Rule2023-22170
Regulatory Implementation of the Centers of Excellence and Expertise
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 5, 2023
Effective
November 6, 2023
Issuing agencies
Homeland Security DepartmentU.S. Customs and Border Protection
Abstract
This document adopts as final, without change, interim amendments made to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations by CBP Decision 16-26, as modified by a subsequent technical correction, CBP Decision 19-11. The interim amendments established the Centers of Excellence and Expertise (Centers) as a permanent organizational component of the agency. The interim amendments shifted certain trade functions to the Centers and identified other trade functions jointly carried out by port directors and Center directors. The interim amendments provided broad, centralized decision-making authority to the Centers to enable the Centers to facilitate trade, reduce transaction costs, increase compliance with applicable import laws, and achieve uniformity of treatment at ports of entry for identified industries.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69026-69034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22170]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
19 CFR Parts 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 24, 54, 101, 102, 103, 113, 132,
133, 134, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 151, 152, 158, 159,
161, 162, 163, 173, 174, 176, and 181
[USCBP-2016-0075; CBP Dec. 23-12]
RIN 1651-AB02
Regulatory Implementation of the Centers of Excellence and
Expertise
AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document adopts as final, without change, interim
amendments made to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
regulations by CBP Decision 16-26, as modified by a subsequent
technical correction, CBP Decision 19-11. The interim amendments
established the Centers of Excellence and Expertise (Centers) as a
permanent organizational component of the agency. The interim
amendments shifted certain trade functions to the Centers and
identified other trade functions jointly carried out by port directors
and Center directors. The interim amendments provided broad,
centralized decision-making authority to the Centers to enable the
Centers to facilitate trade, reduce transaction costs, increase
compliance with applicable import laws, and achieve uniformity of
treatment at ports of entry for identified industries.
DATES: This final rule is effective November 6, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori Whitehurst, Office of Field
Operations, Cargo and Conveyance Security, Trade Operations Division,
at (202) 344-2536, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d8b4b7aab1f6b2f6afb0b1acbdb0adaaabac98bbbaa8f6bcb0abf6bfb7ae"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="563a39243f783c78213e3f22333e232425221635342678323e2578313920">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background and Summary
A. Purpose of the Centers of Excellence and Expertise (Centers)
B. Test Program Developing the Centers
C. Interim Final Rule
D. Technical Correction
II. Discussion of Comments
A. Overview
B. Responses to Comments
III. Conclusion
IV. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
Signing Authority
Amendments to CBP Regulations
I. Background and Summary
A. Purpose of the Centers of Excellence and Expertise (Centers)
Prior to the implementation of the Centers of Excellence and
Expertise (Centers), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) processed
imports on a port-by-port basis. Due to CBP's port-by-port trade
processing authority, importers claimed disparate processing treatment
for similar goods entered at different ports of entry, causing trade
disruptions, increased transaction costs, and information lapses. In
response, CBP established 10 Centers with broad, centralized decision-
making authority to facilitate trade, reduce transaction costs,
increase compliance with applicable
[[Page 69027]]
import laws, and achieve uniformity of treatment at the ports of entry
for identified industry sectors. The Centers focus on nationwide entry
summary processing and other trade oversight on a per-importer account
basis through a single assigned Center, replacing traditional post-
summary processing for each entry at each port of entry. The port
directors continue to retain sole authority over the control, movement,
and release of cargo.
The Centers are managed from strategic locations around the
country, permitting CBP to focus its trade expertise on industry-
specific issues and provide tailored support for importers. The Centers
and the cities wherein each management office is located are as
follows: (1) Agriculture & Prepared Products, Miami, Florida; (2)
Apparel, Footwear & Textiles, San Francisco, California; (3) Automotive
& Aerospace, Detroit, Michigan; (4) Base Metals, Chicago, Illinois; (5)
Consumer Products & Mass Merchandising, Atlanta, Georgia; (6)
Electronics, Long Beach, California; (7) Industrial & Manufacturing
Materials, Buffalo, New York; (8) Machinery, Laredo, Texas; (9)
Petroleum, Natural Gas & Minerals, Houston, Texas; and (10)
Pharmaceuticals, Health & Chemicals, New York, New York. For a more
detailed discussion of the scope of industries covered by each Center,
please refer to the Interim Final Rule discussed in further detail in
Sec. I.C below.
B. Test Program Developing the Centers
The Centers concept developed as a result of discussions between
CBP and the Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC),
which advises the Commissioner of CBP, the Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Secretary of the Department of the
Treasury (Treasury) on the commercial operations of CBP and related DHS
and Treasury functions. See Section 109, Public Law 114-125, 130 Stat.
122 (Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (TFTEA)).
In 2012, CBP developed a test to incrementally transition the
operational trade functions that traditionally resided with port
directors to the Centers. The purpose of the test was to broaden the
ability of the Centers to make decisions by waiving certain identified
regulations to the extent necessary to provide the Center directors,
who manage the Centers, with the authority to make the decisions
normally reserved for the port directors. On August 28, 2012, CBP
published the first of three General Notices in the Federal Register
(Announcement of Test Providing Centralized Decision-Making Authority
for Four CBP Centers of Excellence and Expertise, 77 FR 52048)
announcing a general test (the Centers test) open to participants from
industries covered by the Electronics Center, the Pharmaceuticals,
Health & Chemicals Center, the Automotive & Aerospace Center, and the
Petroleum, Natural Gas & Minerals Center. CBP modified the Centers test
in two subsequent Federal Register notices published on April 4, 2013
(Modification and Expansion of CBP Centers of Excellence and Expertise
Test to Include Six Additional Centers, 78 FR 20345) and March 10, 2014
(Centers of Excellence and Expertise Test; Modifications, 79 FR 13322).
Over the course of the Centers test, the decision-making authority
of the Center directors was incrementally broadened. On September 11,
2014, the then-serving Commissioner of CBP, R. Gil Kerlikowske, signed
Delegation Order 14-004, which expanded the Center directors' decision-
making authority by delegating to the Center directors all functions,
authorities, rights, privileges, powers, and duties vested in port
directors by law, regulation, or otherwise. The delegation enabled
these functions, authorities, rights, privileges, powers, and duties to
be exercised concurrently by port directors and Center directors.
C. Interim Final Rule (IFR)
Section 110 of TFTEA required the development and implementation of
the Centers. Accordingly, on December 20, 2016, CBP published an
interim final rule, CBP Decision (CBP Dec.) 16-26 (Centers IFR), in the
Federal Register (Regulatory Implementation of the Centers of
Excellence and Expertise, 81 FR 92978), amending title 19 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (19 CFR) and establishing the Centers as a
permanent organizational component of the agency. Furthering the
Centers' trade enhancement goals, the Centers IFR implemented the
Centers' broad decision-making authority by amending parts of title 19
of the CFR to: (1) define the Centers and the Center directors; (2)
modify the definition of the term ``port director'' in order to
distinguish the port directors' functions from the Center directors'
functions; (3) identify the Center management offices; (4) explain the
process by which importers are assigned to the Centers based on the
predominant Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
tariff classification of the importer's goods; (5) establish an appeals
process that allows an importer to contest its assignment to a specific
Center; (6) identify the regulatory functions that have been
transitioned from the port directors to the Center directors and those
functions that the port directors and the Center directors carry out
jointly; (7) clarify that certain payments and documents may continue
to be submitted at the ports of entry and electronically; and (8)
provide a list of industries covered by each of the Centers. A limited
number of responsibilities and authorities that had been provided to
the Center directors under the Centers test were not transitioned to
the Centers as part of the interim amendments.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 81 FR 92978 (December 20, 2016) for a detailed list of
responsibilities and authorities that had been previously provided
to the Center directors as part of the Centers test but were not
transitioned to the Centers as part of the interim amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Technical Correction
On September 5, 2019, CBP published a technical correction, CBP
Dec. 19-11, (Technical Correction), in the Federal Register (84 FR
46676) to correct discrepancies in 19 CFR 12.73(j) and 141.113(b) to
properly reflect the authority of the Center directors. Following the
publication of an unrelated final rule in the Federal Register on
December 27, 2016 (81 FR 94974), Sec. 12.73(j) contained an
inconsistency that was corrected to reflect that both the Center
directors and port directors have the authority to collect certain U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declarations, and the Center
directors, rather than the port directors, have the authority to extend
the submission deadline for such EPA declarations. Additionally, an
inadvertent omission in the amendatory instructions to Sec. 141.113(b)
was corrected to replace the word ``port director'' with the word
``Center director.''
II. Discussion of Comments
A. Overview
Pursuant to the agency management or personnel exemption in 5
U.S.C. 553(a)(2), the agency organization, procedure, and practice
exemption in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), and the good cause exemption in 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the interim regulatory amendments were promulgated
without prior public notice and comment procedures. However, the
Centers IFR provided for the submission of public comments that would
be considered before adopting the interim amendments as a final rule.
The prescribed 30-day public comment period closed on January 19, 2017.
[[Page 69028]]
One of the comments that CBP received during the initial 30-day
public comment period requested a 60-day extension of the 30-day public
comment period. In response to the comment and to allow for as much
public participation as possible in the formulation of the final rule,
on January 27, 2017, CBP extended the initial 30-day public comment
period for another 60 days until March 20, 2017 (82 FR 8588). During
the public comment period, CBP received eight comments, six of which
were within the scope of the Centers IFR.\2\ CBP has carefully
considered all comments submitted in response to the Centers IFR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Eight public comments were submitted to the docket for the
Centers IFR; however, two comments were not posted to
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> as they were deemed out of scope. Neither of the
two comments addressed the Centers and both comments were directed
to other agencies regarding other programs. Accordingly, these two
comments are not considered in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All comments were supportive of the implementation of the Centers
as a permanent organizational component of the agency. Nonetheless,
several commenters had concerns or questions about specific aspects of
the Centers' organization and operations. A description of these
comments, together with CBP's analysis, is set forth below.
B. Responses to Comments
Comment: Two commenters expressed general approval of the Centers,
with one commenter, a law firm, stating that the Centers constitute a
vast improvement over the disjointed and inconsistent treatment of
entries that resulted from the administration of imports on a port-by-
port basis, reflecting the goals of increased administrative
efficiencies noted in the Centers IFR cost-benefit analysis. The
commenter especially highlighted its positive experience in working
with various Centers.
Response: The Centers represent a new approach to trade processing
that is more in line with the trade community's current business
practices, and CBP is pleased to know that the trade community shares
the view that the Centers enhance compliance, collaboration, and
efficiency.
Comment: One commenter expressed concerns regarding coordination
between the Centers and ports, as well as the procedures pertaining to
the assignment of importers to the Centers. According to the commenter,
the lack of procedures and policies that govern how the Centers and
ports coordinate with each other creates difficulties in determining
which component serves as the primary decision-maker and/or point of
contact regarding these matters. While the commenter acknowledged that
the assignment of importers to the Centers may provide clarification as
to which component serves as the primary decision-maker and/or point of
contact, the commenter also raised additional concerns and questions
regarding the assignment of importers to the Centers.
First, the commenter noted that the assignment of importers to the
Centers on an account basis rather than based on the predominant
commodities of each entry constitutes a reversal of a policy that CBP
announced in 2016 for entries requiring review, such that an importer
could end up dealing with multiple Centers, for different entries.
Second, the commenter inquired whether CBP is prepared to properly
allocate importers to the Centers based on their account activity and
business model. Specifically, the commenter inquired about the process
by which CBP assigns importers with minimal account activity throughout
the year to the Centers, and how the Centers coordinate with each other
when an importer was assigned to one Center on an account level but
enters a small number of shipments with predominant HTSUS tariff
classifications covered by a different Center.
Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter's assertion that a lack
of coordination in the concurrent decision-making authority of port
directors and Center directors creates uncertainty as to which
component serves as the point of contact and primary decision-maker.
Either the amended regulations or the corresponding CBP Form specifies
which component should be contacted regarding these matters. In order
to better enable the Centers to accomplish their trade mission (that
is, to strategically enforce commercial import laws while also
facilitating the flow of legitimate trade), the regulatory, permanent
implementation of the Centers required CBP to make minor adjustments to
the Centers' authorities and responsibilities, and CBP's internal
policies and procedures. For example, in order to achieve full end-to-
end processing of import activity, CBP updated its internal policies
and procedures to provide for the required level of coordination and
collaboration between the Centers and the ports, including creating
instances of concurrent decision-making authority between the Center
directors and port directors during the Centers implementation process.
Additionally, the Centers IFR included minor modifications to the
Centers' responsibilities and authorities, and the process by which
importers are assigned to the Centers. Therefore, CBP recognizes that
the regulatory implementation of the Centers as a permanent
organizational component of the agency has required an adjustment
period during which the trade community must become acquainted with the
modified processes, including which component serves as the primary
decision-maker for certain trade functions and the process by which
importers are assigned to the Centers. CBP appreciates the comment as
it provided CBP with an opportunity to guide the trade community
through the adjustment process.
The Centers centralize and consolidate post-release activities of
importers on an account basis. Generally, each importer is assigned to
a Center based on the predominant HTSUS tariff classification of the
importer's imported goods. Once an importer has been assigned to a
specific Center, that Center will process all of the importer's entry
summaries, regardless of the predominant HTSUS tariff classification of
a specific entry. For example, an importer whose imports are 75 percent
footwear and 25 percent miscellaneous items will be assigned to the
Center for Apparel, Footwear and Textiles. Once the importer has been
assigned to the Center for Apparel, Footwear and Textiles, all of the
importer's activities will be processed by that Center, regardless of
whether the predominant HTSUS tariff classification of a specific entry
relates to a different industry sector.
The processing of trade activity on an account basis does not
prevent the Centers from providing tailored support to importers and
handling industry-specific issues. When it is necessary to leverage
another Center's expertise, the Centers coordinate with each other, and
CBP has streamlined the coordination process over time. However, over
time, the Centers have developed a more proficient level of knowledge
of their accounts and import activities, which has enabled the Centers
to administer trade activity more independently.
In order to ensure that an importer is assigned to the Center that
corresponds with the importer's business model, the assignment process
differs slightly in a limited number of circumstances. For example, CBP
may assign an importer to a Center other than the Center reflecting the
predominant HTSUS tariff classification of the importer's goods, if
such deviation from the regular assignment process is supported by
information such as: (1) the importer's associated business practice
within an industry; (2) the intended use of the predominant number of
goods imported;
[[Page 69029]]
and (3) the high relative value of the imported goods. Additionally,
since the business practices of brokers do not align within a
particular industry sector, the import activities of brokers acting as
Importers of Record (IORs) are processed on an entry-by-entry basis,
meaning that each entry summary will be assigned to a specific Center
based on the entry summary's predominant HTSUS tariff classification.
Import activities of importers with minimal account activity throughout
the year who have not yet been assigned to a specific Center are
processed similarly. Furthermore, importers are permitted to appeal the
assignment to a Center at any time and can seek re-assignment to a
different Center. See 19 CFR 101.10(c). As a result, CBP finds that the
current assignment process properly allocates importers to Centers
based on the importers' account activity and business models.
Comment: One commenter requested that CBP assign entries filed by
express courier brokers to the Centers on the basis of the overall
post-release account activity of the ship-to party, or in the
alternative, create a separate Center for express courier brokers.
According to the commenter, the exclusion of express courier brokers
from participation in the Centers model is anathema to the purpose of
the Centers--that is, to focus CBP's trade expertise on industry-
specific issues and tailored support for importers. The commenter
explained that, although express courier brokers serve as IORs on
entries, the predominant tariff classification of the entries is not
driven by the express courier broker's business model but the business
model of the ship-to party (formerly known as consignee), who serves as
the party causing the importation and often serves as an IOR itself on
other (unrelated) entries. Accordingly, the commenter requested that
CBP assign entries filed by express courier brokers to the Centers on
the basis of the overall post-release account activity of the ship-to
party, instead of the post-release account activity of the importer of
record (that is, the express courier broker), or in the alternative,
create a separate Center for express courier brokers.
Response: CBP appreciates the comment as it underscores the
importance of the roles of filers and brokers in the importation
process and agrees that express courier brokers do not squarely fit
within one of the ten defined industry sectors because their business
practices cross all industry sectors. Nonetheless, CBP finds that the
Centers are well equipped to handle the activities of express courier
brokers as they fit within the trade community's overall business
practices.
The Centers process trade activity from a national perspective, at
the IOR and ultimate consignee level, and, therefore, have full
visibility into the trade community's normal business practices,
including the activities of express courier brokers. Like the trade
activities of other brokers acting as IORs, the import activities of
express courier brokers are also processed on an entry-by-entry basis,
meaning that each entry summary will be assigned to a specific Center
based on the entry summary's predominant HTSUS tariff classification.
As such, it is CBP's position that the Centers are well equipped to
handle the activities of express courier brokers because the Centers'
current operating model accounts for the fact that express courier
brokers enter merchandise across all industry sectors.
Express courier brokers are not excluded from participation in the
Centers model, as the commenter suggested. To the contrary, the Centers
have gained experience on industry-specific issues, which has led to an
improved level of service to express courier brokers. This includes the
creation of cross-educational opportunities that will serve to inform
express courier brokers on compliance issues and CBP on the trade
community's current business practices, including the express courier
brokers' processes. CBP is committed to ensuring that the business
processes of all members of the trade community are accounted for in
the Centers' operational approach and continues to strengthen
relationships in a coordinated effort to secure the U.S. economy
through lawful trade and travel.
Comment: One commenter commended CBP on the creation of the Centers
but suggested several minor technical revisions to the language of the
CBP regulations pertaining to the Centers (Centers regulations). For
example, the commenter noted that several provisions of the Centers
regulations provide that certain documents or payments may be filed
with CBP, ``either at the port of entry or electronically.'' The
commenter explained that the phrase ``either at the port of entry or
electronically'' implies that the Centers only accept electronic
submissions of these types of documents or payments. The commenter also
noted that, in the context of paragraph (b) of section 174.12, the
phrase conflicts with the regulatory language in paragraph (d), which
permits but does not require electronic filing.
Additionally, the commenter pointed out that the fact that protests
filed with the Centers can cover entries filed at multiple ports of
entry constitutes a major change to CBP's protest procedures, and as
such, should be highlighted in the regulatory text. Therefore, the
commenter requested that CBP amend paragraph (d) of section 174.12 by
adding the following sentence: ``A protest filed with the Center
director may include entries filed at multiple ports of entry.''
Response: CBP understands that the implementation of the Centers
led to an initial adjustment period during which members of the trade
community had to become acquainted with the Centers' processes,
including the submission process for documents and payments. While CBP
believes that any uncertainty as to the submission process was resolved
as part of the initial adjustment period, CBP appreciates the comment
as it provides CBP with an opportunity to clear up any potentially
remaining uncertainty.
The use of the phrase ``either at the port of entry or
electronically'' does not imply that the Centers only accept electronic
submissions of certain documents and payments, as suggested by the
commenter. As part of the transition of certain trade functions from
the ports of entry to the Centers, the Centers IFR shifted certain
staff positions from the port directors' chain of command to the Center
directors' chain of command. While the reallocated personnel now report
to a Center director rather than a port director, the reallocated
personnel continue to handle the same trade functions. In order to
remain accessible to the trade community and to assist with enforcement
and compliance issues as they arise, the reallocated personnel remain
in their previous locations--primarily, at the ports of entry. The
realignment was merely virtual. Thus, in the phrase ``either at the
port of entry or electronically,'' the use of the preposition ``at''
(rather than ``with'') establishes that hard copies of the documents or
payments can be filed at the ports of entry (with staff of either the
port of entry or the Centers). Like electronic submissions, the
submissions will then be forwarded to and processed by the Center
assigned to that particular submission.
Additionally, CBP disagrees that it is necessary to amend paragraph
(d) of section 174.12 to further clarify that a single protest can now
pertain to multiple entries filed at multiple ports of entry. CBP finds
that the regulatory
[[Page 69030]]
language in paragraph (b) of section 174.13 sufficiently establishes
that a single protest can now pertain to multiple entries filed at
multiple ports of entry.
III. Conclusion
Based on the analysis of the comments and further consideration,
CBP adopts as final the interim rule (Centers IFR), CBP Dec. 16-26,
published in the Federal Register (81 FR 92978) on December 20, 2016,
as modified by the Technical Correction, CBP Dec. 19-11, published in
the Federal Register (84 FR 46676) on September 5, 2019, without
changes.
IV. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866
Executive Orders 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)
and 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended by Executive
Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review), direct agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, and if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
This rule has not been designated a ``significant regulatory action,''
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive
Order 14094. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB).
1. Purpose of the Rule
Prior to the launch of the Centers test, CBP port directors
overseeing imports were solely responsible for facilitating lawful
importation; protecting U.S. revenue by assessing and collecting
customs duties, taxes, and fees; and detecting, interdicting, and
investigating illegal international trafficking in arms, munitions,
counterfeit goods, currency, and acts of terrorism at their U.S. port
of entry. Before the implementation of the Centers, when a shipment
reached the United States, the IOR (i.e., the owner, purchaser, or
licensed customs broker designated by the owner, purchaser, or
consignee) would file entry documents and a bond for the imported goods
with the director of the port where the merchandise was entered. If
necessary, CBP staff working under the port director would then hold or
examine the shipment or validate the entry documents to ensure the
merchandise's safety, security, and customs compliance with U.S.
importing guidelines, or its general admissibility. The port director
would release the shipment from CBP's custody if no legal or regulatory
violations occurred, allowing post-cargo release (hereafter, post-
release) processing to commence. Within 10 working days of the
merchandise's entry at a designated customhouse, CBP would require the
importer to file entry summary documentation consisting of the entry
package returned to the importer, broker, or authorized agent by CBP at
the time the merchandise was released and an entry summary (CBP Form
7501), and to deposit any estimated duties on the shipment. In some
cases, CBP would send a formal request for other invoices and documents
(via CBP Form 28: Request for Information) to the importer to assess
duties, collect statistics, or determine that import requirements have
been satisfied prior to processing the entry summary. Before completing
the importation process, CBP Import Specialists and Entry Specialists
working under the port director would review and process all entry
summary and related documentation; classify and appraise the
merchandise; collect final duties, taxes, and fees on the goods
entered; and liquidate entry summaries. If necessary, the CBP trade
personnel would also review and process protests, perform importer
interviews, and initiate monetary trade penalties and liquidated
damages cases.
Due to CBP's port-by-port trade processing authority and scope,
elements of the cargo entry and release process, such as holds, exams,
document submission requirements, and final determinations regarding
admissibility, varied widely among ports of entry and resulted in the
length of the process varying greatly as well. Importers often claimed
to receive disparate processing treatment for similar goods entered at
different ports of entry, causing trade disruptions, increased
transaction costs, and information lapses for not only the importer but
also CBP. With an intent to facilitate trade, provide consistent import
processing treatment, reduce transaction costs, and strengthen the
agency's trade knowledge and enforcement posture, CBP began testing an
organizational concept in 2011 that grouped agency trade expertise and
operational responsibilities by industry and related import accounts
into designated Centers.
Since the commencement of the Centers test, the Centers have
successfully met their trade enhancement goals. Based on the Centers
test's success, CBP published the Centers IFR in the Federal Register
(81 FR 92978) on December 20, 2016, which discontinued the Centers test
and established the Centers as permanent organizational components of
CBP through regulatory amendments. The Centers regulations were later
modified by the Technical Correction published in the Federal Register
(84 FR 46676) on September 5, 2019.
This rule adopts the Centers IFR, as modified by the Technical
Correction, as a final rule, without changes, and finalizes the
transition of certain trade enforcement responsibilities and the
majority of post-release trade functions from the purview of port
directors to Center directors.\3\ Port directors continue to retain
singular authority over matters pertaining to the control, movement,
examination, and release of cargo. The Centers focus on nationwide
entry summary processing and other trade oversight on a per-importer
account basis through virtual means, which replaces traditional post-
release import processing per entry at each port of entry with
processing by a single assigned Center according to the importer
account. To conduct such national, industry-focused processing, CBP has
permanently staffed the Centers with personnel specializing in trade
matters through an internal realignment, which imposed no costs on CBP.
Centers personnel have generally remained at their previous locations,
primarily at ports of entry, to stay accessible to the trade community
and continue to assist with enforcement and compliance issues that
arise at ports of entry with the physical importation of cargo. CBP
remotely manages Centers employees through multidisciplinary teams
located across the nation, thereby enabling CBP to extend the Centers'
hours of service to trade members, maintain a high level of industry
expertise in major port cities, and staff the Centers with industry
experts from across the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 81 FR 92978, 92983-93003 (December 20, 2016) and 84 FR
46676, 46677 (September 5, 2019), for a detailed list of trade
function transitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Costs and Benefits of Rule
Since CBP received no comments critical of the economic impact
analysis on the interim final rule, and one positive comment generally
reflecting the analysis, and because CBP is not
[[Page 69031]]
making any changes in the final rule, CBP largely adopts the Centers
IFR's economic analysis, with updated data. CBP also made minor changes
to the analysis to better reflect how the rule was implemented in
practice. In this regulatory impact analysis, CBP discusses the costs
and benefits that CBP and trade members experience with the regulatory
implementation of the Centers in qualitative and, when possible,
quantitative or monetary terms. CBP incurred sunk costs related to
travel, equipment, and supplies and materials, as well as some other
costs during the Centers test phase, related to establishing and
transitioning to Centers, totaling approximately $760,000 from 2012 to
February of 2014. The document ``Program Assessment of the Centers of
Excellence and Expertise,'' available in the docket, assesses the
impacts of the Centers test phase in more detail. As in the analysis
for the interim final rule, we do not include these costs as costs of
the rule. We report them here to give the reader a more complete
understanding of the costs for the entire lifecycle of the Centers,
including the test period.
For the purpose of this analysis, the complete Centers rulemaking
effort, including the Regulatory Implementation of the Centers of
Excellence and Expertise interim final rule, the Technical Correction
to Centers of Excellence and Expertise Regulations, and this final
rule, are collectively referred to as ``the Centers rule'' or ``this
rule.''
a. Costs
This rule introduces minimal costs to CBP and the trade community
because it largely meets its objectives through low- to no-cost
internal organization changes. The transition of post-release import
processing and trade-related responsibilities from ports of entry to
the Centers neither affects the duties, taxes, and fees payment and
entry summary submission processes for importers, nor does it adversely
affect other post-release activities (e.g., processing duty refund
claims, reviewing protests). Even with the Centers, importers may
continue to file payments and paper entry summary documentation with
CBP either at the port of entry or electronically. All payments from
the trade community, whether submitted to a Center, at a port of entry,
or electronically, continue to go directly to CBP's Office of Finance.
If trade enforcement or post-release processing issues emerge, CBP
continues to maintain its formal importer notification and remedy
processes. Upholding these administrative processes generates no
related costs to the agency.
At the time the Centers IFR was published, CBP anticipated that if
an importer or broker submitted paper entry summary documentation at a
port of entry without an appropriate Center representative on site, CBP
staff at the port would reroute the documents internally by electronic
means to the Center assigned to manage the importer's account. In
practice, electronic rerouting has been found to be unnecessary due to
the implementation of the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE);
therefore, CBP incurs no cost for document rerouting as predicted in
the Centers IFR.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Source: CBP's Office of Field Operations, February 18, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBP does experience costs from processing (i.e., reviewing and
making a determination on) Center assignment appeals. Generally, CBP
assigns each importer to a specific Center based on the HTSUS tariff
classification and industry sector corresponding to the predominant
number of goods the importer imports.\5\ An importer that is displeased
with its Center assignment may appeal the assignment at any time by
submitting a written appeal to CBP by mail or email. Appeals must
include the following information: (1) current Center assignment; (2)
preferred Center assignment; (3) all affected IOR numbers and
associated bond numbers; (4) written justification for the change in
Center assignment; and (5) import data, as described in the
``Finalization of the Centers of Excellence and Expertise Test''
section of the Centers IFR. CBP data shows that importers file
significantly fewer Center assignment appeals than what was predicted
in the Centers IFR. CBP receives two Center assignment appeals each
year compared to the 60 that was predicted in the Centers IFR.\6\ Each
appeal takes 30 minutes (0.5 hours), on average, for CBP Headquarters
staff to process, which is half has long as predicted in the Centers
IFR.\7\ CBP generally notifies trade members of its Center appeal
decisions by electronic means, thus imposing no additional cost on the
agency.\8\ Based on the number of Center appeals submitted annually and
CBP's time burden to manage each appeal, CBP sustains an annual cost of
$96.61 from the Centers rule's Center assignment appeals process.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The list of HTSUS numbers that will be used by CBP for the
importer's placement in a Center is the same list of HTSUS numbers
that is referenced in the definition for Centers (see Sec. 101.1).
Factors that may cause CBP to place an importer in a Center not
based on the HTSUS tariff classification of the predominant number
of goods imported include the importer's associated business
practices within an industry, the intended use of the predominant
number of goods imported, or the high relative value of goods
imported.
\6\ Source: CBP's Office of Field Operations, February 18, 2020.
\7\ Source: CBP's Office of Field Operations, February 18, 2020.
\8\ Source: CBP's Office of Field Operations, January 15, 2015.
\9\ This cost is monetized by multiplying one hour by the fully-
loaded wage of a CBP Officer ($96.61). CBP bases this wage on the FY
2022 salary and benefits of the national average of CBP Agriculture
Specialist positions, which is equal to a GS-12, Step 5. Source:
CBP's Office of Finance, June 27, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As outlined in this final rule, the responsibilities of the trade
community remain largely unchanged with the Centers' regulatory
implementation. Importers may continue to file cargo release
documentation and payments where their merchandise is entered.
Importers and brokers who file electronically can continue to use CBP's
automated systems, such as the Automated Broker Interface, to submit
required import data and payments to CBP. Meanwhile, CBP continues to
maintain a consistent formal notification and remedy process regarding
post-release and other trade-related issues with the Centers'
establishment. Trade members only incur costs from this rule when
appealing a Center assignment.
Importers may choose to appeal their Center assignment for a number
of reasons, including the expectation of better service or product
knowledge at another Center. As previously discussed, if an importer
chooses to appeal its Center assignment, it must submit a written
appeal to CBP by mail or email that includes information about its
current and preferred Center assignments (see ``Finalization of the
Centers of Excellence and Expertise Test'' section of the Centers IFR
for specific appeal requirements). CBP estimates that each appeal takes
45 minutes (0.75 hours) for an importer to complete.\10\ The
opportunity cost estimate is equal to the median hourly wage of an
importer ($34.81) multiplied by the hourly time burden for an importer
to complete and submit a Center assignment appeal (0.75 hour), and then
rounded.\11\ This results in an
[[Page 69032]]
opportunity cost of $26.11 for a single appeal. Due to the relative
affordability of submitting a Center assignment appeal via email rather
than mail, CBP believes that the vast majority of importers file
appeals electronically. Therefore, CBP does not consider the printing
or mailing costs for an importer to submit a Center assignment appeal
in this analysis. By applying the cost for importers to complete and
submit a Center assignment appeal to the expected number of Center
assignment appeals filed annually, CBP finds that this rule's appeals
process generates $52.22 in yearly costs to the trade community.\12\
This cost is lower than the Centers IFR estimated annual cost to the
trade community of $1,803 largely due to the difference in projected
(60) and actual (2) Center appeals received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Source: CBP's Office of Field Operations, February 18,
2020.
\11\ CBP calculated this loaded wage rate by first multiplying
the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) 2021 median hourly wage rate
for Cargo and Freight Agents ($22.55), which CBP assumes best
represents the wage for importers, by the ratio of BLS' average 2021
total compensation to wages and salaries for Office and
Administrative Support occupations (1.4819), the assumed
occupational group for importers, to account for non-salary employee
benefits. This figure is in 2021 U.S. dollars and CBP assumes an
annual growth rate of 4.15 percent based on the prior year's change
in the implicit price deflator, published by the Bureau of Economic
Analysis. Source of median wage rate: U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Occupational Employment Statistics, ``May 2021 National
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United States.'' Updated
March 31, 2022. Available at <a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm">https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm</a>. Accessed May 25, 2022. The total compensation to wages
and salaries ratio is equal to the calculated average of the 2021
quarterly estimates (shown under Q01, Q02, Q03, Q04) of the total
compensation cost per hour worked for Office and Administrative
Support occupations ($29.6125) divided by the calculated average of
the 2021 quarterly estimates (shown under Q01, Q02, Q03, Q04) of
wages and salaries cost per hour worked for the same occupation
category ($19.9825). Source of total compensation to wages and
salaries ratio data: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employer Costs
for Employee Compensation. ``ECEC Civilian Workers--2004 to
Present.'' March 2022. Available at <a href="https://www.bls.gov/web/ecec.supp.toc.htm">https://www.bls.gov/web/ecec.supp.toc.htm</a>. Accessed May 25, 2022.
\12\ The annual opportunity cost to the trade industry is equal
to the median hourly wage of an importer ($34.81) multiplied by the
hourly time burden for an importer to complete and submit a Center
assignment appeal (0.75 hours), multiplied by the number of Center
assignment appeals (2), and then rounded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain trade members, particularly CBP-accredited laboratories and
CBP-approved gaugers, may incur added costs with this rule's amendments
to their obligations outlined in 19 CFR 151.12(c)(5) and (6), and 19
CFR 151.13(b)(5) and (6).\13\ As amended, CBP requires CBP-accredited
laboratories to notify an additional CBP representative, the Center
director, of ``any circumstance which might affect the accuracy of work
performed as an accredited laboratory, . . . their consequences, and
any corrective action taken or that needs to be taken'' and ``of any
attempt to impede, influence, or coerce laboratory personnel in the
performance of their duties, or of any decision to terminate laboratory
operations or accredited status.'' \14\ Similarly, CBP requires CBP-
approved gaugers to notify an additional CBP representative, the Center
director, of ``any circumstance which might affect the accuracy of work
performed as an approved gauger, . . . their consequences, and any
corrective action taken or that needs to be taken'' and ``of any
attempt to impede, influence, or coerce gauger personnel in the
performance of their duties, or of any decision to terminate gauger
operations or approval status.'' \15\ Under previous, pre-Centers
regulations, CBP mandated CBP-accredited laboratories and CBP-approved
gaugers to contact the port director and Executive Director,
Laboratories and Scientific Services, on the matters described above.
Given that CBP did not receive any notifications previously required
under 19 CFR 151.12(c)(5) and (6) and 19 CFR 151.13(b)(5) and (6) in
the past 20 years prior, CBP assumes that this rule's additional CBP
notification step for CBP-accredited laboratories and CBP-approved
gaugers will continue to not introduce any costs to these parties.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The text of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13 still refers to
CBP as Customs.
\14\ 19 CFR 151.12(c)(5) and 151.12(c)(6).
\15\ 19 CFR 151.13(b)(5) and 151.13(b)(6).
\16\ Based on the number of notifications received by CBP's
Laboratories and Scientific Services as of February 2020. Source:
CBP's Office of Field Operations, February 18, 2020, and October 26,
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In all, the Centers rule introduces annual costs of $96.61 to CBP
and $52.22 to trade members for a total of $148.83.
b. Benefits
The Centers rule produces valuable benefits to CBP and the trade
community. This section of the analysis largely discusses the benefits
of the rule qualitatively due to quantitative data limitations. Based
on the success of the Centers test and public comments on the Centers
IFR, CBP believes that, as permanent organizational components, the
Centers continue to provide uniform post-release processing and trade-
related decision-making, strengthen critical agency knowledge of
industry practices and products, heighten CBP's trade enforcement
skills, and improve trade communication. CBP also believes this occurs
on a much grander scale than observed during the test phase because CBP
has since assigned all current eligible importers to a Center. CBP
continues to assign new importers to Centers, if eligible, once the
Center alignment can be determined based on their import history.
The Centers allow CBP to conduct uniform entry summary processing
and trade-related decision-making nationwide on an industry-specific,
importer account basis by transitioning the post-release processing of
an importer's goods from a transactional level at each port of entry to
one assigned Center. Public comments support this assessment. One
comment from a law firm explained that their clients have seen
benefits, including increased efficiency, consistency, and more
accurate treatment in their interactions with Centers compared to the
``disjointed and inconsistent treatment that resulted from having to
deal with individual Ports of Entry.''
As permanent CBP components, the Centers require fewer information
requests and conduct better informed trade compliance actions than in
the pre-Centers environment, leading to time and cost savings to CBP
and trade members. Prior to the implementation of the Centers, when an
importer entered similar merchandise at different U.S. ports of entry
that required supplemental information for entry summary processing,
CBP personnel at each port of entry generally submitted a CBP Form 28:
Request for Information to the importer. In that case, the importer
responded to each request, even if the responses were identical, and
CBP personnel at each port of entry reviewed the duplicative
information received from the importer. With the Centers, the importer
receives only one CBP Form 28 for the merchandise's entry summary
processing, requiring CBP personnel to review the importer's
supplemental information only once. For each avoidance of a CBP Form
28, CBP saves 10 minutes (0.17 hours) of time in issuing the request
and reviewing the requested information.\17\ Importers save an
estimated 120 minutes (2.0 hours) in preparation time for each avoided
CBP Form 28 response \18\ and $69.62 in averted opportunity costs.\19\
Internal CBP data shows that there has been more than a 61 percent
(14,958 submissions) decrease in CBP Form 28
[[Page 69033]]
submissions for 2022 compared to 2014 and more than a 55 percent
(11,977 submissions) decrease since the Centers IFR was implemented in
2016.\20\ However, due to regulatory changes the trade industry has
seen since the Centers IFR, the limitations of CBP systems, trade
remedies, and the fact that several importers still have not been
assigned to a Center, it is not possible to determine how much the drop
in CBP Form 28 submissions can be attributed to this rule. CBP and some
importers may experience additional printing and mailing cost savings
through reduced CBP Form 28 submissions, though the extent of these
savings is unknown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Source: U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs. <a href="http://RegInfo.gov">RegInfo.gov</a>. ``Supporting
Statement Request for Information 1651-0023.'' February 28, 2022.
Available at <a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202112-1651-008">https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202112-1651-008</a>. Accessed October 28, 2022.
\18\ Source: U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs. <a href="http://RegInfo.gov">RegInfo.gov</a>. ``Supporting
Statement Request for Information 1651-0023.'' February 28, 2022.
Available at <a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202112-1651-008">https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202112-1651-008</a>. Accessed October 28, 2022.
\19\ The opportunity cost estimate is equal to the assumed
median hourly wage of an importer ($34.81) multiplied by the hourly
time burden for an importer to complete a CBP Form 28 response (2.0
hours), and then rounded.
\20\ Source: CBP's Office of Field Operations, February 18,
2020, and October 26, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With a single Center conducting all post-release processing for a
particular importer, determinations on protests, marking, and
classification matters are now consistent rather than sometimes
inconsistent as in the pre-Centers environment. In the pre-Centers
environment, importers occasionally received different determinations
on similar trade compliance issues depending on the port of entry where
their merchandise was processed, which sometimes required duplicative
action on behalf of CBP and the importer. The Centers' consistency may
enhance importers' awareness of CBP's positions on trade compliance
issues, possibly leading to improved compliance and an unknown amount
of subsequent savings to both parties in the future. To the extent that
the Centers' uniform processing and determinations also decrease post-
summary corrections, exams, hold times, and other trade obstacles, the
benefits of this rule will be higher.
In addition to creating uniform post-release processing and
determinations, the Centers strengthen CBP trade personnel's industry
knowledge by concentrating their expertise into a specific import
industry set as opposed to the entire range of import industries.
According to outreach conducted for this rule, such focused expertise
has already enriched CBP relations with the trade community, as
demonstrated through a Centers test participant's claim that Center
account managers are very knowledgeable of their industry and are now
more familiar with their imports and trade issues.\21\ Several public
commenters on the Centers IFR also expressed positive experiences with
the Centers. Increasing Centers staff awareness of importers and their
merchandise may also contribute to a decline in requests for
information, exams, or holds, which provides time and cost savings to
CBP and trade members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Source: Teleconference with CBP's Pharmaceuticals, Health &
Chemicals Center test participant on December 19, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Centers' industry focus has also enriched trade enforcement.
Using knowledge gathered through processing solely entry summaries for
the electronics industry, Electronics Center employees uncovered a
counterfeit electronic adapter import operation. Since discovering the
counterfeiting operation, the Electronics Center has worked with the
rights holder to add a trademark onto its electronic device to prevent
future intellectual property rights (IPR) violations and subsequent
economic losses.\22\ Based on the benefits of enhanced industry
knowledge gained during the Centers test phase and since the Centers
IFR went into effect, CBP believes the permanent establishment of the
Centers enhances CBP relations with the trade community, facilitates
trade, and results in an improved ability to identify high-risk
commercial importations that could enhance import safety, increase
revenue protection, and reduce economic losses associated with trade
violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Source: Teleconference with CBP's Electronics Center on
December 3, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the Centers streamline communication between CBP and
the trade community by replacing communication with each port of entry
with communication with one Center. The Centers serve as a single
source of information and point of contact for trade members regarding
importing requirements, IPR infringement or other trade violations,
merchandise holds, and Partner Government Agencies (PGA) issues,
eliminating the need for trade members to contact multiple CBP
employees and for multiple CBP employees to share duplicative
information with members of the trade. Such a decrease in redundant
information requests and sharing produces time and cost savings to the
trade community and CBP. The Centers also allow for enhanced
communication with importers by offering extended hours of service
compared to port of entry service hours, which may expedite trade.
Without information on the amount of duplicative communication
eliminated with the emergence of the Centers or the volume of trade
expedited through the Centers' extended hours of service, the overall
value of these communication benefits is unknown.
c. Net Impact of Rule
In summary, the Centers rule introduces both costs and benefits.
CBP sustains $96.61 in added costs each year from reviewing Center
assignment appeals, while trade members bear an annual cost of $52.22
attributable to Center assignment appeals. CBP and trade members also
experience benefits from this rule's decreased import costs and time
burdens, streamlined trade processing, broadened industry and trade
compliance knowledge, enhanced trade enforcement posture, and improved
communication, though the overall value of these benefits is unknown.
Although not quantified, CBP believes this rule's benefits to CBP and
the trade community are considerable, while its costs to these parties
are relatively negligible. For these reasons, CBP asserts that the
benefits of this rule outweigh its costs, thus providing an overall net
benefit to the agency and members of the trade community.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.), as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
requires agencies to assess the impact of regulations on small
entities. A small entity may be a small business (defined as any
independently owned and operated business not dominant in its field
that qualifies as a small business concern per the Small Business Act);
a small not-for-profit organization; or a small governmental
jurisdiction (locality with fewer than 50,000 people). CBP initially
issued the Centers rule as an interim final rule under the agency
management and personnel and procedural rule exceptions of the
Administrative Procedure Act. Thus, a Regulatory Flexibility Act
analysis was not required. See 5 U.S.C. 553. Nonetheless, CBP
considered the economic impact of the Centers IFR on small entities.
Since CBP did not receive any comments on the Centers IFR relating to
the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, CBP adopts the Centers IFR's
Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis with updated data, as presented
next.
Through the Centers final rule, CBP finalizes the transition of
certain trade enforcement responsibilities and the majority of post-
release trade functions from the purview of port directors to Center
directors.\23\ Port directors continue to retain singular authority
over regulations pertaining to the control, movement, examination, and
[[Page 69034]]
release of cargo. Because the Centers introduce a new post-release
processing method for all U.S. imports, this rule's regulatory changes
affect all importers and brokers who enter goods into the United
States, including those considered ``small'' under the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) size standards.\24\ Since the vast majority of
importers are small businesses, this rule impacts a substantial number
of small entities.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See 81 FR 92978, 92983-93003 (December 20, 2016) and 84 FR
46676, 46677 (September 5, 2019), for a detailed list of trade
function transitions.
\24\ See 13 CFR 121.101-121.201.
\25\ Source: CBP Report: Importer SBA Analysis 2022, dated May
11, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rule generates costs and benefits to importers and related
members of the trade. As outlined throughout this rule, the
responsibilities of the trade community remain largely unchanged due to
the Centers rule. However, trade members experience costs when filing a
Center assignment appeal and when notifying a Center under the
requirements of amended 19 CFR 151.12(c)(5) and (6), and 19 CFR
151.13(b)(5) and (6).
As previously mentioned in the ``Executive Orders 13563 and 12866''
section, importers incur an opportunity cost of $26.11 per Center
assignment appeal. With two appeals expected each year, the annual cost
of Center assignment appeals to the entire trade community equals
$52.22. It is likely that some small entities file Center assignment
appeals, though the exact number is unknown. Regardless of the number
of small entities impacted by this requirement, CBP does not believe
that a cost of $26.11 to file a Center assignment appeal amounts to a
``significant'' level to these entities.
Under previous, pre-Centers regulations, CBP mandated CBP-
accredited laboratories and CBP-approved gaugers to contact the port
director and Executive Director of Laboratories and Scientific Services
on the matters previously described in 19 CFR 151.12(c)(5) and (6), and
19 CFR 151.13(b)(5) and (6). Given that CBP did not receive any such
notifications in the past 20 years, CBP assumes that this rule's added
requirement to contact a Center director per amended 19 CFR
151.12(c)(5) and (6), and 19 CFR 151.13(b)(5) and (6), will continue to
not impact a substantial number of small entities. In the event that a
CBP-accredited laboratory or CBP-approved gauger considered ``small''
has to notify an additional CBP representative according to these
regulatory changes, CBP does not believe that requiring one more
telephone call, letter, or email will have a significant economic
impact on the entity.
Besides costs, importers and brokers experience benefits from this
rule, though the value of these benefits is unknown due to data
limitations. The trade community likely benefits from the Centers
rule's uniform post-release processing and decision-making, increased
agency knowledge of industry practices and products, and improved
communication with CBP, based on observations from the Centers test and
Centers IFR. CBP expects the Centers' uniform post-release processing
and trade-related determinations to decrease administrative burdens on
the trade, resulting in time and cost savings. This uniformity may also
enhance the trade community's awareness of CBP's position on trade
compliance issues, which may improve compliance and generate an unknown
amount of subsequent savings to trade members in the future. The
Centers' strengthened industry focus likely enhances CBP relations with
the trade community, facilitates trade, and results in an improved
ability to identify high-risk commercial importations that could
increase import safety, increase revenue protection, and reduce
economic loss associated with trade violations. By replacing port-by-
port communication with communication with one Center, the Centers
serve as a single source of information for trade members regarding
such subjects as importing requirements, IPR or other trade violation
reports, merchandise holds, and PGA issues. This sole communication
source eliminates the need for members of the trade community to
contact multiple CBP resources, potentially producing additional time
and cost savings. The Centers also allow for enhanced communication
between CBP and the trade community by offering extended hours of
service compared to port of entry service hours, which may expedite
trade. Despite their unknown value, CBP notes that the economic impact
of these changes on small entities, if any, is entirely beneficial.
Although this rule affects a substantial number of small entities, CBP
does not believe that the economic impact of this rule on small
entities is significant. Accordingly, CBP certifies that this
regulation does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that CBP consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. As this document does not
involve any collections of information under the Act, the provisions of
the Act are inapplicable.
Signing Authority
This document is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.2(a),
which provides that the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury with
respect to CBP regulations that are not related to customs revenue
functions was transferred to the Secretary of DHS pursuant to section
403(1) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat.
2178, 6 U.S.C. 203(1)). Accordingly, this final rule adopting the
interim amendments to such regulations as final may be signed by the
Secretary of DHS (or his delegate).
Amendments to the CBP Regulations
For the reasons given above, the Centers IFR amending parts 4, 7,
10, 11, 12, 24, 54, 101, 102, 103, 113, 132, 133, 134, 141, 142, 143,
144, 145, 146, 147, 151, 152, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 173, 174, 176,
and 181 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR parts 4,
7, 10-12, 24, 54, 101-103, 113, 132-134, 141-147, 151, 152, 158, 159,
161-163, 173, 174, 176, and 181), which was published in the Federal
Register at 81 FR 92978 on December 20, 2016 (CBP Dec. 16-26), as
amended by the technical correction published in the Federal Register
at 84 FR 46676 on September 5, 2019 (CBP Dec. 19-11), is adopted as a
final rule, without change.
Alejandro N. Mayorkas,
Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2023-22170 Filed 10-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 5, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.