COAC Submits Extensive "Unofficial" Comments on 10+2 Proposed Rule

These unofficial comments are from the COAC Advance Data Elements Subcommittee but were submitted by the COAC Chair in his capacity as a citizen, in order to meet the proposed rule's March 18, 2008 comment deadline.²

The following are highlights of the comments submitted:

COAC Urges ACE be Used for Final Production Version of ISF

COAC strongly urges that the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) be used for the final production version of the importer SF (ISF). The Automated Manifest System (AMS) and Automated Broker Interface (ABI) may be practical for incremental testing and initial implementation, but they have limitations. The ISF must be designed with ACE as the ultimate tool.

COAC Recommends a Planned, Incremental Approach to Phasing in ISF

COAC states that a planned, incremental approach to phasing in ISF is necessary as it is orders of magnitude more complex than the 24 hour rule, which was primarily implemented by a limited set of ocean carriers and focused on traditional manifest data already in the hands of the carriers.

Some data elements never before collected by importers, service providers. With ISF, at one end of the extreme, CBP will potentially affect over 800,000 individual importers. At the other end, CBP will minimally require closer coordination of those importers with their service providers. Some of the data elements required by CBP under ISF have never before been collected by importers or service providers, nor incorporated into existing supply chain information systems, much less been available prior to loading, especially 24 hours prior to loading.

Volume of data could pose challenge, risk to CBP legacy systems. The volume of data under ISF could present a significant challenge and risk to CBP's legacy systems. The preliminary projections of the huge increase in data volumes based on Advance Trade Data Initiative (ATDI) are substantial and warrant incremental system development, utilizing a representative group of importers and their agents. This test phase would include stress testing and a technical correction process.

The trade as well as CBP is totally reliant on the efficient performance of the Automated Commercial System (ACS), ABI, and AMS; it could be harmful to both industry and CBP to risk the performance and reliability of those legacy systems which already are recognized to be operating beyond planned capacities. In addition, this phased implementation strategy would facilitate a structured, logical development approach for the programming needed to embed ISF into the eventual incorporation into ACE.

Trade is Prepared to Assist CBP in Identifying Participants

The trade is prepared to assist CBP in identifying an initial set of willing importer participants representing a cross-section of industry sectors to aid CBP in the first round of implementation. A formal process could be established to ensure progressive participation that would ultimately lead to full mandatory trade participation on a global basis. This could be similar to CBP's approach with ATDI, but the intent would be to gradually introduce a limited set of importers and ISF filers to facilitate testing and refinement of the ISF technical and operational requirements. As ISF matures, additional participants could be brought into the ISF using a planned, staged methodology that would ensure CBP's existing legacy systems are not adversely impacted.

No Fines, Punitive Messages During Phased-In Implementation Period

COAC believes it would be inappropriate to impose fines, "no-load messages," or any other punitive measures during any phased-in implementation period. Rather, during the phase-in period, the ISF may undergo changes and improvements, according to lessons learned, adjustments, corrections and new technology.

An "informed compliance" approach to enforcement of the SF requirement would be appropriate during this period. If fines are to be assessed, this should be well after the SF requirements are fully tested, refined and implemented and best practices are clearly established.

Comment Period for 10+2 Proposed Rule Closed on March 18, Over 90 Comments Posted

The comment period on the 10+2 proposed rule closed on March 18, 2008. As of the afternoon of March 18, 2008, over 90 comments were posted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal. (Comments can be viewed, see below.)

¹Formerly known as the "Commercial Operations Advisory Committee."

²The comments were submitted by the Chair as an individual citizen; however, they contain the COAC Advance Data Elements Subcommittee's recommendations and reflect the views of most members of the full COAC committee.

COAC previously submitted eight summary recommendations in response to the proposed rule, but timing and procedural issues prevented the COAC from adopting a more detailed document. COAC continued to work on the comments and recommendations but could not adopt them at a public meeting prior to the deadline; therefore, the Chair submitted them as an individual. (See ITT's Online Archives or 02/21/08 news, 08022105, for BP summary of COAC's eight recommendations.)

(See ITT's Online Archives or 01/17/08 news, 08011710, for the final part of BP's summary of the 10+2 proposed rule, with links to previous parts. See ITT's Online Archives or 02/04/08 news, 08020405, for BP summary of CBP's 10+2 comment period extension notice.)

COAC subcommittee comments submitted by Chair Bruce Leeds, and all other comments on the 10+2 Proposed Rule available at http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=USCBP-2007-0077