Federal Register: July 23, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 141)
DOCID: FR Doc 03-18558
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
CFR Citation: 19 CFR Parts 4, 103, 113, 122, 123 and 192
RIN ID: RIN 1515-AD33
NOTICE: Part II
DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed rule.
Required Advance Electronic Presentation of Cargo Information
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 22, 2003.
This document proposes to amend the Customs Regulations to provide that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) must receive, by way of a CBPapproved electronic data interchange system, information pertaining to cargo before the cargo is either brought into or sent from the United States by any mode of commercial transportation (sea, air, rail or truck). The cargo information required is that which is reasonably necessary to enable highrisk shipments to be identified so as to prevent smuggling and ensure cargo safety and security pursuant to the laws enforced and administered by CBP. The proposed regulations are specifically intended to implement the provisions of section 343(a) of the Trade Act of 2002, as amended by the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002.
Homeland Security Department, Customs and Border Protection Bureau,
Section 343(a) of the Trade Act of 2002 (Public Law 107210, 116 Stat. 933, enacted on August 6, 2002), as amended by section 108 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107295, 116 Stat. 2064, enacted on November 25, 2002), and codified at 19 U.S.C. 2071 note, requires that the Secretary endeavor to promulgate final regulations not later than October 1, 2003, that provide for the mandatory collection of electronic cargo information by the Customs Service (now part of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP)), either prior to the arrival of the cargo in the United States or its departure from the United States by any mode of commercial transportation (sea, air, rail or truck). Under section 343(a), as amended, the information required must consist of that information about the cargo which is determined to be reasonably necessary to enable CBP to identify highrisk shipments so as to prevent smuggling and ensure cargo safety and security pursuant to the laws that are enforced and administered by CBP.
Consequently, for the purposes set forth in section 343(a), as amended, and within the parameters prescribed in the statute, as highlighted below, this document proposes to amend the Customs Regulations in order to require the advance electronic transmission of information pertaining to cargo prior to its being brought into, or sent from, the United States.
CBP Authority for Issuance of Proposed Rule
When the Trade Act of 2002 was enacted (Public Law 107210; August 6, 2002), CBP was part of the Department of the Treasury as the Customs Service. Thereafter, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 was enacted (Public Law 107296; November 25, 2002), which created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Section 403 of the Homeland Security Act (the Act) transferred to the newly created Department the functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities of the Customs Service, including the functions of the Secretary of the Treasury relating thereto. Customs, later renamed as CBP, thereby became a component of DHS. Furthermore, the Department of the Treasury recently issued an order (Treasury Order 10016, dated May 15, 2003) delegating to DHS certain Customs revenue functions that were otherwise retained by the Treasury Department under sections 412 and 415 of the Act. In accordance with the Homeland Security Act and this transfer and delegation of functions, certain matters, such as this proposed rule which is designed to ensure cargo safety and security rather than revenue assessment, now fall solely within the jurisdiction of DHS.
Therefore, inasmuch as CBP is an integral component of DHS, and in view of the subject functions transferred/delegated in this regard from Treasury to DHS, this proposed regulation is being issued by CBP with the approval of DHS. Nevertheless, CBP has also coordinated the development of this proposed rule jointly with the Treasury Department. Statutory Factors Governing Development of Regulations
Under section 343(a), as amended, the requirement to provide particular cargo 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, including:
[sbull] The existence of competitive relationships among parties upon which the information collection requirements are imposed; [sbull] Differences among cargo carriers that arise from varying modes of transportation, different commercial practices and operational characteristics, and the technological capacity to collect and transmit information electronically;
[sbull] 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 [[Page 43575]]
analyzing, electronic information in a timely fashion;
[sbull] That the use of 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;
[sbull] The protection of the privacy of business proprietary and any other confidential cargo information that CBP receives under these regulations, with the exception that certain manifest information is required to be made available for public disclosure under 19 U.S.C. 1431(c);
[sbull] Balancing the likely impact on the flow of commerce with the impact on cargo safety and security in determining the timing for transmittal of required information;
[sbull] Where practicable, avoiding requirements in the regulations that are redundant with one another or with requirements under other provisions of law; and
[sbull] 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, by a notice published in the Federal Register (67 FR 70706) on November 26, 2002, the United States Customs Service, which is now merged into CBP, announced a series of public meetings in accordance with section 343(a) to assist in the formulation of these proposed regulations. The meetings were also announced on the Customs Web site.
Separate meetings were scheduled and held to address specific issues related to the advance electronic presentation of information prior to the arrival or departure of air cargo (January 14, 2003), truck cargo (January 16, 2003), rail cargo (January 21, 2003) and sea cargo (January 23, 2003). ``Strawman'' proposals were offered by Customs at the meetings and were made available on the Customs Web site. In the meetings, 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. Also, at the meetings and on the Customs Web site, suggestions and comments were solicited from the public. The CBP received numerous submissions via email which similarly provided valuable insights and recommendations regarding the development of the proposed rule.
Moreover, an extensive number of meetings were held with workgroups of the subcommittee on advance cargo information requirements of the Treasury Advisory Committee on the Commercial Operations of the U.S. Customs Service (COAC), which greatly assisted CBP in its development of these proposed regulations. Indeed, much of the input and recommendations from those members of the trade who participated in the public meetings, the various workgroups of the COAC subcommittee, as well as the views expressed in the many email submissions in this matter, are reflected in these proposed regulations.
In this regard, what follows is a review of, and CBP's response to,
the most salient issues and recommendations that were presented
pursuant to this consultation process, along with an overview of the
proposed programs for advance information filing for cargo destined to,
or departing from, the United States by vessel, air, rail or truck. Public Comments; General
Costs of Automation; Economic Analysis
Any implementing regulations compelling the advance presentation to CBP of electronic information for cargo destined to the United States, under section 343(a), as amended, would impose substantial automation costs on the carrier trade. The CBP should conduct an economic impact analysis to this effect.
As is set forth below, there are electronic data transmission systems already in place in many of the modes. When coupled with the fact that much of the trade already uses these systems, it does not appear that requiring advance electronic cargo information would impose substantial costs on the trade.
Nevertheless, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has conducted an economic analysis to determine whether the proposed rule is an ``economically significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and whether the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) would apply to this rulemaking. It has been determined, as a result of the initial analysis conducted, that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This economic analysis is attached as an Appendix to this document. For the reasons set forth in the analysis, the agency does not make a certification at this time with regard to the regulatory requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Comments are specifically requested as to the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.
This rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order (E.O.) 12866 and has been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget in accordance with that E.O. However, it is our preliminary
determination that the proposed rule would not result in an
``economically significant regulatory action'' under E.O. 12866, as regards the impact on the national economy.
Protection of Confidential Information Presented to CBP
Cargo manifest data collected by CBP under section 343(a), as amended, should be kept confidential by the agency and not be released to the public.
Section 343(a)(3)(G), as amended, expressly requires that CBP in its implementing regulations protect the privacy of any business proprietary and any other confidential cargo information that is furnished to CBP in accordance with section 343(a), except for any manifest information that is collected pursuant to section 431, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1431), and required to be available for public disclosure pursuant to section 1431(c). It is emphasized in this connection that the application of section 1431(c) has been effectively limited only to vessel cargo manifest information (Sec. 103.31, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 103.31)).
As thus mandated by the law, CBP intends to accord full protection to the privacy of air, rail, or truck cargo information that is collected under section 343(a), as amended; to this effect, CBP has included in this document a proposed amendment to part 103, Customs Regulations (19 CFR part 103) (see proposed Sec. 103.31a)). Information Technology; Interface With Other Government Agencies Comment
The regulations should avoid redundancy requirements with those of [[Page 43576]]
other Federal agencies. There should be one filing procedure for all Federal agencies (e.g., the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)). All data elements to be required by Federal agencies, both within and without the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for traffic entering the United States should be coordinated through a single entity, preferably CBP. Toward this end, the notification requirements of other Federal agencies should be integrated into the CBP regulations for section 343(a), as amended.
To the extent feasible, CBP will continue to explore ways and methods to harmonize and synchronize information collection requirements among the several agencies involved, so that the cargo information CBP collects under section 343(a), as amended, may be provided by electronic means to other Federal offices. Indeed, efforts in this regard are already underway in connection with the development of the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) and the International Trade Data System (ITDS) (a single system that will fully integrate all requisite information about goods entering and exiting the United States). These discussions may ultimately lead to a sole portal (``single window'') for receiving all inward cargo information that may be required to assist other agencies in administering and enforcing statutes enacted to further combat threats to the safety and security of the nation.
However, at present, CBP is of necessity operating under severe time constraints in endeavoring to comply with the statutory deadline for promulgating final regulations under section 343(a) as a national security imperative. Given the limited time available, the construction of a fullyintegrated, comprehensive multiagency electronic data interchange system does not, at this moment, appear to be a practicable or feasible concept, especially in view of the multitude of technological modifications and substantial reprogramming that would be needed for existing systems in order to effectuate this; and withholding the implementation of the final regulations pending the completion of an undertaking of such magnitude would quite clearly be inconsistent with the urgency of the legislation.
The CBP notes that other agencies, such as FDA, have different
statutory requirements regarding advance notice of imports. The CBP
further notes that, due to these different statutory requirements,
these agencies may have different information needs to accomplish their
different statutory mandates. For example, some of the information
requirements in section 307 of the Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 to address food
safety and security assessments, are different from those required by
CBP. In some instances, the time needed by other agencies to receive,
review, and respond to this information to accomplish their statutory
mission may be different from the time required by CBP to assess and
respond to information needed to achieve CBP's statutory mission. To
the extent possible, CBP will work with other interested agencies to
share the information collected under section 343(a), as amended, with other Federal agencies.
The advance cargo information provisions for incoming cargo should apply to air/vessel shipments through the United States Postal Service (USPS).
As prescribed in section 343(a)(3)(K), as amended, CBP has the authority, in consultation with the Postmaster General, to require advance cargo information for shipments by the USPS. The CBP still has this issue under consideration. Should a determination be made to extend the advance electronic cargo information mandate to USPS shipments, such postal shipments would be the subject of a separate notice of proposed rulemaking.
Overview; Electronic Filing; Shipper on Master/House Bills
Pursuant to section 343(a)(1), as amended, cargo information for required inbound and outbound shipments must be transmitted to CBP by means of a CBPapproved electronic data interchange system. In this document, CBP is proposing that cargo information be transmitted or presented through existing CBPapproved data systems. As is further elucidated infra, for each incoming mode and for all outbound modes, these existing data systems are as follows:
Outbound, all modes: Automated Export System (AES);
Inbound vessels: Vessel Automated Manifest System (Vessel AMS);
Inbound aircraft: Air Automated Manifest System (Air AMS);
Inbound rail: Rail Automated Manifest System (Rail AMS);
Inbound truck: Free And Secure Trade System (FAST); PreArrival Processing System (PAPS) (which employs the Automated Broker Interface (ABI)); Border Release Advanced Screening and Selectivity program (BRASS, modified as appropriate); and Customs Automated Forms Entry System (CAFES) or ABI inbond reporting.
In this latter regard, and to the additional extent that future approved automated data systems are to be implemented, CBP, either generally or on a portbyport basis, as applicable, will give advance notice of the effective date of implementation of the specific system at particular port(s) of arrival by publishing a notice to this effect in the Federal Register.
Master Bills/House Bills
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 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 Non
Vessel Operating Common Carrier (NVOCC) for delivery as a single
shipment to the incoming carrier. The consolidated shipment, as noted,
would be covered under the incoming carrier's master bill; and this
master bill could reflect the name of the freight forwarder, the NVOCC
or other such party as being the shipper (of the consolidated
shipment). However, each of the shipments thus consolidated would be
covered by what is referred to as a house bill. The house bill for each
individual shipment in the consolidated shipment would reference the
name of the actual shipper (which would be the actual foreign owner and
exporter of the cargo to the United States). As will be seen from the
data elements as proposed in this rulemaking, it is this latter
information as to the identity of the actual shipper from the relevant house bill that CBP is seeking for targeting purposes.
Public Comments; Vessel Cargo Destined to the United States Summary of Principal Comments
Most of the comments received concerning the advance information reporting requirements for incoming vessel cargo evidenced an intent to revisit the ``24hour rule'' that was issued and became effective last year (T.D. 0262, 67 FR 66318; October 31, 2002).
In brief, it was principally requested that advance cargo information filing by
Non Vessel Operating Common Carriers (NVOCCs) be eliminated, due to a number of operational problems experienced by incoming carriers, that have resulted from limitations said to be inherent in the Vessel Automated Manifest System (AMS) when NVOCCs, as opposed to the vessel carriers, transmit shipment information to CBP; at the same time, though, it was advocated that importers should be permitted, at their discretion, to file through AMS certain information that would likely best be known to them as to the identification and nature of the incoming cargo. Also, it was asked that definitions be added to the regulations regarding those data elements pertaining to shipper and consignee information. In addition, it was asked that Department of Defensecontracted conveyances be exempted from the 24hour rule. CBP Response
In sum, CBP stands by the 24hour rule for incoming vessel cargo and does not contemplate any major change to it under this rulemaking, with one exception: to introduce the mandate that vessel carriers file their advance cargo manifest information with CBP electronically.
As explained in the final rule (67 FR at 66319), the 24hour pre lading requirement for incoming vessel cargo, especially containerized vessel cargo, is tied inextricably to the ContainerSecurity Initiative (CSI). CSI was developed to secure an indispensable, but vulnerable, link in the chain of global trade: containerized shipping. Annually, more than 6 million cargo containers are off loaded at U.S. seaports. A core element of CSI is to prescreen such containers at the port of departure before they are shipped. To enable this prescreening to be done fully and effectively, it is essential that the required advance cargo declaration information be presented to CBP at least 24 hours prior to lading the cargo aboard the vessel at the foreign port.
With the implementation of CSI and the 24hour rule, CBP has been able to identify shipments that have posed potential threats; and securityrelated seizures of problematic shipments have occurred. In short, these programsCSI coupled with the 24hour rulehave become a critical bulwark against threats to the safety and security of United States seaports, trade, industry, and the country.
Non Vessel Operating Common Carriers (NVOCCs)
In consideration of the competitive relationships that exist in the international freight forwarding field, those NVOCCs that seek to file required business proprietary and other confidential cargo information for their incoming shipments directly with CBP should be allowed to do so, rather than having to furnish such information to vessel carriers for electronic presentation to CBP. The CBP is confident that operational issues that have arisen in relation to the implementation of the 24hour rule will over time be satisfactorily addressed; toward this end, CBP will continue to be available to assist the trade in resolving such issues.
There is no consensus in the trade community as to whether importers should provide sea cargo data to CBP. When this split is coupled with the current design and functionality of the AMS system, CBP finds that allowing importers, at their discretion, to participate in advance electronic filing through the system would at this time be neither advisable nor practicable.
Government vessels falling within the purview of Sec. 4.5(a),
Customs Regulations (19 CFR 4.5(a)), are exempt from the requirement to
make entry, and, as such, they would already be exempt from having to
comply with advance cargo declaration reporting under the 24hour rule
(see 19 CFR 4.7(a), (b)(2)). For purposes of enlarging upon those
vessels that would be subject to such exemptions, it is noted that by a
separate, interim rule, CBP will expand the definition of government vessels.
Data ElementsShipper, Consignee; Date and Time of Departure
With reference to the identity of the shipper, at the master bill level, for consolidated shipments, the identity of the Non Vessel Operating Common Carrier (NVOCC), freight forwarder, container station or other carrier would be sufficient. For nonconsolidated shipments, and for each house bill in a consolidated shipment, the identity of the actual shipper (who is both the owner and the exporter) of the cargo from the foreign country would be needed. To elaborate, the foreign owner of the goods just before they are delivered for export, and who initially consigns and ships them from the foreign country, is the party who ultimately decides that the goods are to be disposed of in another country, such as the United States. The foreign shipper and owner of the goods is, therefore, the exporter, because this is the party initially responsible for causing the export. Section 4.7a(c)(4)(viii), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 4.7a(c)(4)(viii)), would be revised to include the additional meaning of this data element.
In addition, with reference to the identity of the consignee, for consolidated shipments, at the master bill level, the identity of the NVOCC, freight forwarder, container station or other carrier would be sufficient. However, parties identified as ``consolidators,'' even though they may also be NVOCCs, may not participate in Vessel AMS.
For nonconsolidated shipments, and for each house bill in a consolidated shipment, the consignee would be the party to whom the cargo would be delivered in the United States, with the exception of ``FROB'' (Foreign Cargo Remaining On Board). If the name of the consignee, as described, is available, the carrier must disclose this information. However, where cargo is shipped ``to the order of [a named party],'' which is a common business practice, the carrier must report this named ``to order'' party as the consignee in the advance cargo information submission; and, if there is any other commercial party listed in the bill of lading for delivery or contact purposes, the carrier must also report this other commercial party's identity and contact information (address/phone number) in the ``Notify Party'' field of the advance electronic data transmission to CBP, to the extent that the CBPapproved electronic data interchange system is capable of receiving this data. Section 4.7a(c)(4)(ix) would be revised to include the added meaning of this data element.
Also, Sec. 4.7a(c)(4) would further be amended to require the date
and time of the departure of the vessel from foreign, as reflected in the vessel log.
Overview; Vessel Cargo Destined to the United States
Electronic Filing Mandate
Under this proposed rule, in principal part, the 24hour rule would
be amended to provide that vessel carriers must present their cargo
declarations to CBP by means of a CBPapproved electronic data
interchange system, 24 hours before lading the cargo aboard the vessel in the foreign port.
Transition/Timetable for Compliance With Electronic Filing Mandate
Within 90 days of the publication of this advance electronic cargo
information requirement as a final rule in the Federal Register, all
ocean carriers, and NVOCCs choosing to participate, must be automated on the Vessel AMS system at all ports of entry
in the United States where their cargo will initially arrive. Comments; Air Cargo Destined to the United States
Time Frame for Presenting Advance Cargo Information to CBP
The time frames for presenting electronic cargo information to CBP for air cargo prior to the cargo's arrival in the United States that were set forth in the ``strawman'' proposal (12 hours in advance of foreign lading generally, and 8 hours in advance of foreign lading in the case of express courier shipments) were excessively long. Such lengthy advance time frames would destroy ``justintime'' delivery systems. Instead, it was chiefly recommended that the time frame be one hour prior to arrival in the United States; other commenters, however, thought that the time frame for transmission should be determined on a countrybycountry basis, or, in the alternative, at the time of ``wheelsup'' on the aircraft.
Also, it was asserted that the advance notice time frame should be consistent within each mode of transport; alternatively, it was suggested that the advance filing time frame for charter flights should be shorter than for other flights, and that there should be special procedures for timesensitive cargoes (short haul).
The time frames in the ``strawman'' proposal were put forth only for purposes of stimulating a dialogue with the importing trade regarding the development of an appropriate time frame for the electronic submission of information for inbound air cargo. This issue is central to the implementation of section 343(a) of the Trade Act of 2002, as amended.
Accordingly, after considering the feedback received from the
importing trade in response to the ``strawman,'' CBP is proposing in this rulemaking that information for inbound air cargo be
electronically presented no later than the time of departure of the aircraft for the United States (no later than the time that wheels are up on the aircraft, and it is en route directly to the United States), in the case of aircraft departing for the United States from any foreign port or place in North America, which includes locations in Mexico, Central America, South America (from north of the Equator only), the Caribbean, and Bermuda. For aircraft departing for the United States from any other foreign area, information for the inbound air cargo would be required to be electronically presented to CBP no later than 4 hours prior to the arrival of the aircraft at the first port of arrival in the United States.
At present, CBP believes that these time frames (no later than ``wheelsup'' or 4 hours prior to arrival, as applicable) should enable CBP to properly conduct a risk assessment for incoming air cargo and, if found advisable, to make preparations to hold the cargo for further information or for examination, as required to ensure cargo safety and security under section 343(a), as amended. At the same time, CBP has determined that these time frames should realistically accommodate the concerns of the trade, and should not disrupt the flow of commerce. Indeed, an important reason for the different time frames proposed is the need to obviate disruptions in the flow of commerce; given this consideration, the effect on ``justintime'' (``JIT'') delivery systems should be nonexistent.
The time frames proposed for submitting electronic information to
CBP for inbound air cargo would thus be consistent for all air cargo
shipments regardless of the type of operator or the nature of the
cargo; the time frames would differ based only upon the foreign area
from which the incoming air carrier was departing for the United States.
Parties Required/Eligible To Participate in Advance Cargo Information Filing
It was asked whether freight forwarders to the United States would be required to participate in advance cargo information filing. In the alternative, it was requested that advance electronic shipment information be supplied to CBP by the foreign shipper (the exporter to the United States) or by the U.S. importer. In addition, it was recommended that freight deconsolidators (Container Freight Stations) be allowed to transmit inbond information electronically to CBP at the house air waybill level. In this overall context, it was further mentioned that CBP would need to specify what type of bond would be required for any noncarrier commercial participants in advance electronic cargo information filing under section 343(a), as amended. Also, two commenters urged that cargo information be supplied to CBP by the foreign country (government).
It was also generally stated that some parties in the air environment would simply be unable to comply with the advance electronic cargo information requirements. In any case, it was asserted that any liability for the accuracy of the information that a party presented to CBP should fall upon the entity that supplied the information to the presenting party.
Inbound air carriers that are otherwise required to make entry under Sec. 122.41, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 122.41), would be required to file advance cargo information electronically with CBP. The existing automated air cargo manifest system (the Air Automated Manifest System (Air AMS)) was originally designed and structured to receive electronic data directly from the incoming air carrier.
Nevertheless, in addition to the incoming air carrier's mandatory
participation in presenting advance electronic air cargo information,
CBP has concluded that one of a number of other parties would be able
to voluntarily present to CBP a part of the electronic information
required for the inbound air cargo. These parties could consist of one of the following:
(1) An ABI (Automated Broker Interface) filer as identified by its ABI filer code (this entity could be either the importer of the cargo or the importer's authorized Customs broker);
(2) A Container Freight Station/deconsolidator as identified by its FIRMS (Facilities Information and Resources Management System) code; (3) An Express Consignment Carrier Facility likewise identified by its FIRMS code; or
(4) Any air carrier as identified by its IATA (International Air Transport Authority) code, that arranged to have the incoming air carrier transport cargo to the United States.
Unlike Vessel AMS, as explained above, and Rail AMS, as discussed below, Air AMS has the existing design capabilities and functionality to, and in fact already does, accept information from parties other than the importing carrier for inward cargo shipments. The CBP expects to make this capability to supply data available to a wider group of trade members, as appropriate, and to make any systems modifications necessary to accommodate possible variations in the order in which data might be received.
Hence, along with the incoming air carrier for whom participation
in Air AMS is compulsory, any one of the foregoing parties could elect
to supply certain data for air cargo to CBP, provided that the party
established the communication protocol required by CBP for properly
presenting electronic data through the system, and provided further that the party, other than an
importer or broker, was in possession of a Customs international carrier bond containing all the necessary provisions of 19 CFR 113.64.
However, in the case of cargo shipments transported under a consolidated master air waybill, only one party could supply information for all such cargo so shipped.
It is observed that the importer or its authorized agent would be the party in the United States most likely to have direct knowledge as to particular information about the nature and destination of the cargo. Secondly, a facility, such as a Consolidator or an Express Consignment Carrier, that handled the shipment and/or arranged for its delivery to the incoming carrier, would also have access to particular information about the cargo, more so than the incoming carrier. Generally speaking, for consolidated shipments, information in the direct possession of such a facility would consist of data from its house air waybill(s) that would not be directly known by the incoming carrier.
Thus, in recognition of possible competitive relationships that a party such as a container freight station, freight forwarder, or express consignment or other carrier, might have with the incoming air carrier, such party would have the opportunity, if it so elected, to present the required information directly to CBP, as opposed to having to present this information to the inward air carrier or a service provider who would, on its behalf, transmit this information for the cargo to CBP.
In any event, it would not be realistic or feasible to seek to obligate a foreign country (government) to transmit advance cargo information for commercial cargo sent from that country to the United States; and it is submitted in this connection that section 343(a)(3)(B), as amended, clearly envisages the electronic filing of cargo information by appropriate commercial or business entities, rather than foreign governments.
Since the party from whom electronic air cargo information would be required might not necessarily, in all situations, be the party with direct knowledge of that information, CBP would take into consideration how, in accordance with ordinary commercial practices, the electronic filer acquired such information, and whether and how the filer was able to verify this information. Where the party electronically presenting the cargo information to CBP was not reasonably able to verify such information, CBP would permit the party to electronically present the information on the basis of what the party reasonably believed to be true.
There should be an exemption from the advance cargo filing requirements for aircraft that are owned or leased by the Department of Defense.
Aircraft, including public aircraft as defined in 19 CFR 122.1(i), that are exempt from entry under 19 CFR 122.41 would be exempt from advance cargo information filing under this proposed rule. It is noted that by a separate, interim rule, CBP will expand upon those aircraft that are subject to such an exemption from entry.
Participants in the CustomsTrade Partnership Against Terrorism (C TPAT), and related parties, should be excluded from the advance cargo information requirement or should be subject to a reduced time frame within which the advance cargo information must be transmitted. CBP Response
The CBP disagrees with this suggestion. However, participation in CTPAT would be considered as one factor in targeting whether cargo needed to be held upon arrival pending the receipt of further information or for examination. Such additional information, if required, would have to be made available at the port of arrival. Required Cargo Information; Availability/Correction of Data Transmitted Comment
For freight forwarders that might participate in the advance electronic filing of cargo information, it was asked what information they would specifically be required to transmit to CBP.
The specific data elements that would be required from a participating party are enumerated below under the heading ``Overview; Air Cargo Destined to the United States'' (see ``Additional Data Elements from Incoming Carriers; Other Participants''); and these data elements are also set forth in proposed Sec. 122.48a(d). A freight forwarder could be included among those parties that could participate voluntarily in electronic cargo information filing, provided that the freight forwarder was either an ABI filer, a Container Freight Station/ deconsolidator or an Express Consignment Carrier Facility; that it had posted a Customs international carrier bond containing all necessary provisions of 19 CFR 113.64; and that it had established the communication protocol required by CBP for properly presenting electronic data through the system.
The CBP should clearly define the meaning of those data elements which must be presented for inbound air cargo.
The CBP believes that the proposed data elements to be required in advance for incoming air cargo are fairly well known; however, a number of the data elements set out in the proposed regulations are accompanied by detailed explanations as to their meaning. Should it be called for, CBP will include additional definitions for those elements about which the importing air community might prefer greater elucidation.
Therefore, CBP requests comments in response to this proposed rule especially concerning those data elements contained in proposed Sec. 122.48a(d) for which the importing air community seeks additional guidance.
Most of the necessary data for incoming cargo would not necessarily be available prior to its lading aboard the aircraft. Moreover, the lineitem Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) number for air cargo would not be available prior to the departure of the aircraft. The air carrier would not always have information for cargo at the house air waybill level; and CBP should allow intransit consolidations to be reported at the master air waybill level. Also, CBP should permit an air carrier to submit electronic cargo data for shipments brought in by truck.
Because CBP proposes to require advance cargo information for incoming aircraft either no later than the time of ``wheelsup'' or no later than 4 hours prior to arrival in the United States, as applicable (and not prior to the foreign lading of the cargo aboard the aircraft), the commenters' concerns as to the availability of the necessary data for the cargo prior to foreign lading are addressed.
Nevertheless, concerning the possible unavailability of the 6digit
HTS number for the cargo prior to foreign departure, it is emphasized
that either a precise description of the cargo or its HTS 6digit
tariff subheading would be sufficient. In any case, under the [[Page 43580]]
proposal, as already explained, the lineitem HTS number for the cargo would essentially not be required prior to the departure of the aircraft for the United States.
As to the carrier not always having cargo information from the house air waybill, should another party, such as an ABI filer, elect to participate in advance automated cargo information filing, the carrier would only be responsible for transmitting information from the master air waybill. However, if another electronic filer did not participate in transmitting needed cargo information to CBP, the incoming carrier would need to obtain the house air waybill information from the relevant party for presentation to CBP.
Intransit consolidations of inbound cargo typically present the same issues of cargo safety and security as other inbound shipments. Thus, the complete house air waybill information would be required from the carrier or the other party electing to participate in advance cargo information filing. Also, should an air carrier choose to ship freight by truck, advance cargo information would be required to be presented to CBP through the truck processing system (see proposed Sec. 123.92); electronic air documents would not be accepted in lieu of advance electronic truck cargo information.
If cargo were bumped from one flight to a later flight, there should be no need to retransmit related cargo information that was previously transmitted to CBP.
Given the time frames proposed, since cargo information would essentially not be required prior to the departure of the aircraft for the United States, this issue should not present a significant concern. Comment
The CBP should allow changes and additions to electronically transmitted manifest information in accordance with current manifest discrepancy reporting policies.
Complete and accurate information would need to be presented to CBP
for cargo aboard the aircraft no later than the time period specified
for the particular foreign area from which the aircraft departs for the
United States. As for any changes in the cargo information already
transmitted for a flight, the procedures for discrepancy reporting will be the subject of a separate rulemaking.
PreDeparture Screening of Cargo; Cargo Inspections in the United States
Air cargo security is already highly regulated by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and other agencies and foreign governments. As such, there should be no predeparture screening process required for incoming air cargo. In the alternative, it was advocated that CBP should consider a CSI (Container Security Initiative)type program for air cargo. In the event that predeparture/lading information is necessary for prescreening purposes, CBP should provide a positive load/noload message to the electronic filer. Also, for cargo that may be identified as high risk, CBP should not compel inspections of such cargo at locations in the United States that are merely technical stops.
There will be no predeparturescreeningandhold process applied to air cargo under this proposal. While CBP may consider the possibility of developing a CSItype initiative for air cargo based on a number of factors, including the terrorist threat, the success of industry security programs, and the success of this rulemaking and related CBP security efforts, such a proposal falls outside the scope of this rulemaking.
In addition, inspections of cargo in the United States conducted for the purpose of ensuring cargo safety and security and for the prevention of smuggling would only be conducted if the cargo had been identified as potentially posing a safety, security or smuggling risk; and CBP would work with the carrier and other affected Government agencies to determine an appropriate location to examine such potentially highrisk cargo. In appropriate cases, however, landing rights could be denied to an incoming carrier if advance cargo information was not timely, accurately, and completely presented to CBP (see proposed Sec. 122.14).
The possible need for a carrier to retain cargo in a staging/ storage area at a foreign location in order to comply with a pre departure advance information requirement for inbound cargo would create a security risk for the cargo that would not otherwise exist. CBP Response
As indicated, the time frames proposed for the advance reporting of
air cargo information have been designed so as to preclude any need to
retain cargo in a foreign area in order to comply with the prearrival reporting mandate.
Requested Exemptions/Exclusions From Electronic Filing Requirements Comment
Advance electronic information should not be required for inbound air cargo in diplomatic pouches. Merchandise brought in by the air carrier for its own use should be exempt as well from the advance electronic information provisions. Also, letters and documents should be exempted from the detailed advance electronic cargo information submission. It was further asked whether the advance filing requirements would apply to handcarried merchandise or merchandise checked in passenger baggage.
For purposes of this rulemaking, all air cargo shipped under an air
waybill, regardless of its nature, would be subject to the advance
electronic reporting provisions. This would include diplomatic pouches
and letters and documents. Also, merchandise brought in by an air
carrier for its own use would be subject to the same advance cargo
information filing requirements that would apply to other incoming
cargo. However, handcarried merchandise and merchandise contained in
passenger baggage would not be subject to the advance cargo information
requirements in this rulemaking; such merchandise would be included in the passenger baggage declaration.
Required Information Technology; Trade Support; Transition Periods Comment
It was asked whether CBP would provide staffing for data/targeting analysis and related trade support on an aroundtheclock basis; and two commenters were insistent that CBP conduct extensive training in Air AMS filing procedures at all ports. Various concerns were also expressed as to the ability of CBP to effectively analyze advance cargo information.
An automated targeting system for performing a risk assessment for
incoming air cargo will be fully in place upon the effective date of
the final regulations. Automated data/targeting analysis for risk
assessment will be available at all times. Related trade support will be available during regular
port hours; and CBP will conduct any training that CBP personnel might need in Air AMS procedures.
To effectuate the filing of electronic cargo information under section 343(a), as amended, CBP should consider integrating advanced information technology (IT) products into its current automated manifest filing system. Additionally, the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system should be compatible with the implementing regulations. Also, there should be a grace period given under the implementing regulations in order to afford trade participants the chance to make suitable changes to their computer programming; and there should likewise be a grace period allowed during which such trade participants could bring the detail and accuracy of their advance information filing up to the level that CBP would require.
While disposed to explore any advances in IT products, CBP will largely rely, at least initially, upon the Air AMS, with appropriate future modifications, as the principal vehicle to achieve the goal of advance air cargo information presentation under section 343(a), as amended. However, any new system developed within the framework of ACE will be compatible with the implementing regulations. For this reason, therefore, the implementing regulations will refer generally to a CBP approved electronic data interchange system (rather than to Air AMS, specifically).
The CBP contemplates that, pursuant to section 343(a)(3)(J), as amended, the effective date that would be set for the final implementing regulations following their promulgation should afford sufficient time for Air AMS participants to make suitable changes to their programming for the advance transmission of cargo data; and the effective date would similarly incorporate a reasonable grace period within which Air AMS participants should be able to bring their advance data filing up to the level of detail and accuracy that CBP seeks. Specifically, the proposed effective date, and the provisions for delaying the effective date, for compliance with the advance presentation of electronic air cargo information to CBP under section 343(a), as amended, are contained in proposed Sec. 122.48a(e). Overview; Air Cargo Destined to the United States
Electronic Systems To Be Used
Air carriers, and certain other parties authorized for voluntary participation in the program, must transmit through a CBPapproved electronic data interchange system advance cargo air waybill information, in accordance with the ``Transition and Implementation Timeline'' discussed below. The current CBP system for transmitting air cargo information is the Air Automated Manifest System (Air AMS). Also, certain express consignment carriers have proprietary electronic data systems which CBP personnel can access. The CBP will permit the use of these electronic proprietary systems, provided that the participants are capable of providing the data in a suitable electronic format to CBP for the purposes of ensuring cargo safety and security and preventing smuggling, unless CBP determines that it is necessary to migrate those participants to Air AMS. In addition, these express consignment carriers will be required to provide CBP with an electronic record of the data in a CBPapproved storage medium. All other express consignment carriers, including those that currently submit information to CBP using paper documents, will be required to participate in Air AMS.
Data Submission Timelines
Air carriers and other parties electing to participate in the
program would transmit the required information to CBP no later than
the time of departure (``wheelsup'') for aircraft that are departing
for the United States from any foreign port or place in North America,
including locations in Mexico, Central America, South America (from
north of the Equator only), the Caribbean, and Bermuda. For aircraft
departing for the United States from any other foreign area, such
carriers and other parties would transmit the required information to
CBP no later than 4 hours prior to the arrival of the aircraft at the
first port of arrival in the United States. This amount of time should
enable CBP to conduct an adequate analysis of the data and to select
individual shipments for further document review or physical
examination, while not disrupting the flow of commerce and ``justin time'' delivery systems.
Parties Required/Eligible To Present Advance Electronic Cargo Information
All carriers required to enter under Sec. 122.41, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 122.41), would be required to participate in the electronic data interchange system and present the necessary cargo information to CBP.
The carrier will only need to be automated at each port where entrance and clearance of the aircraft is required. Incoming air carriers and other authorized parties who choose to do so may participate in Air AMS until CBP migrates to a different processing system. For this reason, the implementing regulations will refer only to a ``CBPapproved electronic data interchange system'' in order to accommodate the future migration to any superseding data processing systems.
In addition to an incoming air carrier for whom participation will be mandatory, one of the following parties may elect to transmit particular data to CBP for incoming cargo: an ABI filer (importer or its Customs broker); a Container Freight Station/deconsolidator as identified by its FIRMS code; an Express Consignment Carrier Facility likewise identified by its FIRMS code; or an air carrier as identified by its IATA code, that arranged to have the incoming air carrier transport the cargo to the United States. To be qualified to file cargo information electronically, the party would need to establish the communication protocol required by CBP for properly presenting electronic information through the data interchange system; and, except for an importer or broker, the party would have to possess a Customs international carrier bond containing all the necessary provisions of 19 CFR 113.64.
Consequently, the carrier will either have to obtain all the needed cargo shipment information for presentation to CBP, or the carrier will need to obtain the unique identifier of the party that will separately transmit to CBP a portion of the required data for the cargo; the other party's unique identifier code would have to accompany the carrier's data transmission to CBP, so that CBP could associate the subject cargo shipment with both electronic transmissions related to the cargo.
Permission to unlade all or part of the cargo could be denied or delayed, and penalties and/or liquidated damages could be assessed, where the air carrier or other electronic filer transmitted inaccurate, incomplete or untimely information to CBP.
Information Required From Air Carriers
An incoming air carrier would need to transmit all of the necessary
information for nonconsolidated air waybills. For consolidated
shipments: the carrier would have to present to CBP all the required information from the master air
waybill record; and the carrier would supply all the information for associated house air waybill records where another authorized party did not electronically transmit information for the associated house air waybills directly to CBP. If another approved party did transmit the information, the carrier would not be required to electronically supply such information.
The carrier would still be required under 19 U.S.C. 1431 to have a manifest for all cargo aboard the aircraft, whether that cargo was manifested under a nonconsolidated air waybill or a house air waybill that was part of a consolidation.
These proposed regulations apply to air cargo that would be entered into the United States, as well as to intransit air cargo including any cargo which remained aboard the aircraft on the same through flight.
Specific Data Elements; Air Carriers
In the following listing of data elements for air carriers, an
``M'' next to any element indicates that the data element would be
mandatory in all cases; a ``C'' next to the data element indicates that
the data element was conditional and would be transmitted to CBP if the condition were present for that particular air waybill.
(1) Air waybill number (M) (The air waybill number is the International Air Transport Association (IATA) standard 11digit number);
(2) Trip/flight number (M);
(3) Carrier/ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) code (M) (The approved electronic data interchange system supports both 3 and 2character ICAO codes, provided that the final digit of the 2 character code is not a numeric value);
(4) Airport of arrival (M) (The 3alpha character ICAO code corresponding to the first airport of arrival in the Customs territory of the United States (for example, Chicago O'Hare = ORD; Los Angeles International Airport = LAX));
(5) Airport of origin (M) (The 3alpha character ICAO code corresponding to the airport from which a shipment began its transportation by air to the United States (for example, if a shipment began its transportation from Hong Kong (HKG), and it transits through Narita, Japan (NRT), en route to the United States, the airport of origin is HKG, not NRT));
(6) Scheduled date of arrival (M);
(7) Total quantity based on the smallest external packing unit (M) (for example, 2 pallets containing 50 pieces each would be considered as 100, not 2);
(8) Total weight (M) (may be expressed in either pounds or kilograms);
(9) Cargo description (M) (for consolidated shipments, the word ``Consolidation'' is a sufficient description for the master air waybill record; for nonconsolidated shipments, a precise cargo description or the 6digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) number must be provided);
(10) Shipper name and address (M) (for consolidated shipments, this may be the name and address of the consolidator, express consignment or other carrier, for the master air waybill record; for nonconsolidated shipments, this must be the name and address of the actual shipper (the owner and exporter) of the merchandise from the foreign country); (11) Consignee name and address (M) (for consolidated shipments, this may be the name and address of the container freight station, express consignment or other carrier, for the master air waybill record; for nonconsolidated shipments, this must be the name and address of the party to whom the cargo will be delivered, with the exception of ``FROB'' (Foreign Cargo Remaining On Board));
(12) Consolidation identifier (C);
(13) Split shipment indicator (C) (this data element includes information indicating the particular portion of the split shipment that will arrive; the boarded quantity of that portion of the split shipment (based on the smallest external packing unit); and the boarded weight of that portion of the split shipment (expressed in either pounds or kilograms));
(14) Permit to proceed information (C) (this element includes the permittoproceed destination airport (the 3alpha character ICAO code corresponding to the permittoproceed destination airport); and the scheduled date of arrival at the permittoproceed destination airport);
(15) Identifier of other party which is to submit additional air waybill information (C);
(16) Inbond information (C) (this data element includes the destination airport; the international/domestic identifier (the inbond type indicator); the inbond control number, if there is one (C); and the onward carrier identifier, if applicable (C)); and
(17) Local transfer facility (C).
Additional Data Elements From Incoming Carriers; Other Participants
In addition to the data elements listed in items ``1'' through
``17'' above, the incoming air carrier, or another eligible electronic
filer electing to do so, must transmit the following information to CBP for the inward cargo:
(1) The master air waybill number and the associated house air waybill number (M) (the house air waybill number may be up to 12 alphanumeric characters (each alphanumeric character that is indicated on the paper house air waybill document must be included in the electronic transmission; alpha characters may not be eliminated)); (2) Foreign airport of origin (M) (The 3alpha character ICAO code corresponding to the airport from which a shipment began its transportation by air to the United States (for example, if a shipment began its transportation from Hong Kong (HKG), and it transits through Narita, Japan (NRT), en route to the United States, the airport of origin is HKG, not NRT));
(3) Cargo description (M) (a precise description of the cargo or the 6digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) number must be provided. Generic descriptions, specifically those such as ``FAK'' (``freight of all kinds''), ``general cargo'', and ``STC'' (``said to contain'') are not acceptable);
(4) Total quantity based on the smallest external packing unit (M) (for example, 2 pallets containing 50 pieces each would be considered as 100, not 2);
(5) Total weight of cargo (M) (may be expressed in either pounds or kilograms);
(6) Shipper name and address (M) (the name and address of the actual shipper (the owner and exporter) of the cargo from the foreign country);
(7) Consignee name and address (M) (the name and address of the party to whom the cargo will be delivered in the United States, with the exception of ``FROB''); and
(8) Inbond information (C) (this data element includes the destination airport; the international/domestic identifier (the inbond type indicator); the inbond control number, if there is one (C); and the onward carrier identifier, if applicable (C)).
Advance Electronic Information for Letters and Documents
For purposes of compliance with the advance cargo information
filing requirements under section 343(a), as amended, letters and
documents would be subject to the same procedures as all other types of
cargo. Such ``letters and documents'' comprise the data (for example,
business records and diagrams) described in General Note 19(c),
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS); personal
correspondence, whether on paper, cards, photographs, tapes, or other
media; and securities and similar evidence of value described in subheading 4907, HTSUS, but not
including monetary instruments covered under 31 U.S.C. 53015322. Electronic Freight Status Notifications
If the facility (carrier, deconsolidator, or other party) currently holding the goods was automated, that party would have to honor all freight status notifications transmitted by CBP. Cargo could not be transferred to another facility, moved under the provisions of the in bond regulations or released to the consignee except upon electronic status notifications from CBP. Should the cargo be transferred to a nonautomated facility (e.g., a Container Freight Station, a carrier facility in another port, or the like), that facility would be required to accept only paper documents for the disposition of the cargo. Transition and Implementation Timeline
All air carriers, and those authorized parties that choose to participate in presenting advance cargo information electronically to CBP through the approved automated system, would be expected to comply with the provisions of these regulations on and after 90 days from the date that the final rule in this matter is published in the Federal Register. However, CBP could delay the implementation of the final regulations at a given port until the necessary training had been provided to CBP personnel at that port. Also, CBP could delay the effective date of the final regulations in the event that any essential programming changes to the applicable CBPapproved electronic data interchange system were not in place. Finally, CBP could delay the effective date of the regulations if further time were required to complete certification testing of new participants. Any such delay would be the subject of a notice provided through the Federal Register Electronic System Failure; Downtime
Should the approved electronic data interchange system go down, the
incoming air carrier and, if applicable, any other electronic filer
would have to submit a hard copy equivalent of all required electronic
cargo information to CBP either no later than ``wheelsup'' or no later
than 4 hours prior to the arrival of the aircraft in the United States,
depending upon the foreign area from which the incoming aircraft departs for the United States.
Comments; Rail Cargo Destined to the United States
Time Frame for Transmitting Information; Impact on Commerce Comment
Various suggestions were made regarding the time in which advance rail cargo data would need to be electronically presented to CBP. Specifically, the following time frames were put forth: 4 hours prior to departure for the United States; 4 hours prior to arrival in the United States; 2 hours prior to arrival; and under 2 hours prior to arrival. By contrast, it was stated that the time frame set forth in the ``strawman'' proposal (24 hours prior to lading in the foreign country) was unworkable/unrealistic. It was also stated that any time frame that CBP proposed should not adversely impact ``justintime'' shipping practices.
The time frame in the ``strawman'' was put forth only as a perfunctory proposal, merely for the purpose of eliciting feedback from the trade in order to assist CBP in developing an appropriate time frame for inclusion in the proposed regulations. After considering the various recommendations from the rail trade, CBP agrees with those commenters who recommended that electronic cargo data for incoming rail cargo be presented no later than 2 hours prior to the arrival of the cargo at a United States port of entry.
The CBP is of the opinion that this minimum 2hour period for presenting rail cargo information electronically in advance of arrival is a reasonable and practical time frame for the submission of the necessary cargo data, and one that should not disrupt the flow of rail commerce into the country. This view is based in large part on the understan
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Legal matters: Glen E. Vereb, Office of Regulations and Rulings, (202) 5728724;
Trade compliance issues:
Inbound vessel cargo: Kimberly Nott, Field Operations, 202927 0042;
Inbound air cargo: David M. King, Field Operations, 2029271133;
Inbound truck cargo: Enrique Tamayo, Field Operations, 202927 3112;
Inbound rail cargo: Juan CancioBello, Field Operations, 202927 3459;
Outbound cargo, all modes: Erika Unangst, Field Operations, 202 9270284;
For economic impact issues: Daniel J. Norman, Field Operations, 2029274305.