Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements, 90-113 [E7-25306]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
• Bureau of Customs and Border Protection

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 2, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 90-113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-25306]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: https://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 https://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 https://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 
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 S