[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 30, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69015-69021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30736]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

19 CFR Parts 111, 113, 141, 142 and 143

[CBP Dec. 09-47; USCBP-2006-0001]
RIN 1505-AB20


Remote Location Filing

AGENCIES: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security; Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document adopts as a final rule, with changes, the 
proposed amendments to title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 
CFR) regarding Remote Location Filing (RLF). RLF is a planned component 
of the National Customs Automation Program (NCAP), authorized by 
section 414 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as added by section 631 within 
the Customs Modernization provisions of the North American Free Trade 
Agreement Implementation Act. RLF allows a participating NCAP filer to 
electronically file with CBP those consumption entries and related 
information that CBP can process in a completely electronic data 
interchange system from a location other than where the goods will 
arrive in the United States.

DATES: Effective Date: January 29, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For systems or automation issues: Tony 
Casucci, Office of Information Technology, at (703) 650-3053. For 
operational or policy issues: Cynthia Whittenburg, Trade Policy and 
Programs, Office of International Trade, at (202) 863-6512 or via e-
mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 23, 2007, CBP published in the Federal Register (72 FR 
13714) a proposal to implement Remote Location Filing (RLF) regulations 
in a new subpart E to part 143 within title 19 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (19 CFR part 143, subpart E).
    RLF, which currently operates as a National Customs Automation 
Program (NCAP) prototype test pursuant to section 414 of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as added by section 631 within the Customs Modernization 
provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation 
Act, allows an RLF filer to electronically file with U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) those consumption entries and related 
information that CBP can process in a completely electronic data 
interchange system from a location other than where the goods will 
arrive in the United States.
    As noted in 72 FR 13714, the RLF prototype will terminate upon the 
effective date of this final rule. RLF prototype participants may 
continue to participate in the NCAP test program until this date.
    CBP solicited comments on the proposed rulemaking.

Discussion of Comments

    Fourteen commenters responded to the solicitation of public comment 
in the proposed rule. A description of the comments received, together 
with CBP's analyses, is set forth below.
    Comment: Proposed Sec.  143.44(c) describes RLF automation 
requirements as encompassing only those entries and entry summaries 
that CBP processes completely in an electronic data interchange system. 
Three commenters requested that, in the final rule, CBP either 
specifically list the RLF-eligible entry types or cite to a source for 
such information.
    CBP Response: Currently, only electronically transmitted 
consumption entries--entry types 01 and 11--may be filed using RLF. CBP 
is presently working to expand the entry types that may be processed 
via RLF. It is anticipated that upon the total integration of the major 
cargo and entry summary functionalities into Automated Commercial 
Environment (ACE), the expansion of RLF will be fully realized and will 
incorporate most entry types.
    As the entry types currently permitted under RLF are expanded in 
the future, CBP will not list them in the regulatory text; rather, CBP 
will include a reference in the regulatory text, at Sec.  143.44(c), to 
the Web site located at http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/trade_programs/remote_location_filing/ that provides a current listing of 
permissible RLF entry types.
    Comment: Four commenters requested that RLF permit the filing of 
all entry types (including anti-dumping, countervailing duty, and quota 
entries), and not be limited to type 01 and 11 consumption entries. One 
of the commenters also suggested that CBP create a special class of 
National Permit to allow a broker to file any type of entry in RLF.
    CBP Response: As noted in the response to the previous comment, it 
is anticipated that most entry types will be permitted under RLF at 
such time as the major cargo and entry summary functionalities are 
totally integrated into ACE. For this reason, the creation of a special 
class of National Permit is unnecessary.
    Comment: One commenter requested that all brokers meeting the 
criteria set forth in proposed Sec.  143.43 should have their filer 
codes centrally ``turned on'' automatically in the Automated Commercial 
System (ACS) for all eligible RLF ports instead of having their 
Automated Broker Interface (ABI) Client Representatives enter them as 
needed.
    CBP Response: The current ACS environment does not provide this 
capability. Coordination with the ABI Client Representative is required 
to enable a broker to file remotely at a specific port.
    Comment: Two commenters requested additional clarification 
regarding the specific criteria used by CBP in establishing RLF-
operational locations.
    CBP Response: CBP continually reviews and makes determinations 
concerning the addition of new ports to the list of RLF-approved 
processing locations. A prospective port must, at a minimum, have 
appropriate electronic entry processing capabilities. In determining 
whether to make a port RLF-operational, CBP may take into consideration 
factors such as trade interest and whether CBP personnel

[[Page 69016]]

have been trained in RLF procedures at a particular location. Filers 
are encouraged to contact the CBP RLF Program Manager at 
[email protected] to suggest possible port additions.
    Comment: Four commenters advocated that RLF be permanently adopted 
as a final rule.
    CBP Response: CBP concurs.
    Comment: Three commenters requested that CBP adopt procedures that 
would provide the trade with a 90-day advance notice of new RLF-
operational ports. The commenters noted that Express Consignment 
Carrier Facility (ECCF) operators require advance notice to modify 
automated systems to accept RLF entries and, although the proposed rule 
notice stated that new RLF locations will be listed in the Automated 
Broker Interface (ABI) administrative messaging system, the document 
did not state that advance notice will be provided. The commenters also 
note that messages sent via ABI will not reach parties such as carriers 
and ECCF operators who are not part of ABI messaging.
    CBP Response: CBP will make every effort to provide advance notice 
to the trade of new RLF-operational ports and will list new and pending 
RLF-operational ports on its Web page so that parties who do not 
participate in the ABI administrative messaging system will be informed 
in this regard. The agency, however, views adopting a 90-day advance 
notice regulatory requirement as unnecessarily restrictive as the time 
it takes to train CBP personnel and ensure that the port is fully RLF 
operational varies from port to port. As noted above, filers are 
encouraged to contact the CBP RLF Program Manager at 
[email protected] for information regarding possible port 
additions.
    Comment: Three commenters requested that CBP publish a list of 
current RLF operational ports in a manner that is clearly labeled on 
the CBP Web site and includes the date of last update.
    CBP Response: A complete and current list of existing RLF 
operational ports is set forth at the CBP Web site located at http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/trade_programs/remote_location_filing/. A 
link entitled ``RLF Operational Locations'' directs viewers to the 
list, which also contains the date of last update. A reference to this 
Web site is set forth in Sec.  143.42(b).
    Comment: One commenter stated that the need for adequate staffing 
at RLF-operational ports is essential and noted a lack of uniform 
training at these sites.
    CBP Response: CBP is in the process of updating internal RLF 
standard operating procedures and training materials which will help 
achieve a higher level of proficiency and uniformity in RLF processing 
skills at RLF-operational ports.
    Comment: One commenter noted that under the terms of the RLF 
prototype, CBP accepted electronic filings of certain ``other 
government agency'' (OGA) information and certifications such as Toxic 
Substances Control Act (TSCA) certificates. The commenter urges CBP to 
expand RLF in this capacity.
    CBP Response: CBP continues to work with OGAs to fulfill 
documentation requirements electronically through the International 
Trade Data System (ITDS). Also, as noted above, when the major cargo 
and entry summary functionalities are totally integrated into ACE, it 
is anticipated that the expansion of RLF will be fully realized and 
most OGA information and filings will be able to be filed 
electronically.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that RLF should be expanded to 
include the Line Release process, prescribed in 19 CFR part 142, 
subpart D, which exists to facilitate the clearance of repetitive, low-
risk transactions.
    CBP Response: Line Release provides for advance cargo screening and 
expedited release at land border ports. The current ACS environment 
does not provide the capability for RLF to include Line Release. 
However, as entry processing migrates to ACE and CBP's system 
capabilities evolve, CBP will explore opportunities to achieve various 
process objectives based on the expanded automation capabilities.
    Comment: One commenter stated that RLF regulations are not 
necessary because the RLF prototype has been functioning for 13 years 
and ACE will make RLF redundant. The commenter suggests that RLF should 
continue as a NCAP prototype until such time as the functionalities of 
ACE are totally integrated.
    CBP Response: Promulgating RLF as a regulatory program will clarify 
and harmonize RLF requirements and provide the operational groundwork 
for ACE. ACE will not replace RLF; rather, ACE will be the electronic 
means necessary to expand RLF.
    Comment: One commenter, citing the proposed amendment to 19 CFR 
141.61(a)(2) which would allow electronic entry and entry summary 
documentation to be filed ``by the importer of record or his duly 
authorized agent, one of whom must be a resident of the United States 
for the purposes of receiving service of process,'' requested that CBP 
verify that it is not amending part 141 to allow customs brokers (or 
any other future authorized agent for an importer) to prepare and file 
customs entries, entry summaries and/or other ``customs business'' 
documents from outside the United States on the importer's behalf.
    CBP Response: The amendments to 19 CFR 141.61(a)(2) are intended to 
provide regulatory guidance for RLF regarding the manner by which 
electronic entry and entry summary documentation are to be prepared. 
This regulatory package does not address the issue of whether entries 
can be filed from outside the United States.
    Comment: One commenter suggested changes to proposed 19 CFR 
141.61(a)(2) which concerns the preparation of electronic entry and 
entry summary documentation. The commenter notes that the certification 
of the entry filing is ``customs business,'' as defined in 19 U.S.C. 
1641(a) and 19 CFR 111.1, and the person responsible for preparing the 
electronic filing, not simply the transmitter of the filing, must be 
the importer self-filer or a licensed U.S. customs broker. Accordingly, 
the commenter suggests deleting the phrase in proposed Sec.  
141.61(a)(2) which states, ``* * * by the importer of record or his 
duly authorized agent, one of whom must be resident in the United 
States for purposes of receiving service of process * * *'' and adding 
in its place the language, ``* * * by the importer of record or the 
importer's duly authorized customs broker''.
    CBP Comment: CBP agrees with the commenter's suggested language and 
proposed Sec.  141.61(a)(2), as set forth in 72 FR 13714, is amended in 
this document to state that the entry and entry summary documentation 
must be certified by the importer of record or the importer's duly 
authorized ``customs broker.'' This provision is further amended to 
retain the concept of the importer's ``duly authorized agent'' in a 
service of process context.
    Comment: One commenter noted that RLF pertains only to customs 
brokers and that importers who are self-filers have no permit 
restrictions and may file entries of all kinds at all ports in the U.S. 
In order to maintain the current level playing field, brokers must 
continue to have the option of offering their clients the same 
capabilities. To that end, the commenter proposes that a special class 
of national permit should be created that would allow brokers to file 
at all ports with no restrictions as to entry types. The commenter 
posits that creating a new class of permit would provide brokers with 
the same filing options as self-filing importers.

[[Page 69017]]

    CBP Response: The legislative intent of the Customs Modernization 
Act (Pub. L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2170 (December 8, 1993)), was to allow 
nationally permitted brokerage firms to file electronically at all 
ports of entry, and CBP is working toward that objective.
    Additionally, and as noted above, when the major cargo and entry 
summary functionalities are totally integrated into ACE, the expansion 
of RLF will be fully realized, and it is anticipated that RLF will be 
able to encompass most, if not all, entry types.
    Comment: One commenter inquired whether a broker would be allowed 
to make entry via RLF even when the broker has an office in the port of 
entry.
    CBP Response: A broker may use CBP's electronic invoice 
capabilities to facilitate an entry filing when the broker has an 
office in the port of entry.
    Comment: Several commenters noted that express consignment carrier 
and courier hub facilities (ECCFs) are privately constructed and funded 
facilities at which ECCF operators are required to pay reimbursement 
fees to CBP (see Sec.  24.23(b)(4)) for services provided by the agency 
at these facilities. As ECCFs are increasingly used by conventional 
brokers who do not pay reimbursement fees, the commenters suggested 
that CBP should impose filer code restrictions and ECCF operators 
should be able to choose which of their port codes will be RLF-eligible 
and which brokers will be permitted to file RLF entries at the ECCFs.
    CBP Response: With regard to the commenters' request for filer code 
restrictions at ECCFs, CBP notes that RLF operational ports, including 
ECCFs, are open to all filers and importers who fulfill the RLF 
eligibility criteria.
    Comment: Several commenters requested that ECCF operators be 
notified as part of the approval and set-up process to prevent the 
filing of duplicate entries resulting from situations where an importer 
retains the services of an outside customs broker to file an entry 
instead of using the ECCF's designated ``in-house'' broker who 
typically arranges customs clearance at the facility.
    CBP Response: As this issue is substantively outside the scope of 
the proposed amendments to the CBP regulations set forth in 72 FR 
13714, it cannot be addressed in this final rule.
    CBP notes, however, that as importers are obligated to use 
reasonable care in making an entry, the U.S. purchaser and the foreign 
shipper are obligated to coordinate with each other as to which of them 
will be responsible for entering the foreign merchandise covered by 
their transaction. Brokers are obligated to exercise reasonable 
supervision over the customs business they perform and are obligated to 
ask whether an entry is being made on behalf of the foreign shipper or 
the U.S. purchaser. If the parties to the transaction meet their above-
described legal obligations, the issue of duplicate entries being made 
on the same merchandise should not occur. However, where duplicate 
entries are filed, filers may remedy this through CBP's established 
entry cancellation procedures. For a further discussion of this issue, 
the trade is advised to contact the Trade Facilitation and 
Administration Division, Office of International Trade, Customs and 
Border Protection, at (202) 863-6000.
    Comment: Several commenters note that as an ECCF operator engages 
in a contractual agreement with a shipper through the terms and 
conditions of the air waybill, the ECCF operator is contractually 
obligated to abide by the instructions from the shipper. These terms 
and conditions include the authority to make clearance arrangements at 
destination and offer an option under which the shipper can specify 
that the consignee will make clearance arrangements. The commenters 
expressed concern that the proposed RLF regulations make no mention of 
this contractual obligation and thus create the possibility of forced 
contractual breach by requiring the ECCF operator to accept the entry 
under arrangements by the consignee.
    CBP Response: These comments address a substantive issue that is 
beyond the scope of the proposed RLF rule and therefore will not be 
considered in the context of this final rule.
    Comment: Several commenters described the PAIRED program as 
distinct from RLF and suggested that if PAIRED were to be eliminated, 
as proposed, valuable experience and established relationships between 
the trade, participating government agencies and CBP will be lost. The 
commenters noted that PAIRED port entries were designed to facilitate 
legitimate low risk/repetitive trade throughout the United States and 
therefore play a significant part in the economic well-being of our 
nation and the importing companies that use the PAIRED program. The 
commenters further noted that although Congress stated that the PAIRED 
program would be eliminated upon implementation of RLF, this 
presupposed that RLF would provide the same benefits and unique aspects 
of PAIRED. In this regard, it is noted that AD/CVD entries, quota 
entries, single bond entries, and paper entry filings required by 
certain other government agencies are permitted under PAIRED, but not 
under RLF at this time.
    CBP Response: CBP agrees that the PAIRED program is distinct from 
RLF. RLF is processed in a completely electronic environment while 
PAIRED, in most cases, still relies on paper filings. The PAIRED 
program was implemented in 1987 as an alternative process for importers 
to use the existing ``telecommunications facilities'' that were 
available at that time to expedite the submission, review, and final 
disposition of entry documentation.
    PAIRED was implemented as an attempt to reduce the costs associated 
with maintaining the transportation in-bond system. In 1987, CBP did 
not possess the technological resources for electronic filing, nor did 
the agency possess the statutory authority to permit brokers to file 
entries to districts other than those for which they held district 
permits.
    Congress directed the discontinuance of PAIRED entries upon 
implementation of RLF. See House Report No. 103-361(I), page 127. CBP 
is of the view that elimination of the PAIRED program fulfills 
Congressional intent by increasing electronic filing (a major impetus 
of the Customs Modernization provisions of the North American Free 
Trade Agreement Implementation Act, Pub. L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2170 
(December 8, 1993)). The argument that RLF was intended to provide the 
same benefits as PAIRED is unsubstantiated and, in any event, will be 
rendered moot in the foreseeable future as ACE modernization 
development will deliver major release and entry summary processing 
capabilities in 2009.
    Comment: Several commenters request that elimination of the PAIRED 
program should be phased in until RLF is implemented for all entry 
types.
    CBP Response: CBP does not view an interim continuation of the 
PAIRED program as conducive to either CBP's homeland security 
objectives or its customs modernization initiatives.
    As noted above, RLF was established under the Customs Modernization 
Act and provides for the electronic submission of required entry and 
entry summary data from any location regardless of where the 
merchandise arrives in the United States or where it is examined. Under 
RLF, physical examinations are not restricted to either the port of 
filing or the port of arrival (unlike PAIRED). Examination can also 
take place at the port nearest the cargo's final destination. RLF 
supports comprehensive account based processing by allowing filers to 
electronically manage and control filing

[[Page 69018]]

of customs cargo data. RLF also supports the accurate electronic 
tracking of cargo arrival and required electronic review. The PAIRED 
program does not support these important security objectives and runs 
counter to the agency's modernization efforts.

Conclusion

    After analysis of the comments and further review of the matter, 
CBP has determined to adopt as final, with the changes mentioned in the 
comment discussion, the proposed rule published in the Federal Register 
(72 FR 13714) on March 23, 2007.
    This final rule also affects an additional non-substantive change 
to Sec. Sec.  143.43(a), 143.44(a) and 143.44(b) to clarify that the 
importer of record, in addition to a customs broker, may participate in 
RLF.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866

    Because these amendments implement a voluntary program provided for 
by statute, and have the effect of streamlining the entry process and 
reducing the overall regulatory burden on the general public, it is 
certified pursuant to the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. that these amendments will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Further, 
these amendments do not meet the criteria for a ``significant 
regulatory action'' as specified in E.O. 12866.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    As there are no new collections of information proposed in this 
document, the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3507) are inapplicable.

Signing Authority

    This document is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1).

List of Subjects

19 CFR Part 111

    Administrative practice and procedure, Brokers, Customs duties and 
inspection, Imports, Licensing, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

19 CFR Part 113

    Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Surety bonds.

19 CFR Part 141

    Customs duties and inspection, Entry of merchandise, Invoices, 
Release of merchandise, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

19 CFR Part 142

    Customs duties and inspection, Forms, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

19 CFR Part 143

    Automated Broker Interface (ABI), Computer technology (Electronic 
entry filing), Customs duties and inspection, Entry of merchandise, 
Invoice requirements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Amendments to the Regulations

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 111, 113, 141, 142 
and 143 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR parts 111, 113, 141, 142 and 
143) are amended as set forth below.

PART 111--CUSTOMS BROKERS

0
1. The general authority citation for part 111 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1624, 1641.
* * * * *

0
2. Section 111.2(b)(2)(i)(C) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  111.2  License and district permit required.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) Electronic filing. A broker may electronically file entries for 
merchandise from a remote location, pursuant to the terms set forth in 
subpart E to part 143 of this chapter, and may electronically transact 
other customs business even though the entry is filed, or other customs 
business is transacted, within a district for which the broker does not 
have a district permit; and
* * * * *

PART 113--CUSTOMS BONDS

0
3. The general authority citation for part 113 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1623, 1624.
* * * * *


Sec.  113.62  [Amended]

0
4. In Sec.  113.62, paragraph (k)(1) is amended by removing the 
reference ,`` subpart D,'' and by removing the words ``that subpart'' 
and adding in their place the words, ``part 143''.

PART 141--ENTRY OF MERCHANDISE

0
5. The general authority citation for part 141 is revised, and the 
specific authority citations for subparts F and G and Sec. Sec.  141.68 
and 141.90 continue to read as follows:

    Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1414, 1448, 1484, 1624.
    Subpart F also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1481;
    Subpart G also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1505;
* * * * *
    Section 141.68 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1315;
* * * * *
    Section 141.90 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1487;
* * * * *

0
6. In Sec.  141.18:
0
a. The introductory sentence is amended by removing the word 
``Customs'' and adding in its place the word ``customs'', and by 
removing the word ``shall'' and adding in its place the word ``may'';
0
b. Paragraph (a) is revised; and
0
c. Paragraph (b) is amended by removing the word ``Customs'' and adding 
in its place the term ``CBP''.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  141.18  Entry by nonresident corporation.

* * * * *
    (a) Has a resident agent in the State where the port of entry is 
located who is authorized to accept service of process against that 
corporation or, in the case of an entry filed from a remote location 
pursuant to subpart E of part 143 of this chapter, has a resident agent 
authorized to accept service of process against that corporation either 
in the State where the port of entry is located or in the State from 
which the remote location filing originates; and
* * * * *

0
7. In Sec.  141.61:
0
a. Paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised;
0
b. Paragraph (c) is amended, in the first sentence, by removing the 
word ``shall'' and adding in its place the word ``must'', and; in the 
second sentence, by removing the word ``shall'' and adding in its place 
the word ``will'';
0
c. Paragraph (d) is amended by removing the word ``shall'' each place 
that it appears and adding the word ``must'', and by removing the words 
``Customs Form'' each place they appear and adding the words ``CBP 
Form'';
0
d. Paragraph (e) is amended:
0
i. In paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(3), by removing the word ``shall'' 
each place that it appears and adding the word ``must'', and by 
removing the words ``Customs Form'' each place they

[[Page 69019]]

appear and adding the words ``CBP Form'';
0
ii. In paragraph (e)(4), by removing the word ``shall'' and adding in 
its place the word ``will'' and by removing the word ``Customs'' and 
adding in its place the term ``CBP''; and
0
iii. In paragraph (e)(5), by removing the word ``shall'' and adding in 
its place the word ``will''; and
0
e. Paragraph (f) is amended:
0
i. In paragraph (f)(1), by removing the word ``shall'' and adding in 
its place the word ``must''; in paragraph (f)(1)(iv), by removing, in 
the second sentence, the words ``shall represent'' and adding in their 
place the words ``must represent''; and, in the third sentence, by 
removing the word ``shall'' and adding in its place the word ``must'' 
and by removing the word ``Customs'' each place that it appears and 
adding the term ``CBP'';
0
ii. In paragraph (f)(2)(i), by removing the word ``shall'' each place 
that it appears and adding the word ``must'' and by removing the word 
``Customs'' and adding in its place the term ``CBP'';
0
iii. In paragraph (f)(2)(ii), by removing, in the first sentence, the 
word ``shall'' and adding in its place the word ``must'', by removing 
in the second sentence the words ``shall represent'' and adding in 
their place the words ``must represent''; and, in the third sentence, 
by removing the word ``shall'' and adding in its place the word 
``must''; and, in paragraphs (f)(2)(iii) and (f)(2)(iv), by removing 
the word ``shall'' each place that it appears and adding the word 
``must''.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  141.61  Completion of entry and entry summary documentation.

    (a) Preparation--(1) Paper entry and entry summary documentation. 
Except when entry and entry summary documentation is filed with CBP 
electronically pursuant to the provisions of part 143 of this chapter:
    (i) Such documentation must be prepared on a typewriter (keyboard), 
or with ink, indelible pencil, or other permanent medium, and all 
copies must be legible;
    (ii) The entry summary must be signed by the importer (see Sec.  
101.1 of this chapter); and
    (iii) Entries, entry summaries, and accompanying documentation must 
be on the appropriate forms specified by the regulations and must 
clearly set forth all required information.
    (2) Electronic entry and entry summary documentation. Entry and 
entry summary documentation that is filed electronically pursuant to 
part 143 of this chapter must contain the information required by this 
section and must be certified (see Sec. Sec.  143.35 and 143.44 of this 
chapter) by the importer of record or his duly authorized customs 
broker as being true and correct to the best of his knowledge. The 
importer of record, customs broker, or a duly authorized agent must be 
resident in the United States for purposes of receiving service of 
process. A certified electronic transmission is binding in the same 
manner and to the same extent as a signed document.
    (b) Marks and numbers previously provided. An importer may omit 
from entry summary (CBP Form 7501) the marks and numbers previously 
provided for packages released or withdrawn.
* * * * *


Sec.  141.63  [Amended]

0
8. In Sec.  141.63:
    a. Paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) are amended by removing the word 
``shall'' each place that it appears and adding the word ``will''; and
    b. Paragraph (c) is removed.


Sec.  141.68  [Amended]

0
9. In Sec.  141.68:
0
a. Paragraphs (a) through (e), (g), and (h) are amended by removing the 
word ``shall'' each place that it appears and adding the word ``will''; 
and
0
b. Paragraphs (a), (d), and (f) through (h) are amended by removing the 
word ``Customs'' each place that it appears and adding the term 
``CBP''.

0
10. In Sec.  141.86:
0
a. Paragraphs (a) through (e) are amended by removing the word 
``shall'' each place that it appears and adding the word ``must'';
0
b. Paragraph (f) is amended by removing the word ``shall'' and adding 
in its place the word ``must'', and by removing the word ``Customs'' 
and adding in its place the term ``CBP'';
0
c. Paragraph (g) is amended by removing the word ``shall'' and adding 
in its place the word ``must'';
0
d. Paragraph (h) is revised; and
0
e. Paragraph (j) is amended by removing the word ``shall'' and adding 
in its place the word ``must''.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  141.86  Contents of invoices and general requirements.

* * * * *
    (h) Numbering of invoices and pages. (1) Invoices. Except when 
electronic invoice data are transmitted to CBP under the provisions of 
part 143 of this chapter, when more than one invoice is included in the 
same entry, each invoice with its attachments must be numbered 
consecutively by the importer on the bottom of the face of each page, 
beginning with No. 1.
    (2) Pages. Except when electronic invoice data are transmitted to 
CBP under the provisions of part 143 of this chapter, if the invoice or 
invoices filed with one entry consist of more than two pages, each page 
must be numbered consecutively by the importer on the bottom of the 
face of each page, with the page numbering beginning with No. 1 for the 
first page of the first invoice and continuing in a single series of 
numbers through all the invoices and attachments included in one entry.
    (3) Both invoices and pages. Except when electronic invoice data 
are transmitted to CBP under the provisions of part 143 of this 
chapter, both the invoice number and the page number must be shown at 
the bottom of each page when applicable. For example, an entry covering 
one invoice of one page and a second invoice of two pages must be 
paginated as follows:

Inv. 1, p. 1.
Inv. 2, p. 2.
Inv. 2, p. 3
* * * * *

0
11. In Sec.  141.90:
0
a. Paragraph (b) is revised;
0
b. Paragraph (c) is amended by removing the word ``shall'' each place 
that it appears and adding the word ``must'' in its place; and
0
c. Paragraph (d) is revised.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  141.90  Notation of tariff classification and value on invoice.

* * * * *
    (b) Classification and rate of duty. The importer or customs broker 
must include on the invoice or with the invoice data the appropriate 
subheading under the provisions of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States (19 U.S.C. 1202) and the rate of duty for the 
merchandise being entered. Except when invoice line data are linked to 
an entry summary line and transmitted to CBP electronically under the 
provisions of part 143, that information must be noted by the importer 
or customs broker in the left-hand portion of the invoice, next to the 
articles to which they apply.
* * * * *
    (d) Importer's notations in blue or black ink. Except when invoice 
line data are linked to an entry summary line and transmitted to CBP 
electronically under the provisions of part 143, all notations made on 
the invoice by the importer or customs broker must be in blue or black 
ink.

PART 142--ENTRY PROCESS

0
12. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as follows:




[[Page 69020]]


    Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1448, 1484, 1624.


0
13. In Sec.  142.3:
0
a. Paragraph (a) is amended by:
0
i. Removing in the introductory sentence the word ``shall'' and adding 
in its place the word ``must'';
0
ii. By removing in paragraph (a)(1) the word ``Customs'' each place 
that it appears and adding the term ``CBP'' and by removing the word 
``shall'' and adding in its place the word ``must'';
0
iii. By removing in paragraph (a)(5) the word ``Customs'' and adding in 
its place the term ``CBP'';
0
iv. By removing in paragraph (a)(6) the word ``shall'' and adding in 
its place the word ``must'' and by removing the term ``CF'' and adding 
in its place the words ``CBP Form'';
0
b. Paragraph (b) is revised; and
0
c. A new paragraph (d) is added.
    The revision and addition read as follows:


Sec.  142.3  Entry documentation required.

* * * * *
    (b) Entry summary filed at time of entry. When the entry summary is 
filed at time of entry in accordance with Sec.  142.12(a)(1) or Sec.  
142.13:
    (1) CBP Form 3461 or 7533 will not be required; and
    (2) CBP Form 7501 or CBP Form 3311 (as appropriate, see Sec.  
142.11) may serve as both the entry and the entry summary documentation 
if the additional documentation set forth in paragraphs (a)(2), (3), 
(4) and (5) of this section and Sec.  142.16(b) is filed.
* * * * *
    (d) Electronic Format. The entry documentation identified in this 
section may be submitted to CBP in either a paper or, where 
appropriate, an electronic format.

PART 143--SPECIAL ENTRY PROCEDURES

0
14. The authority citation for part 143 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1414, 1481, 1484, 1498, 1624, 1641.



0
15. Section 143.0 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  143.0  Scope.

    This part sets forth the requirements and procedures for 
participation in the Automated Broker Interface (ABI), for the 
clearance of imported merchandise under appraisement and informal 
entries, and under electronic entry filing and under Remote Location 
Filing (RLF). All requirements and procedures set forth in this part 
are in addition to the general requirements and procedures for all 
entries set forth in part 141 of this chapter. More specific 
requirements and procedures are set forth elsewhere in this chapter; 
for example, part 145 concerns importations by mail and part 10 
concerns merchandise conditionally free of duty or subject to a reduced 
rate.
0
16. In Sec.  143.32, the introductory text and paragraphs (a), (b), (d) 
through (k), and the first sentence of paragraph (o) are revised to 
read as follows:


Sec.  143.32  Definitions.

    The following are definitions for purposes of subparts D and E of 
this part:
    (a) ABI. ``ABI'' means the Automated Broker Interface and refers to 
a module of ACS that allows entry filers to transmit immediate 
delivery, entry and entry summary data electronically to CBP through 
ACS and to receive transmissions from ACS.
    (b) ACS. ``ACS'' means the Automated Commercial System and refers 
to CBP's integrated comprehensive tracking system for the acquisition, 
processing and distribution of import data.
* * * * *
    (d) Broker. ``Broker'' means a customs broker licensed under part 
111 of this chapter.
    (e) Certification. ``Certification'' means the electronic 
equivalent of a signature for data transmitted through ABI. This 
electronic (facsimile) signature must be transmitted as part of the 
immediate delivery, entry or entry summary data. Such data are referred 
to as ``certified''.
    (f) Data. ``Data'' when used in conjunction with immediate 
delivery, entry and/or entry summary means the information required to 
be submitted with the immediate delivery, entry and/or entry summary, 
respectively, in accordance with the CATAIR (CBP Publication 552, 
Customs and Trade Automated Interface Requirements) and/or CBP 
Headquarters directives. It does not mean the actual paper documents, 
but includes all of the information required to be in such documents.
    (g) Documentation. ``Documentation'' when used in conjunction with 
immediate delivery, entry and/or entry summary means the documents set 
forth in Sec.  142.3 of this chapter, required to be submitted as part 
of an application for immediate delivery, entry and/or entry summary, 
but does not include the CBP Forms 7501, 3461 (or alternative forms).
    (h) EDIFACT. ``EDIFACT'' means the Electronic Data Interchange for 
Administration, Commerce and Transport that provides an electronic 
capability to transmit detailed CBP Forms 7501 and 3461, and invoice 
data.
    (i) Electronic entry. ``Electronic entry'' means the electronic 
transmission to CBP of:
    (1) Entry information required for the entry of merchandise; and
    (2) Entry summary information required for the classification and 
appraisement of the merchandise, the verification of statistical 
information, and the determination of compliance with applicable law.
    (j) Electronic immediate delivery. ``Electronic immediate 
delivery'' means the electronic transmission of CBP Forms 3461 or 3461 
alternate (CBP Form 3461 ALT) data utilizing ACS in order to obtain the 
release of goods under immediate delivery.
    (k) Electronic Invoice Program (EIP). ``EIP'' refers to modules of 
the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) that allow entry filers to 
transmit detailed invoice data and includes Automated Invoice Interface 
(AII) and any other electronic invoice authorized by CBP.
* * * * *
    (o) Selectivity criteria. ``Selectivity criteria'' means the 
categories of information that guide CBP's judgment in evaluating and 
assessing the risk of an immediate delivery, entry, or entry summary 
transaction. * * *
* * * * *

0
17. Part 143 is amended by adding a new subpart E, consisting of 
Sec. Sec.  143.41 through 143.45, to read as follows:
Subpart E--Remote Location Filing
Sec.
143.41 Applicability.
143.42 Definitions.
143.43 RLF eligibility criteria.
143.44 RLF procedure.
143.45 Filing of additional entry information.

Subpart E--Remote Location Filing


Sec.  143.41  Applicability.

    This subpart sets forth the general requirements and procedures for 
Remote Location Filing (RLF). RLF entries are subject to the 
documentation, document retention and document retrieval requirements 
of this chapter as well as the general entry requirements of parts 141, 
142 and 143 of this chapter. Participation in the RLF program is 
voluntary and at the option of the filer.


Sec.  143.42  Definitions.

    The following definitions, in addition to the definitions set forth 
in Sec.  143.32 of this part, apply for purposes of this subpart E:
    (a) Remote Location Filing (RLF)--``RLF'' is an elective method of 
making entry by which a customs broker with a national permit 
electronically

[[Page 69021]]

transmits all data information associated with an entry that CBP can 
process in a completely electronic data interchange system to a RLF-
operational CBP location from a remote location other than where the 
goods are being entered. (Importers filing on their own behalf may file 
electronically in any port, subject to ABI filing requirements.)
    (b) RLF-operational CBP location--``RLF-operational CBP location'' 
means a CBP location within the customs territory of the United States 
that is staffed with CBP personnel who have been trained in RLF 
procedures and who have operational experience with the Electronic 
Invoice Program (EIP). EIP is defined in Sec.  143.32 of this chapter. 
A list of all RLF-operational locations is available for viewing on the 
CBP Internet Web site located at http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/trade_programs/remote_location_filing/.


Sec.  143.43  RLF eligibility criteria.

    (a) Automation criteria. To be eligible for RLF, a licensed customs 
broker or importer of record must be:
    (1) Operational on the ABI (see 19 CFR part 143, subpart A);
    (2) Operational on the EIP prior to applying for RLF; and
    (3) Operational on the ACH (or any other CBP-approved method of 
electronic payment), for purposes of directing the electronic payment 
of duties, taxes and fees (see 19 CFR 24.25), 30 days before 
transmitting a RLF entry.
    (b) Broker must have national permit. To be eligible for RLF, a 
licensed customs broker must hold a valid national permit (see 19 CFR 
111.19(f)).
    (c) Continuous bond. A RLF entry must be secured with a continuous 
bond.


Sec.  143.44  RLF procedure.

    (a) Electronic transmission of invoice data. For RLF transactions, 
a customs broker or importer of record must transmit electronically, 
using EIP, any invoice data required by CBP.
    (b) Electronic transmission of payment. For RLF transactions, a 
customs broker or importer of record must direct the electronic payment 
of duties, taxes and fees through the ACH (see 19 CFR 24.25) or any 
other method of electronic payment authorized by CBP.
    (c) Automation requirements. Only those entries and entry summaries 
that CBP processes completely in an electronic data interchange system 
will be accepted for RLF. For a listing of entry types that may be 
filed via RLF, go to http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/trade_programs/remote_location_filing/.
    (d) Combined electronic entry and entry summary. For RLF 
transactions using a combined electronic entry and entry summary, a 
customs broker must submit to CBP, through ABI or any other electronic 
interface authorized by CBP, a complete and error-free electronic data 
transmission constituting the entry summary that serves as both the 
entry and entry summary.
    (e) No line release or immediate delivery entries permitted under 
RLF. Line release (see 19 CFR, Part 142, Subpart D) or immediate 
delivery procedures may not be combined with RLF transactions.
    (f) Data acceptance and release of merchandise. Data that are 
complete and error free will be accepted by CBP. If electronic invoice 
or additional electronic documentation is required, CBP will so notify 
the RLF filer. If no documentation is required to be filed, CBP will so 
notify the RLF filer. If CBP accepts the RLF entry (including invoice 
data) under Sec. Sec.  143.34 through 143.36 of this part, the RLF 
entry will be deemed to satisfy all filing requirements under this part 
and the merchandise may be released.
    (g) Liquidation. The entry summary will be scheduled for 
liquidation once payment is made under statement processing (see 19 CFR 
24.25).


Sec.  143.45  Filing of additional entry information.

    When filing from a remote location, a RLF filer must electronically 
file all additional information required by CBP to be presented with 
the entry and entry summary information (including facsimile 
transmissions) that CBP can accept electronically. If CBP cannot accept 
additional information electronically, the RLF filer must file the 
additional information in a paper format at the CBP port of entry where 
the goods arrived.

    Approved: December 22, 2009.
Jayson P. Ahern,
Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. E9-30736 Filed 12-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P