Data elements.
[[Page 112]]
149.4 Bulk and break bulk cargo.
149.5 Authorized agents.
149.6 Entry and/or entry summary documentation and Importer Security
Filing submitted via a single electronic transmission.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 6 U.S.C. 943; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1624, 2071
note.
Sec. 149.1 Definitions.
(a) Importer. For purposes of this part, ``importer'' means the
party causing goods to arrive within the limits of a port in the United
States. For foreign cargo remaining on board (FROB), the importer is
construed as the carrier. For immediate exportation (IE) and
transportation and exportation (T&E) in-bond shipments, and goods to be
delivered to a foreign trade zone (FTZ), the importer is construed as
the party filing the IE, T&E, or FTZ documentation.
(b) Importation. For purpose of this part, ``importation'' means
the point at which cargo arrives within the limits of a port in the
United States.
(c) Bulk cargo. For purposes of this part, ``bulk cargo'' is
defined as homogeneous cargo that is stowed loose in the hold and is
not enclosed in any container such as a box, bale, bag, cask, or the
like. Such cargo is also described as bulk freight. Specifically, bulk
cargo is composed of either:
(1) Free flowing articles such as oil, grain, coal, ore, and the
like, which can be pumped or run through a chute or handled by dumping;
or
(2) Articles that require mechanical handling such as bricks, pig
iron, lumber, steel beams, and the like.
(d) Break bulk cargo. For purposes of this part, ``break bulk
cargo'' is defined as cargo that is not containerized, but which is
otherwise packaged or bundled.
Sec. 149.2 Importer security filing--requirement, time of
transmission, verification of information, update, withdrawal.
(a) Importer security filing required. With the exception of any
bulk cargo pursuant to Sec. 149.4(a) of this part, the importer, as
defined in Sec. 149.1 of this part, or authorized agent (see Sec.
149.5 of this part) must submit in English the Importer Security Filing
elements prescribed in Sec. 149.3 of this part within the time
specified in paragraph (b) of this section via a CBP-approved
electronic interchange system.
(b) Time of transmission. With the exception of any break bulk
cargo pursuant to Sec. 149.4(b) of this part and foreign cargo
remaining on board (FROB), CBP must receive the Importer Security
Filing no later than 24 hours before the cargo is laden aboard the
vessel at the foreign port. For FROB, CBP must receive the Importer
Security Filing prior to lading aboard the vessel at the foreign port.
(c) Verification of information. Where the party electronically
presenting to CBP the Importer Security Filing required in paragraph
(a) of this section receives any of this information from another
party, CBP will take into consideration how, in accordance with
ordinary commercial practices, the presenting party acquired such
information, and whether and how the presenting party is able to verify
this information. Where the presenting party is not reasonably able to
verify such information, CBP will permit the party to electronically
present the information on the basis of what the party reasonably
believes to be true.
(d) Update of Importer Security Filing. The party who submitted the
Importer Security Filing pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section must
update the filing if, after the filing is submitted and before the
goods enter the limits of a port in the United States, any of the
information submitted changes or more accurate information becomes
available.
(e) Withdrawal of Importer Security Filing. If, after an Importer
Security Filing is submitted pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section,
the goods associated with the Importer Security Filing are no longer
intended to be imported to the United States, the party who submitted
the Importer Security Filing must withdraw the Importer Security Filing
and transmit to CBP the reason for such withdrawal.
Sec. 149.3 Data elements.
(a) Shipments intended to be entered into the United States and
shipments intended to be delivered to a foreign trade zone. Except as
otherwise provided for in paragraph (b) of this section, the following
elements must be provided for each good listed at the 6 digit HTSUS
number at the lowest bill of lading level (i.e., at the house bill of
lading level, if applicable). The manufacturer (or supplier) name and
address, country of origin, and commodity HTSUS number must be linked
to one another at the line item level.
(1) Manufacturer (or supplier) name and address. Name and address
of the entity that last manufactures, assembles, produces, or grows the
commodity or name and address of the supplier of the finished goods in
the country from which the goods are leaving. In the alternative the
name and address of the manufacturer (or supplier) that is currently
required by the import laws, rules and regulations of the United States
(i.e., entry procedures) may be provided (this is the information that
is used to create the existing manufacturer identification (MID) number
for entry purposes).
(2) Seller name and address. Name and address of the last known
entity by whom the goods are sold or agreed to be sold. If the goods
are to be imported otherwise than in pursuance of a purchase, the name
and address of the owner of the goods must be provided.
(3) Buyer name and address. Name and address of the last known
entity to whom the goods are sold or agreed to be sold. If the goods
are to be imported otherwise than in pursuance of a purchase, the name
and address of the owner of the goods must be provided.
(4) Ship to name and address. Name and address of the first
deliver-to party scheduled to physically receive the goods after the
goods have been released from customs custody.
(5) Container stuffing location. Name and address(es) of the
physical location(s) where the goods were stuffed into the container.
For break bulk shipments, as defined in Sec. 149.1 of this part, the
name and address(es) of the physical location(s) where the goods were
made ``ship ready'' must be provided.
(6) Consolidator (stuffer) name and address. Name and address of
the party who stuffed the container or arranged for the stuffing of the
container. For break bulk shipments, as defined in Sec. 149.1 of this
part, the name and address of the party who made the goods ``ship
ready'' or the party who arranged for the goods to be made ``ship
ready'' must be provided.
(7) Importer of record number/Foreign trade zone applicant
identification number. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) number, Employer
Identification Number (EIN), Social Security Number (SSN), or CBP
assigned number of the entity liable for payment of all duties and
responsible for meeting all statutory and regulatory requirements
incurred as a result of importation. For goods intended to be delivered
to a foreign trade zone (FTZ), the IRS number, EIN, SSN, or CBP
assigned number of the party filing the FTZ documentation with CBP must
be provided.
(8) Consignee number(s). Internal Revenue Service (IRS) number,
Employer Identification Number (EIN), Social Security Number (SSN), or
CBP assigned number of the individual(s) or firm(s) in the United
States on whose account the merchandise is shipped.
(9) Country of origin. Country of manufacture, production, or
growth of the article, based upon the import laws,
[[Page 113]]
rules and regulations of the United States.
(10) Commodity HTSUS number. Duty/statistical reporting number
under which the article is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS number must be provided to the
6 digit level. The HTSUS number may be provided up to the 10 digit
level. This element can only be used for entry purposes if it is
provided at the 10 digit level or greater by the importer of record or
its licensed customs broker.
(b) FROB, IE shipments, and T&E shipments. For shipments consisting
entirely of foreign cargo remaining on board (FROB) and shipments
intended to be transported in-bond as an immediate exportation (IE) or
transportation and exportation (T&E), the following elements must be
provided for each good listed at the 6 digit HTSUS number at the lowest
bill of lading level (i.e., at the house bill of lading level, if
applicable).
(1) Booking party name and address. Name and address of the party
who is paying for the transportation of the goods.
(2) Foreign port of unlading. Port code for the foreign port of
unlading at the intended final destination.
(3) Place of delivery. City code for the place of delivery.
(4) Ship to name and address. Name and address of the first
deliver-to party scheduled to physically receive the goods after the
goods have been released from customs custody.
(5) Commodity HTSUS number. Duty/statistical reporting number under
which the article is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS number must be provided to the 6
digit level. The HTSUS number may be provided to the 10 digit level.
Sec. 149.4 Bulk and break bulk cargo.
(a) Bulk cargo exempted from filing requirement. For bulk cargo
that is exempt from the requirement set forth in Sec. 4.7(b)(2) of
this chapter that a cargo declaration be filed with Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) 24 hours before such cargo is laden aboard the vessel
at the foreign port, importers, as defined in Sec. 149.1 of this part,
of bulk cargo are also exempt from filing an Importer Security Filing
with respect to that cargo.
(b) Break bulk cargo exempted from time requirement. For break bulk
cargo that is exempt from the requirement set forth in Sec. 4.7(b)(2)
of this chapter for carriers to file a cargo declaration with Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) 24 hours before such cargo is laden aboard
the vessel at the foreign port, importers, as defined in Sec. 149.1 of
this part, of break bulk cargo are also exempt with respect to that
cargo from the requirement set forth in Sec. 149.2 of this part to
file an Importer Security Filing with CBP 24 hours before such cargo is
laden aboard the vessel at the foreign port. Any importers of break
bulk cargo that are exempted from the filing requirement of Sec. 149.2
of this part must present the Importer Security Filing to CBP 24 hours
prior to the cargo's arrival in the United States. These importers must
still report 24 hours in advance of loading any containerized or non-
qualifying break bulk cargo they will be importing.
Sec. 149.5 Authorized agents.
(a) Eligibility. To be qualified to file Importer Security Filing
information electronically, a party must establish the communication
protocol required by Customs and Border Protection for properly
presenting the Importer Security Filing through the approved data
interchange system. If the Importer Security Filing and entry or entry
summary are provided via a single electronic transmission to CBP
pursuant to Sec. 149.6(b) of this part, the party making the
transmission must be an importer acting on its own behalf or a licensed
customs broker. Also, any Importer Security Filing filer must possess a
basic importation and entry bond containing all the necessary
provisions of Sec. 113.62 of this chapter, an international carrier
bond containing all the necessary provisions of Sec. 113.64 of this
chapter, or a foreign trade zone operator bond containing all the
necessary provisions of Sec. 113.73 of this chapter.
(b) Powers of attorney. Authorized agents must retain powers of
attorney and make them available to representatives of Customs and
Border Protection upon request.
Sec. 149.6 Entry and/or entry summary documentation and Importer
Security Filing submitted via a single electronic transmission.
If the Importer Security Filing is filed pursuant to Sec. 149.2 of
this part via the same electronic transmission as entry and/or entry
summary documentation pursuant to Sec. 142.3 of this chapter, the
importer is only required to provide the following fields once to be
used for Importer Security Filing, entry, and/or entry summary
purposes, as applicable:
(a) Importer of record number;
(b) Consignee number;
(c) Country of origin; and
(d) Commodity HTSUS number if this number is provided at the 10
digit level.
PART 192--EXPORT CONTROL
29. The general authority citation for part 192 continues to read
as follows:
Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1624, 1646c. Subpart A also issued
under 19 U.S.C. 1627a, 1646a, 1646b; subpart B also issued under 13
U.S.C. 303; 19 U.S.C. 2071 note; 46 U.S.C. 91.
Sec. 192.14 [Amended]
29. Amend Sec. 192.14(c)(4)(ii) by removing the reference to
``Sec. 113.64(g)(2)'' and adding in its place ``Sec. 113.64(k)(2)''.
Dated: December 14, 2007.
W. Ralph Basham,
Commissioner, Customs and Border Protection.
Approved:
Dated: December 21, 2007.
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-25306 Filed 12-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P