TSN Plenary Session Thursday, September 29, 2005 Next TSN- February 28- March 2- at the Manhattan Beach Marriott, California I. Moving Forward with ACE- Dan Yando, Jerry Leuters, and Tom Hedgpeth Questions Q: In the past we referred to “releases”, moving forward you are talking about CT&E and ST&E. Is that considered Release 6 & 7? A: Going forward we will still be referring to releases. CT&E will be Releases 6 and 7. Q: You mentioned JAVA scripts. Is that comparable with SAP? Will the JAVA scripts be available for the trade to view thru the Portal? A: Yes. Everything will be viewable thru the Portal. Q: Moving forward, it would be nice for all TSN members to know what the TSN committees will be doing with all of this information. Are there any requirements that we need to write for these releases? A: We will be working to establish those links like we did with ESAR. Comment (Trade): At the next TSN our committees will need to know what is going on to leverage expectations Q: Are you using the Trade Ambassadors program to assist in the development of manifest for all modes? A: Yes Q: When you were speaking to CT&E you referred to manifest in the present. Where is the incorporation of the 3461 data into ACE? A: M2 Q: With regard to S&T and the development of S1-S4, what specifically was done there to enhance the facilitation of it? That is, in the local ports, there is movement to automate the process, what is being done in the development of the new system to enhance that communication and facilitate the movement of the cargo that has been screened so that it can be released? A: A lot of that will come with the Customs Enforcement Reporting and Tracking System (CERTS) program. When trucks come in if they are identified as having to go to secondary, it will facilitate the work flow thru the port. With regard to the targeting part, they‟ll also be able to do their holds and releases thru that along with CERTS. If we can identify what is happening to your cargo along the way we will Q: As advanced data is identified and collected, has there been thought about putting that data in the DB2 tables for targeting? A: (Lou Samenfink) This has been discussed as part of the Supply Chain Security Committee (SCSC). The thinking right now is that the government needs to identify what the data is that we are going to require all the time. This may need some statutory or regulatory action. We are looking for input from you as far as what all of that data is and from whom it should be collected. We have not yet finalized the list; there is still some work to be done in this area Q: You mentioned that the goal is for everyone and everything to be in one system. Why are you using DB2 instead of SAP and when can truck be switched over? A: There will be no impact to you. We won‟t change the formats you are using today. With regard to the interfaces between DB2 and SAP, there maybe some impact to SAP on the error messages the trade is receiving. Q: What is the FDA data inter-modal manifest screening? A: We are looking at MMM for manifest. Q: What S&T capabilities are needed with respect to the PGAs? A: We are working with additional federal agencies to build screening and targeting for them (ex TSA). II. Legal/Policy Update- Jeremy Baskin, Richard McManus, John Leonard, and John Peterson, C.H. Powell Questions: Q: Does an attorney need to go thru the Portal or be ABI certified to make a post summary correction? A: Our goal is to get as electronic as possible. A solution might be Portal or we may want to expand EDI for attorneys. Q: What is the likelihood of making that correction first via ACE and then going to ABI? A: Initially, the programming we have done is for ABI. We have not yet tackled non ABI. Comment (Trade): We are hopeful that requirements are put into future releases of ACE for importers to make their own corrections thru the ACE Portal. We realize initial releases will be done via ABI but we also want to make sure that importers have the ability to do this on their own via the Portal. Q: If the importer wants to file a correction after the 183 days, on an entry that is already suspended for AD/CVD, presumable we would not have to ask for an extension, is that correct? A: Presumably, that is correct Q: Will SILs/PEAs no longer be accepted at the ports? Once an ABI solution is implemented, does that mean that any importer who was filing it on their own would have to do it via a broker? A: It depends on what is up and running. If the Portal is up and running, it will not be a problem, if the Portal is not up and running we may have an interim process. Comment (Trade): As an importer I don‟t ever have a broker filing my SILs/PEAs. There is a criticality to being able to do this via ACE. CBP has continued to tout the Portal; I can‟t stress enough how critical this is. This should not be treated as a back burner issue. When will this start? Is there a transition? A: We recognize your concerns. Post summary corrections will be for A2, July 07. Q: With regard to the extension after 183 days, is that a one year extension? A: Yes, it is our current one year. Q: As a carrier, do these corrections also apply to the manifest and quantities? A: No. This is only for purposes of entry. Q: Currently we can file a quarterly PEA, will this continue? A: Yes Q: Can you explain the rationale for putting this process in ABI when it is shortly going into ACE? A: This is our starting point. ABI is a method by which entries are tied into ACE and so we wanted to tie the post summary corrections process to it. Everything we get right now is coming thru ABI and then there is the Portal. There has been lots of discussion with regard to other new messaging (XML, etc). The political reality is that we need to keep ABI for some time. It is currently the way entries are coming out of ACS into ACE. This does not mean that there will not be other functionality in the future; at some point we may end ABI. But we are sensitive to the concerns you have expressed about the Portal Comment: (Trade): In the interim, why can‟t the system be set up so that if an importer can prepare the document for a post summary correction, and then submit it to the broker for input to ABI? The broker would only be acting as a conduit and it would enable this process to be done electronically. III. ITDS Trade Changes “Window of Opportunity”- Bill Inch, Susan Dyszel, and Tim Skud, ITDS Board of Directors Questions: Q: In the Trade Ambassador meetings with other agencies, the PGA level of participation varied greatly. Also in some cases, there was a lack of knowledge about ACE when they came to these meetings. Some were trying to put road blocks up so that their agency would not participate. Have you seen this and have you been able to overcome that? A: (Bill Inch): Overall, we are trying to get the concept of operations vetted up the chain more so that there is more immersion. We are also trying to better organize and coordinate the agency participation Q: You talked about a checklist. It would be interesting to see that checklist so that we can leverage what we have with respect to those agencies. Can each trade sector have that checklist so we know what to push? A: (Tim Skud): That checklist is basically a paper we are trying to prepare that has the informal title of “What Every Agency Needs To Know To Participate in ACE”. This document is a DRAFT. Our goal is to have it as a reference material for government to use. We don‟t expect this to be a secret document. Q: As the PGAs come to ACE and have their own accounts, will we see messages from them on our accounts? Will we be able to get messages from them and respond to them individually? A: We will need to check the requirements and get back to you on that. Q: In the development of the green lane, do you know if PGAs will have separate requirements if they are within the jurisdiction of the PGA? A: (Bill Inch): Some agencies will have preemptive authority at the border. The issue is how that authority is used. We can‟t give you a definitive answer at this time. We are currently working with EPA and their requirements. With regard to whether they can view things more on an account basis instead of a transaction basis, we are working this issue, and we are on track with the intent of your question. Q: With regard to reprogramming for the PGAs, who pays for that? Does that come out of ACE or the PGA budget? A: That would come out of the PGA budget. Q: If ITDS formatting is in the ACE Portal how does this work mechanically in the cargo release process? A: ITDS is NOT a separate system. It is one submission to CBP; some products will require additional data elements and those will be delivered by the system to the appropriate agency. This is all behind the scenes. Q: (Trade): So we would make one submission with all of the data elements and the information would be sent to all of the agencies accordingly? A: Yes Q: In your meetings with the other government agencies, have any of these agencies bought into the overall risk management process (on an account basis)? A: Yes, we are seeing movement in that direction. We are encouraging that approach with the other agencies. Comment- this might mean some changes to our account structure IV. Automation of the Zone Admission Process- Jerry Leuters Questions: Q: What message will I see when I file an electronic PPT? A: You will see the 1W. Q: What about partial entries? That is, some to the zone and some to entry. What if they don‟t match up? A: You would follow the same procedures as today. The carrier would need to amend the manifest if there is a quantity discrepancy. Comment: We need to talk to OFO regarding this policy and any penalty implications. Jerry Leuters: This will allow for a new level of communication between the carrier and the zone so you don‟t have to release it if you don‟t want to. Q: What if a customer wants to do an electronic 214? A: They need to apply for their own filer number. Q: You mentioned that a PPT can be filed by several parties. Today in AMS when the carrier files PPT they don‟t file a particular quantity associated with it. It would default to bill quantity. A: It will give you the ability to specify container quantity or bill quantity. However, further discussion is still required. V. Entry Summary, Accounts, Revenue (R5)- Importers, Brokers, Others- Don Yando, Jeremy Baskin, Valarie Neuhart, John Leonard, Ray Portu, Matt Kemmerer, Kevin Bridgford, Alice Buchanan, Jim Byram Questions: Q: If the post summary correction falls between the time in which the initial preliminary statement is generated and when the payment is made, the post summary correction is locked out. What is that timeframe? A: We are working through that. Q: ACE is the repository for HTS. Will there be a download from ABI? A: Yes, you will be able to do that. Q: With regard to the submission of the entry summary, if we use the one step process and need to do a post summary correction, will CBP track those changes for compliance purposes? A: Decisions have not yet been made with regard to the data within that 10 day period between entry and entry summary, and what we are going to do with that data. Q: Will you send us an ABI message if a refund has been processed via post summary corrections and will you give us a reason code as to why? A: We have not discussed giving you a reason code. We have looked at giving you information with regard to whether that has been accepted or denied. Q: When the trade submits a Census override code in response to a Census warning is that considered a post summary correction? A: No; it will not stop your transaction. Q: Can we use a refund to pay another bill? A: No we are not doing netting in A2 except as we‟ve outlined in the presentation. Q: With regard to sending out statements via email, can you confirm that multiple IRs within an account can be identified with different email destinations? A: Yes Q: Is it understood that the electronic submission of bonds includes single transaction bonds? A: Yes Q: You mentioned that account owners can be corporate entities- how will that work in practice? A: The Account Owner Designation form will ask for a point of contact. That person will be responsible for the set up of other users. Currently, the trade account owner ensures that all information is administered properly. Although we will now allow an account owner to be a corporation, at a system level we are still looking for an individual. Q: With regard to bond sufficiency and notification, are you looking at sending massive letters to all importers regarding whether they have bond sufficiency? A: We are working through some of those details regarding what will happen on day 1 but the intent is to send out those notifications. Q: Have you considered split accounts and how you will deal with the splits of those IRs? A: Yes, that has been discussed. Merge accounts will look at divestitures, mergers, acquisitions, etc. That is where dates and user access privileges would be restricted by date parameters. Q: Can you tell us how you will be doing validations so that we follow the same process so we don‟t get data bounced back? A: A third party package has not yet been chosen. In essence, validations will be done off the postal address. Q: With regard to the account set up it might be easier if you post some of your scenarios so that we can make sure you have thought of everything. Written instructions will be tough to understand; it might be easier to lay everything out from a diagram perspective. A: (Jim Byram): We can explore that. Q: Is it correct to say that post summary corrections will replace SILs and PEAs, but not prior disclosures? A: Yes that is correct. Q: Can you clarify flagging for reconciliation? A: You will be able to flag at the line level, if you don‟t everything will be flagged. Q: Do all bonds have to be filed via ABI in the future? A: That is the ultimate direction but we will work with Bob Hamilton with regard to how they want to work with the submission of the bonds. A: (Bob Hamilton): Right now we want the data elements to create the electronic bonds, however, we will always have the paper bonds. We will let you know more as we revise our policy. Q: With regard to bond sufficiency, will this run nightly based on the entry summaries that are filed? Will a saturation level be established? A: Yes, this will be running nightly. Currently there is no monitoring of the threshold. We have discussed going with an 85% threshold at which point we would send out notification. The initial design however is based on notification rather than monitoring. Q: With regard to AD/CVD reconciliation, once this is implemented is it correct to state that we can flag the entry and that entry will remain open until the liquidation instructions will be issued, even if that means 10 years later? A: You won‟t even have to flag. Once the AD/CVD line has been flagged and we have received instructions, our system will contact our impacted filers for the entry summary number and then our system will retrieve your line number and put it on the AD/CVD line number. So yes, you will see it until it is resolved. Q: When Commerce issues a correction to the final liquidation instructions, what will happen, will those entries be reliquidated? A: The reconciliation entries with the underlying entries would be reliquidated automatically. This would be filed and suspended until we get those final instructions VI. Industry Breakout: Importers, Exporters and Sureties The Trade Ambassadors expressed their interest in receiving input from the trade regarding any other issues of interest that should be sent back for discussion with CBP. Notes from the Ambassadors: The Federal Register Notice (FRN) published on August 8, 2005 stated that ACH credit participants were required to “initiate payment no later than the 14th working day of the month”. o CBP has stated that an FRN will be published clarifying that CBP did not intend to tell ACH credit participants when they needed to push out the payment. CBP simply wants the deposit to be made on the 15th Update on the drawback legislation: o There are two versions of this legislation (that is, trade and CBP). o The CBP legislation includes “joint and several liability” for the importer and the claimant. o The trade does not agree with this language. From the trade‟s perspective, if the claimant has a bond the importer should not also be liable. This issue is being discussed. “For non-portal users there will be canned reports” o Further clarification requested from Barry O‟Brien regarding this slide Netting: o Currently this is a place holder; the Revenue Committee will be addressing this issue in more detail in the future specifically with regard to whether importers would really be making use of netting. Should we continue to pursue this or should this request be tabled? o Comment: The fact that some companies don‟t want netting should not preclude this from happening. o Comment: I thought that there would be underlying identifiers under the amounts. If that is the case, why would that be a problem? o Jim Phillips: That is the intention but we never pursued what this would mean. o Comment: From the way it is reflected on the slide, that is, “future release”, netting does not appear to be a priority. Based on where we are today and going back to past discussions, we decided that this would not be for A2, but maybe A3. If however, enough companies are interested could this be reprioritized? That would be the kind of payment we are looking for. National Statement o CBP has stated that we will get an operational statement that we can use o Q: Your slide states “Single broker may process payment of entries from multiple brokers”, what does this mean? This would be the national importer statement that we are delivering in A2. We currently have PMS with the national broker statement. Non-Portal Accounts o Q: If you are a non-portal account and want to revert to a portal account, is there a process in place for that? Have the Trade Ambassadors spoken about that? A: There should not be a problem. It would be the same process today for the trade when they ask to participate in the ACE portal; it would not have an effect on the process. You would still be responding to the same FRN to notify CBP of your desire to be a Portal participant. Q: Would we need to terminate everything under the non- portal account? This could present duplication issues if we don‟t eliminate access from the nonportal account side? A: There are no portal users on non-portal accounts so there would not be any user issues. However, we can review this again under the accounts committee. Post Summary Corrections o CBP will be meeting to discuss whether importers can enter post summary corrections thru ACE and ABI o Comment: The concern going forward is that importers want to be able to use the Portal to submit different types of information. Some importers don‟t want brokers doing this. Importers understand the importance of ABI but they also want CBP to understand the importance of doing this directly via the Portal. Financial Statement o Financial statements will be included in R5 o They will only be available via the portal o It is unclear what the financial statement will look like, but it should include a picture of the net financial activity for that month. o This is the first step toward moving to a credit card concept Reports o Q: I have noticed that reports via the Portal are not the same as when I request FOIA data. If I am relying on Portal data, does that mean that I no longer apply for FOIA data for my liquidated or unliquidated entries? A: (Jim Phillips): There is a difference between ACS and ACE; these differences should go away when ACE becomes the system of record. Basically, anything submitted goes to ACS; however, there are other filters in the Portal to reduce bad information. This may be the cause of the discrepancies. When ACE becomes the system of record we will be better off. For the time being we can‟t use the data in ACE for purposes of reconciliation since it is not yet official data. For entry summaries, ACE will become the system of record for R5 (i.e., A2, July 2007) Claims Management o There is a Revenue requirement pertaining to changes to the claims process for claims made to the surety. o While we have not incorporated any of that into the design for R5, workshops will be held to see if we can incorporate some of the revenue requirement into our R5 design. o If more information is available on the bill, there will be less calls made to CBP Automatic Reporting of Electronic Notices o In most cases the trade will be able to indicate how they want to be notified and those parties that should be notified. o Portal users will eventually see CF 28s and 29s on the portal; initially for informational purposes but later on these documents will also be generated in the Portal. o Q: Have you talked about doing this with the PGAs? That is, sending all of this information via the Portal? A: Yes we have discussed this with the PGAs. The PGAs agree that they would like this to happen except for certain documents that are subject to forgeries. There will be further discussion on this. New Issues o Data in Advance of the Manifest for Targeting This issue, that is, what is this data and what is the best way to provide it, is being discussed via the Supply Chain Security Committee (SCSC) Q: A lot of this discussion has already occurred at the WCO, why don‟t we start with those elements and then see if there are any others that the US needs? A: Jim- we have looked at the WCO and we believe we are in compliance or in parallel with what they are doing. The WCO is focused at reviewing the data with the movement and ATDI is looking at data before the movement. But I agree that we should have one set of data elements that we can use universally. We will look at this again and perhaps get a subcommittee to review this further Comment: Many of us question the underlying premise that this data will be helpful in stopping weapons of mass destruction. We need to do a CBA for all of this before we change the way we do business in a very significant way. You are already headed for details and we don‟t understand what your mission statement is. Comment: (Lou Samenfink): CBP should be looking at more information, like for example, the manufacturer. The targeting folks (NTC, OFO) have identified gaps in the information. I agree that we don‟t need all of the information that ATDI is throwing at us. There is a concise draft list (5-10 data elements) that is being finalized and that has been shared with senior executives. When we come to an agreement on that draft, we will come back here to this forum to ask you how we can best get that information from you. We recognize that we don‟t need full ATDI information and we recognize the gaps. We want to collect the best information we can with the least impact to you as possible. Comment (Bill Nolle): The WCO Framework was developed a while ago and may also need to be revisited. We recognize that we need to be very precise and reasonable with what we ask you for and that we can‟t come back every few months asking you for more information Comment (Jim Phillips): No final decisions have been made; we are still looking for input and will continue to do that Comment: The data elements that the WCO has come up with are a minimum set of data; the US can come up with whatever additional elements it needs. We need to make sure that the list stays as close to the minimum list as possible. We don‟t want a huge proliferation of additional data elements from different countries. Comment (Lou Samenfink): CBP receives intelligence that certain types of commodities might have something concealed there. We know we have to work with other countries to get as much of information as possible. Comment: This is the first time this was explained to us. In yesterday‟s sessions it sounded as if there was some data mining mentality behind this. Comment: We want to get more information from CBP with regard to your profile data. We need a clearer definition of what your profile data. Comment (Jim Phillips): CBP has given us the opportunity to provide input to that issue o Additional Questions/Issues: Q: With regard to the bond, will CBP decrement the bond every time I make an entry? A: CBP is trying to track the bond sufficiency such that if they see that the bond is at 85% they would send you a notice letting you know that your bond is reaching saturation. You will be able to look at the portal and see the last month‟s duties, taxes and fees. An importer is supposed to be doing that anyway, and if they know they have an increase in duties they should be incrementing their bond. The portal will give you that visibility so you can go ahead and get your sureties to underwrite you for more bonds. Comment: It takes the sureties a long time to fund us for more money. It could take the sureties 6 months to do that analysis. We need to work that concern into this process Q: Will the reconciliation rider continue? A: (Bob Hamilton): We will continue to look at that but if it does continue it would be an electronic requirement. A: (Jim Phillips): There is a revenue requirement regarding what the electronic bond system should encompass Q: If you are not doing a reconciliation why not add that feature to that bond and then file it in one spot? A: (Bob Hamilton): The bond rider comes with each applicable bond. Comment: (Jim Phillips): We will look at that and continue to take suggestions. The Ebond concept is still out there. I will get that particular requirement to you- REV 2 or REV 3 o Final Comments from Jim Phillips: The reality is that there will be impacts to you and your business and it will require some programming on the trade‟s part Celeste Catano and Art Litman put together a document addressing Policy Impacts that cover some of these issues. We‟ll try to get that to you If you have any questions, please send me an email at : Jim.firstname.lastname@example.org VII. Industry Breakout: Broker/Freight Forwarder/Vendor The Trade User‟s Guide for ACE-ESAR Release A2 This guide was prepared by the Trade Ambassadors and served as the basis for the discussion with the brokers, forwarders and vendors in attendance. The guide was produced for customs brokers, self-filers and their vendors and focuses on significant changes they might experience as ACE ESAR is rolled out. The Guide should not be used for programming purposes. For automation changes, estimates of the significance of each change were provided. The indicators are: Small – less than 24 hours of programming Medium – 24 to 80 hours of programming Large – over 80 hours of programming. Please note these estimates do not include time for testing. The Trade Ambassadors would like input from the trade on the estimates. Account Setup The trade previously requested the ability to move from one ACE account to another without first having to sign off and sign on to each account. As part of cross account access the trade with one user ID will have access to multiple accounts based on privileges granted per account. User navigation will be via an account pick list. While what is planned for cross account access does not provide everything the trade requested, it will be better than what is currently available Administrative requirements: Currently, brokers, warehouses, and FTZs send a paper list of employees to CBP when there are changes. In A1, this will be done through the portal, via a report. Question: Is there a discussion on the triennial report? Will there be a need to prepare this if the information is kept up to date in the portal? A: This was a referral to legal policy. There may not be any changes to this requirement; however you can accomplish it by solely running a report in the portal. Triennial fees will be included in A2. The broker‟s annual fee will also be automated in A2. Registration for the broker‟s exam was also discussed through the portal or via the web. Question: How will an individual broker connect with ACE? What about an employee of the broker? A: We had talked to CBP about the possibility of using the CBP web for this but we will take this as an Action Item to follow up with the Accounts Team. For warehouses and FTZs, there will be check boxes as part of the account structure to indicate when, for example, the annual report has been completed, the blueprint has been filed, etc. Question: What about image scanning? A: There have been discussions about imaging but that will not be possible for documents such as blueprints. CBP however would like to receive as many documents as possible electronically. Question: Will the person submitting the document just attach it to the transmission? A: That will vary depending on the document. Question: When CBP discussed the portal account during the legal policy presentation, they indicated that there would no longer be a proxy account owner. If we have no proxy owner, does that mean brokers will not be able to set up and manage importer accounts under a Customs Power of Attorney? A: Under current business practices, the importer account is set up, managed and maintained by the broker. The Broker Account Subcommittee has several requirements that address those concerns. Per Jeremy Baskin, brokers perform those services now and they will continue to do so moving forward with ACE. The proxy account owner was discussed in light of the Terms and Conditions document. CBP did not intend to change that ability, and if that is what will happen, the changes will be made accordingly to the draft document. The 5106 process is not going away. We will still need that ability with the creation of non-portal accounts for importers who wish to participate in periodic monthly statement without the benefits of being an ACE portal account. Question: Would setting up a portal account be considered conducting Customs business? A: This is our assumption Question: Will setting up an account in general be Customs business? A: Probably not. Setting up a carrier account would not be doing Customs business. Jeremy will take this as an Action Item to further investigate. Pre-release Process There are several proposed changes. The e-Bond process will be in place. This means bonds will be filed electronically as will riders. CBP will be monitoring bond sufficiency. Notification to the trade will be part of that process 5106 updates will be electronic. Question: Will CBP be keeping track of what is updated, by whom and the date and time of the update. A: Yes, CBP will be keeping track of who does what and when. Question: Will the 5106 change have to be approved by CBP? A: We think so. Today you submit a paper change where the bond was initially submitted. Because there will be a possibility for multiple people to submit a change, we need to consider this. An approval may be required. We also need to consider how frozen accounts will work. Question: Does anyone else have a problem with the importer name field on the 5106 only being 32 characters? As a surety, we receive a lot of complaints about this. A: This is also a concern for some importers. What ever is reported on the 5106 is what is in ACS. Finance wants the name on the bond to match exactly what is on the 5106. We will take this as an Action Item to see if any changes are planned to the field length. Question: Was there a thought to add an additional verification field that a company exists such as a DUNS or state number to the 5106? A: Lou Samenfink stated that is definitely under consideration. The DUNS goes beyond the SRE file to any entity. WCO has a standardized number as well. CBP will be looking into several possibilities. I doubt that the DUNS number would be made mandatory but CBP may be look at something along those lines for trusted accounts. To the extent CBP does business with companies and we know a lot about them, the risk factor should be lower. If we know nothing about the company, then the risk is higher. Comment from Jeremy Baskin: Adding an additional data field to the existing 5106 form requires OMB approval. Q: Has there been any discussion about acquiring access to IRS numbers to validate them so the broker is not held liable for a number they cannot validate? A: There have been discussions with IRS. There are a lot of privacy concerns; but CBP is moving in that direction. There are a lot of invalid IR numbers in ACS today. If CBP could validate the number with IRS, then it would make sense not to hold the broker liable. Comment: There is a website where you can validate social security numbers. It does not identify the individual, only that the number exists or existed at some point. Release ESAR focuses on the entry summary so there are only a few issues the trade needs to be aware of. The two step process will continue (entry followed by the entry summary). The trade needs to watch the relationship/definitions between the “ultimate consignee” at time of release and the “ultimate consignee” at time of summary. Entry will be covered by CT&E (Cargo Transactions & Enforcement). Question: If we have an entry summary and CBP rechecked it, can the broker retransmit it? A: Yes. Question: When we send a transmission and certify from the CF 7501, we receive a message that says “provisional release”. Is that a release for ACE purposes? A: We will take that as an Action Item and refer that question to CT&E. Often a provisional release is sent because the arrival has not occurred. Foreign Trade Zone Admission For foreign vendors in the audience, the automation of the CF 214 will offer you an opportunity to provide a new service to zone operators and applicants. Question: Currently submitting a CF 214 is not considered Customs business. If the broker submits this electronically, will this be considered Customs business? A: No, it is not considered Customs business. Question: Why are we creating new zone entry types for antidumping and quota entries? A: There are limitations around post summary corrections for anti dumping and quota. Question: How may FTZ are there and how many 214s are filed? A: The Number of active General Purpose Zones: 150 The Number of active Sub-zones: 241 Receipts in 2004 totaled $317 billion, a 29% increase over 2003 Exports in 2004 totaled $22 billion, a 10% increase over 2003 Census receives about 20,000 paper 214s a month Reconciliation The main change for reconciliation will be that the trade will be flagging at the line item level. Retroactive flagging will also be part of A2. Question: Are you saying we will be able to flag the actual line item and leave the other lines off? A: That is correct. Question: Do I submit the change at the entry level or is it automatic by tariff number? A: By entry. Question: Will post summary corrections be used as the methodology for retro flagging? A: CBP is looking into that. The final methodology has not been determined. De-flagging will not be allowed. The trade will have the opportunity to file a simplified aggregate reconciliation to close all the flags on all of the „no change‟ entries. The trade will also have the ability to file an aggregate reconciliation where changes are aggregated. Q: On the southern border, there are a lot of entries flagged where there is no duty change and no merchandise processing fee. Has any thought been given to a de-minimus change? A: CBP has looked into the de-minimus request and that was discussed by the Legal Policy Committee at the meeting on September 28th. We discussed 7%, but with a large company that could be 50 million. We need a rule that can be applied to everything and that is not possible for all types of reconciliations. If you know within 6 months, you could use post summary corrections versus reconciliation. You might also want to look at the method of valuation that you use and go to transactional. Q: Will the surety be able to tell at the entry level that the entry was flagged for reconciliation if flagging occurs at the line level? A: The surety will be able to tell at the entry level that the entry was flagged for reconciliation, according to Jeremy Baskin. The surety will be able to see the flagged line item detail only when a claim is made against the surety. Action Item – need to ensure the reconciliation flag is placed at the header level for the surety. Entry Summary Declaration The entry summary declaration is there to tell Customs “this is my final answer.” If you certify off the CF 7501, then the declaration is automatic. For those using the two step process there will be a new flag on the ABI transmission indicating whether the specific transmission acts as the Entry Summary declaration. A lot of thought and discussion went into this but from the trade‟s perspective the way it worked out is kind of confusing. What is being proposed is not the elegant solution we had hoped for. During one of the workshops we were asked if anyone uses the daily statement for anything other than revenue. The answer was yes, we use it to file the entry summary. Question: At what point is it completed? Is it at the point the revenue is accepted? A: The law says you need to know when the entry is completed. Legally this is the closest we could come to completion. Question: On the daily statement, CBP has the right to change from paperless to paper required. If we are not receiving the daily statement, how will we know that paper is required? A: CBP will notify the filer. We are still working out the specifics in that area. Paper is required for a number of reasons. CBP is now considering whether we want the complete paper package or whether we can just request a supporting document. We are discussing whether the message will be documents required or an electronic document required or paper. This is all under discussion. Q: Is CBP considering accepting scanned images? A: Yes, depending on what is needed and the specific document involved. CBP is still discussing the vehicle for images. At the Department of Homeland Security level, the decision was made that CBP cannot receive a faxed image. That is for security purposes. Entry Summary Presentation and Transmission With any new implementation, there will be new data elements required and new record formats. We do not have the specifics on that yet. There will be programming involved in dealing with those changes. Post Summary Corrections (PSC) Q: How will post summary corrections work for other government agencies? For example, an entry is filed with the OGA approval on it, will post summary corrections allow us to do that? A: You will not be allowed to change fields that affect admissibility or release. CBP however has not identified those fields yet. CBP will take this as an Action Item to explore PGA changes when you certify for release from the entry summary. This also needs to be explored with CT&E. Discussions have focused on summary corrections for SILs and PEAs. Comment (trade): Today we would retransmit the entry with a DOT correction. Comment (CBP): If you are retransmitting entry summary data for reasons outside of summary corrections for SILs and PEAs, we need to check into it. Programming changes are probably the most extensive for post summary corrections. For those who do not currently track fields that have been changed and why they were changed, major changes to programs will be required. Even though you send post summary correction, CBP may not accept it. With PSC, one of the requirements will be the actual line number so if you are deleting the line item, you cannot renumber the entry. CBP will allow the line number to be 20, 30, etc. so you can add lines. Census Warnings A change to the Entry summary message is being developed to allow for the transmission of a new Census Override Code as part of the initial submission. A new message will be developed to allow the Census Override Code to be transmitted after the initial submission. Question: How far in advance will the vendors know what the changes are? We have been told we will get the changes in plenty of time, but we do not know who can commit to that. A: Paul Nugent assured the group they would have at least 90 days notice. CBP wants this to be successful. Input from the trade will certainly be sought on this matter. Rick Davenport reminded the trade that they need to keep in mind there is A1 and A2. The functional specifications have been written for A1 but we have not written the technical ones. After that you will have a better idea of what needs to be done for A1. For A2, we will follow the same process. We will get you technical specifications as soon as possible. My guess is that you will have a 6 to 9 month lead time because for A2 we have an extensive testing phase. We are thinking in terms of that taking 5 to 6 months. As part of this testing process, there will be testing with the trade for a good portion of that time. For CBP to do the coding, we need specifications as well. You need to realize that based on testing, there will be some changes that need to be made. Comment (trade): I am concerned that we will have 3000 companies being impacted by these changes. Vendors must test first and then they need to get the changes out to their clients to test and do training on. Question: Is there anyone who can squash the new CF 7501 changes? A: CBP has to be 508 compliant so the form had to be changed. With the issuance of the new form, CBP was able to make some needed clarifications. Art Litman and Celeste Catano will keep the Trade User‟s Guide for ACE-ESAR up to date. They will be working with CBP to clarify outstanding issues. As more details are received, the document will be updated so that the trade has more information to make better decisions. An updated version of the Trade User‟s Guide will be distributed with the meeting report as will a copy of the importer‟s presentation. The Trade Ambassadors are seeking input on this document and any questions that you would like them to raise. VIII. Industry Breakout: Carriers Master data ESAR A1 will set up account master data. They accounts subsystem will distribute master account data to other ACE subsystems that need it. A1 does not provide for transactional data, which is in A2. Question: Can one company have multiple account types, e.g., if you are an importer and an exporter and a carrier. o A: Yes. The portal will provide for different views for each account type, accessible through the one account. The account can set up different contacts, etc., for each account type. There is a unique account identifier with a potential of multiple views for various account types. Question: If one account is an importer and a carrier, who does the party apply to? o A: The application would go to the same address: ACE Secure Data Portal U.S. Customs and Border Protection Client Representative Branch Attn: Beauregard Outreach Office A-314-1 7681 Boston Blvd Springfield, VA 22153 ESAR A1 will provide for truck, air, sea and rail carrier accounts. Question: Years ago, work done to identify what information the sea carrier‟s portal would contain. Is that being used? o A: We‟ve taken the requirement recommendations gathered from the TSN Committees, and from CBP to build the design for portal accounts. With respect to PGA requirements, ACE has engaged many PGAs for A1. ACE is ready to incorporate PGA requirements, although these haven‟t been clearly and finally articulated to ACE as of yet. Cross-account access Cross-account access will be provided in A1. This capability allows the Trade Account Owner (TAO) to designate another individual to have access to their account based on the permissions they establish. This is functionality that many within the TSN have identified as necessary. The CBP security policy does not allow for concurrent access of multiple accounts. ACE will, however, provide the ability to access multiple accounts based on the permissions granted. One user ID will be able to access multiple accounts based on the privileges granted per account. The TAO controls access and grants access to another party. Question: If you are an account who is both an importer and a carrier, do you have to log off and log on? o A: You will not have to log on and off. This is controlled in the account view, but there is no split screen that will allow both to be viewed concurrently. This is separate from cross-account access. Cross-account access example: A drawback specialist works for seven brokers. When he signs on, he can click on broker ABC and view his information. He can click on broker BCD and get his information. At this point, the drawback specialist will have to sign out and sign back in to go from one broker to another. When the Trade Account Owner (TAO) designates the cross account access to another entity, the TAO has the ability to identify what the other entity can see, change, etc. The TAO designates the access permissions. Merge accounts When accounts are merged, the user ID will remain with the individual. Question: What is the password policy? Are passwords permanent? o A: There is a set definition of what a password is comprised of. The password expires if not used. It has to be changed every 90 days. The user is asked a series of questions and sets their password at the onset. If the user forgets the password, ACE will ask the questions to ensure user is who he says, and provide password. This is known as shared secrets. When a party at the top level of the account designates a user, they can identify who has access to what. For example, a holding company with two SCACs buys two more. They can set up a user that has access to any combination of the SCACs. The TAO will have access to all 4 SCACs. There is no file to send to ACE to create the account hierarchies. This will be manually input. Question: How are agents identified, e.g., a 3rd party doing work on the account‟s behalf? o A: When a TAO designates an individual, including a 3rd party, with access to his account, the user ID and password will be created to allow that individual to have access to that account, based on the access permissions. In the end state (that is, A1 and A2), a service provider who has been given access to 30 carriers will have access to those 30 carriers‟ data through his portal. His account will be empty until he is granted permission by the carriers to access his data. It is the carrier that grants permission to establish him as a user on the carrier‟s account. IX. Carrier Workshop ACE will work as well as the systems have worked for the past 20 years. We are at the tenth anniversary of rail AMS. Kim Santos reported that his group has history and a proven performance record. With the merger last December of ACE and ACS, we now have one unified team. The team is looking forward to delivering on multi-modal manifest. Question: Why did you move away from SAP and to DB2 for CT&E, when SAP was used for Release 4? Did you discover that SAP wasn‟t the right mechanism? o A: We are still retaining SAP for account functionality. For reference files within SAP, CT&E/MMM will still interface. Question: What goes back to the truck? We have had many Release 4 issues with SAP. o A: A couple of years ago, decisions were made to implement SAP. We don‟t want to tell the trucking industry that they have to change. Somewhere down the road CBP may take a fresh look at these tools. As of now, CBP is committed to NOT change what we‟ve put out there. Question: A few years ago when the decision to go with SAP was announced, Release 4 users expressed concerns. Now we‟re coming full circle. Have you finally seen what we‟ve been saying? o A: SAP doesn‟t have the multi-modal manifest component. CBP felt we could move forward more rapidly because there was no multi-modal manifest component to use from SAP. This is the reason we have ACS and ACE joining together in Modernization. The information trucks provide will not change. Question: Do M1 and M2 not impact truck at all? Is there a relationship? Does M1/M2 contain enhancements to truck? o A: M1 and M2 will be implemented in parallel with enhancements to Release 4. Truck has a separate but shared support team. It is a separate system. When we go to M1, we‟ll have partially shared databases between M1 and truck. Certainly we‟ll have shared reference files. In M1 and M2, we are not changing the existing trade communication or syntax. We are supporting CAMIR and X12; for truck, we will continue to support EDIFACT. We cannot deliver anything less than the full functionality and performance levels that we have today. In addition, there will be a number of enhancements. We are looking at the TSN MMM and Entry requirements. M1 will provide for a restructuring of existing codes. We must have everything we have today and as much of the enhancements as we can work in. New enhancements, unless mandated by statute or by OFO, will be incorporated but we may have to make them optional so the trade is not initially displaced. We can‟t, however, deliver on the TSN MMM requirement to eliminate manifesting between the U.S. and Canada. Question: Is the benefit for the trade a cost savings? o A: The big companies are coming in direct, via MQ Series communications, and are using X12, CAMIR EDI standards. I don‟t know if there will be a cost savings for carriers to come through portal. There is a significant amount of report capability through the portal. Report data is available to accounts through the portal whether the carrier transmits manifest data via the portal or via EDI. Question: Under supply chain security, there will be new elements added. Will this be in place for M1/M2, and if so, what type of elements do you envision? o A: We are considering what additional elements would be required. OFO will determine if we should have crew for rail. Crew is required in truck, and it likely will be required for rail. CBP is currently working with an understanding that we will define specific sets of information. Some of this may be pieces of information that carriers provide, e.g., point of stuffing. The “what” will be defined. This could occur in ACS or ACE. Question: There is a TSN MMM requirement to allow the trade to see things of a compliance nature. Also, we wanted to prevent the broker from obligating bonds, etc. o A: You can see this on the portal, and take action accordingly. The validation will happen in the application, not the portal. If a party is not an authorized user, ACE will send a message back. This will also be displayed on the portal. Question: There is a TSN MMM requirement on the availability of FP&F information via the portal. Where does this stand? o A: Penalties occur later in the release schedule. The links to SEACATS haven‟t been built. CBP is working on getting a 358 from another government reporting that T&Es have been exported. This would be like a rail BAPLIE. Canada captures the arrival of in-bond shipments in the 358. They would send this 358 back to USCBP and USCBP would use it to report that these have been exported. Regulations have not caught up with technology since the carrier must legally report that the shipment has been exported. The carrier could be penalized for not having reported that their in-bonds have been exported. The integrity of the BAPLIE is very secure with OOCL from Hong Kong. The trade is dependent upon the custodial carrier to report that in-bond has been exported.