Docstoc

TSN Plenary Session

Document Sample
TSN Plenary Session Powered By Docstoc
					                               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.phillips@gm.com
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.

				
DOCUMENT INFO